Men: Femininity and Masculinity

[Miser]

It was Aristotle who, in his discussion of friendship, claims that women and womanish man makes their friends unhappy by seeking sympathy. Leave aside whether this statement is true, which would be a discussion in ethics, do feminine men complain more? Are there research that confirms this?

 

The only psychological fact I am aware of is that women tend to prefer masculine men for short-term relationships and feminine men for long-term relationships. It makes one wonder how much the appearance as well as the conversational styles of both groups of men affect their impression on their mates.

 

Please give me your best answer whether it is objective scientific or subjective experiential.

[iNow]

do feminine men complain more? Are there research that confirms this?

The concept of "feminine" is ambiguous, ill-defined, and often applied based on little more than personal bias and local cultural experience. It is not really a useful characteristic, it is not an either/or trait, nor is it consistently applied across observers. It would help if you could define what you mean when you use that term. Are you referring to specific behaviors and tendencies that you are using to determine when a male is or is not feminine? If so, those would be very weak and based on little more than your own personal biases and local cultural norms (i.e. not useful).

 

Are you referring to the absence of more commonly accepted masculine physical features like broad shoulders, ridged and extruding brow line, strong chin, shapely jaw, dark facial hair... that sort of thing? If so, how many of those would need to be absent for you to consider a male "feminine?" What if they have all of them, but just a little bit... Would that male be "feminine" by your definition?

 

My point is that there is no such thing as "feminine men," since the concept of feminine is so amorphous and unclear and varies enormously from person to person (unlike a more precise concept like male or female, white or black, taller than 6ft or shorter than 6ft, etc.). How can we provide research that discusses whether or not these men complain more if we cannot even adequately define who these men are?

 

The discussion can only move forward if we accept that your label of "feminine" is entirely arbitrary and without much utility. We'd likely have to do the same for the concept of "complaining." Using labels that are arbitrary and without much utility in scientific discussions is not, IMO, a good way to make progress, increase understanding, or move forward. I encourage you to be more precise with your terms and to choose descriptors that benefit from common usage across cultures and that have the ability to be measured somehow.

 

 

The only psychological fact I am aware of is that women tend to prefer masculine men for short-term relationships and feminine men for long-term relationships.

Except, that's not a "fact." It appears that you may be referencing some work that was done in the field of evolutionary psychology (a field laden with pseudo-scientific nonsense and copious speculation). Alternatively, you may be slightly misrepresenting work about the types of mates females tend to find most attractive while ovulating. I don't know what you're referring to, only that what you've just put forward is not a "fact," and it also suffers from the complete lack of precision or consistency in your chosen label of "feminine" as I just explained above.

 

If you're referencing evolutionary psych, then the more accurate way to phrase the work (by Buss and others) is that females prefer mates in the long-run that demonstrate the ability to secure resources, provide for the family, and exhibits ambition... that societally defined traits of masculinity are a lower priority in mate selection over this time horizon. This work is mostly crap, but that's what it says. It also says that females place greater emphasis on traits like kindness and empathy in long-term mates since these are characteristics that would lead to greater safety of potential offspring (since the male would be gentler around a young child or infant and less likely to kill it in a blind testosterone induced rage). That's what the work says. It does not say that women prefer men who fit into your arbitrary label of "feminine." Even then, though, the field is largely made up of garbage assertions no better than astrology or numerology.

 

On the other front with ovulating females tending to look more frequently for short-term hookups, it's important to note that our preferences are fairly consistent in both short and long-term relationships. Regardless of the presence or absence of masculine cues, females tend to prefer males who exhibit signs of health and wellness. Interestingly, males tend to find the same things attractive in females (cues of healthy and wellness), so that's something that does not really support your assertions in any way. Pretty much all animals look for cues of health when seeking mates. That's true whether the mate is being sought for the short or the long-term, and it's true independent of whether that animal is arbitrarily labeled as "feminine" or not (it's also a lot more complex than that since we are each unique in what we find to be ideal in a potential mate and our preferences are informed by our own genetics and experiences in extremely complex ways... nature plus nurture writ large).

 

There has been some work that shows that when woman are ovulating they tend to focus a bit more on males with more stereotypical masculine features or who are a bit more aggressive, but other research has shown that this tendency appears to be more related to seeking males with higher status in local group hierarchies and males that are perceived as dominant by their peers... regardless of the specific behaviors or characteristics that drive this dominance in the local group or tribe (hell, they could just be really good at dungeons and dragons or the best stylist in a blow dry competition... it has nothing to do with an arbitrary subjective divide between masculine and feminine).

 

Overall, I think your assertion is mostly specious for the reasons described above. More than likely what's happening is that you have assigned some group of criteria in your head for what constitutes a "feminine male," and you've then engaged in the confirmation bias where you tend to over-remember examples that reinforce your preconception and ignore examples that suggest it's false.

[Miser]

The concept of "feminine" is ambiguous, ill-defined, and often applied based on little more than personal bias and local cultural experience. It is not really a useful characteristic, it is not an either/or trait, nor is it consistently applied across observers. It would help if you could define what you mean when you use that term. Are you referring to specific behaviors and tendencies that you are using to determine when a male is or is not feminine? If so, those would be very weak and based on little more than your own personal biases and local cultural norms (i.e. not useful).

 

Are you referring to the absence of more commonly accepted masculine physical features like broad shoulders, ridged and extruding brow line, strong chin, shapely jaw, dark facial hair... that sort of thing? If so, how many of those would need to be absent for you to consider a male "feminine?" What if they have all of them, but just a little bit... Would that male be "feminine" by your definition?

 

My point is that there is no such thing as "feminine men," since the concept of feminine is so amorphous and unclear and varies enormously from person to person (unlike a more precise concept like male or female, white or black, taller than 6ft or shorter than 6ft, etc.). How can we provide research that discusses whether or not these men complain more if we cannot even adequately define who these men are?

 

The discussion can only move forward if we accept that your label of "feminine" is entirely arbitrary and without much utility. We'd likely have to do the same for the concept of "complaining." Using labels that are arbitrary and without much utility in scientific discussions is not, IMO, a good way to make progress, increase understanding, or move forward. I encourage you to be more precise with your terms and to choose descriptors that benefit from common usage across cultures and that have the ability to be measured somehow.

 

 

 

Except, that's not a "fact." It appears that you may be referencing some work that was done in the field of evolutionary psychology (a field laden with pseudo-scientific nonsense and copious speculation). Alternatively, you may be slightly misrepresenting work about the types of mates females tend to find most attractive while ovulating. I don't know what you're referring to, only that what you've just put forward is not a "fact," and it also suffers from the complete lack of precision or consistency in your chosen label of "feminine" as I just explained above.

 

If you're referencing evolutionary psych, then the more accurate way to phrase the work (by Buss and others) is that females prefer mates in the long-run that demonstrate the ability to secure resources, provide for the family, and exhibits ambition... that societally defined traits of masculinity are a lower priority in mate selection over this time horizon. This work is mostly crap, but that's what it says. It also says that females place greater emphasis on traits like kindness and empathy in long-term mates since these are characteristics that would lead to greater safety of potential offspring (since the male would be gentler around a young child or infant and less likely to kill it in a blind testosterone induced rage). That's what the work says. It does not say that women prefer men who fit into your arbitrary label of "feminine." Even then, though, the field is largely made up of garbage assertions no better than astrology or numerology.

 

On the other front with ovulating females tending to look more frequently for short-term hookups, it's important to note that our preferences are fairly consistent in both short and long-term relationships. Regardless of the presence or absence of masculine cues, females tend to prefer males who exhibit signs of health and wellness. Interestingly, males tend to find the same things attractive in females (cues of healthy and wellness), so that's something that does not really support your assertions in any way. Pretty much all animals look for cues of health when seeking mates. That's true whether the mate is being sought for the short or the long-term, and it's true independent of whether that animal is arbitrarily labeled as "feminine" or not (it's also a lot more complex than that since we are each unique in what we find to be ideal in a potential mate and our preferences are informed by our own genetics and experiences in extremely complex ways... nature plus nurture writ large).

 

There has been some work that shows that when woman are ovulating they tend to focus a bit more on males with more stereotypical masculine features or who are a bit more aggressive, but other research has shown that this tendency appears to be more related to seeking males with higher status in local group hierarchies and males that are perceived as dominant by their peers... regardless of the specific behaviors or characteristics that drive this dominance in the local group or tribe (hell, they could just be really good at dungeons and dragons or the best stylist in a blow dry competition... it has nothing to do with an arbitrary subjective divide between masculine and feminine).

 

Overall, I think your assertion is mostly specious for the reasons described above. More than likely what's happening is that you have assigned some group of criteria in your head for what constitutes a "feminine male," and you've then engaged in the confirmation bias where you tend to over-remember examples that reinforce your preconception and ignore examples that suggest it's false.

 

Fair point, let me elaborate. For many things in psychology, things are seen on a spectrum. Everybody possesses certain characteristics of ADHD, OCD, manic depression, but it's the degree that determines whether one should be medicated. So, to restate feminine; on a spectrum of 1 being indistinguishable from a girl and 10 being Arnold, what are some of the psychological trends as an individual approaches 1 on the said spectrum.

 

 

Now femininity can be defined roughly as a high deposit of fat to musculature ratio. Because fat has been found to break apart testosterone*

 

No, it wasn't based on evolutionary psychology. It was given to supplement a discussion topic in my developmental psychology class. And that's the reason I've given it here.

 

Fully aware of selection bias, but we are not at the full mercy of it. We've all had social interactions with people (I hope) and we all have opinions. Let's hear it

Edited November 25, 2012 by Miser

[John Cuthber]

Is this

"Fully aware of selection bias, but we are not at the full mercy of it. We've all had social interactions with people (I hope) and we all have opinions. Let's hear it "

because you want to hear lots more examples of selection bias?

Well, OK, here's my biassed opinion.

 

"do feminine men complain more? "

Not as far as I have noticed.

 

"Are there research that confirms this?"

I don't know but I doubt it because it would be damned near impossible to check.

Getting ethical approval without informed consent might be rather difficult.

Getting a blind experiment once you have informed consent would be impossible.

[Miser]

;

Is this

"Fully aware of selection bias, but we are not at the full mercy of it. We've all had social interactions with people (I hope) and we all have opinions. Let's hear it "

because you want to hear lots more examples of selection bias?

Well, OK, here's my biassed opinion.

 

"do feminine men complain more? "

Not as far as I have noticed.

 

"Are there research that confirms this?"

I don't know but I doubt it because it would be damned near impossible to check.

Getting ethical approval without informed consent might be rather difficult.

Getting a blind experiment once you have informed consent would be impossible.

 

I trust that we all have intuitions about people. Fair point.

 

<div><br></div><div>Or perhaps more in tuned with their feelings perhaps? Any underlying commonalities at all?</div>

Edited November 25, 2012 by Miser

[iNow]

So, to restate feminine; on a spectrum of 1 being indistinguishable from a girl and 10 being Arnold, what are some of the psychological trends as an individual approaches 1 on the said spectrum.

This comment is not really helpful. I suspect that you're working from a lot of biases and preconceptions. That's okay, I just want to point it out so you have a chance to correct them. These generalizations and stereotypes are going to slow your progress. For example, "indistinguishable from a girl" is not clear. Girls come in many shapes, sizes, and structures... These features each differ in specific ways across cultures, depend greatly on availability of resources, genetics and we haven't even touched on the issue of sexual dimorphisms.

 

Now femininity can be defined roughly as a high deposit of fat to musculature ratio. Because fat has been found to break apart testosterone

While I disagree that feminism is the best word choice here, at least now we have something clear and measurable. Thank you for that. Let me ask you, what is the threshold between "high fat to muscle ratio" and "low fat to muscle ratio" that you are using to demarcate feminine and masculine males?

 

Fully aware of selection bias, but we are not at the full mercy of it.

I think you meant confirmation bias, but regardless... It's something about which we must all be cautious. Our brains are amazing tools, but they take shortcuts that often lead us to flawed understandings. We must be rigid in our approach and leverage the scientific method to ensure we're exploring reality, not speculation.

 

 

Edited November 25, 2012 by iNow

[John Cuthber]

This "Because fat has been found to break apart testosterone" is impossible from a chemistry point of view.

It's generally true that testosterone helps to lay down muscle, but

 

"So, to restate feminine; on a spectrum of 1 being indistinguishable from a girl and 10 being Arnold, "

 

I have met some girls that are hard to distinguish from me, though I have a full beard and moustache and I'm going bald.

[Miser]

This "Because fat has been found to break apart testosterone" is impossible from a chemistry point of view.

It's generally true that testosterone helps to lay down muscle, but

 

"So, to restate feminine; on a spectrum of 1 being indistinguishable from a girl and 10 being Arnold, "

 

I have met some girls that are hard to distinguish from me, though I have a full beard and moustache and I'm going bald.

 

 

Here's one of the sources that talks about the interaction of fat cells on testosterone;

 

"Low testosterone (hypogonadism) can be caused by many factors, all of which play out against the normal steady decline in testosterone levels with age. Tumors on the pituitary gland (which controls testosterone production in the testicles), problems with the testicles themselves, injury, infections, and being overweight can all cause testosterone levels to drop below normal. Excess body fat does this because testosterone is normally broken down in the body's fat cells; hence if you have a lot of fat, your body breaks down testosterone extra-quickly, leading to a deficiency. And abdominal or "belly" fat has a greater capacity to convert testosterone to estrogen than other types of fat."

 

 

 

http://www.sharecare...osterone-levels

 

Not the best source, but I'm sure the paper is floating in the inter-webs somewhere.

 

Statistics is the cornerstone of psychology. Everything is distributed on a normal curve. As you already know, most people fall into the middle 68 percent while the exceptions on the two ends. This is useful in looking at populations of people who allegedly possess certain traits. In this case, most men fall in the 68 percent category in terms of masculinity and few men are overly feminine and overly masculine.

 

To address your last claim, the girls you met who were masculine falls on the Z>2-3 portion of the curve while most women remain feminine. Masculine and feminine isn't black and white, but a spectrum thang.

 

By the way, I worry about baldness on a daily basis, but there are many sexy bald men out there. Notably, Paul Feyerabend, whose book The Tyranny of Science I'm reading right now. With the right amount of exercise and diet, I'll prepare sufficiently for the coming of that fateful day.

 

http://www.marxists....ge/feyerabe.htm

 

This comment is not really helpful. I suspect that you're working from a lot of biases and preconceptions. That's okay, I just want to point it out so you have a chance to correct them. These generalizations and stereotypes are going to slow your progress. For example, "indistinguishable from a girl" is not clear. Girls come in many shapes, sizes, and structures... These features each differ in specific ways across cultures, depend greatly on availability of resources, genetics and we haven't even touched on the issue of sexual dimorphisms.

 

 

While I disagree that feminism is the best word choice here, at least now we have something clear and measurable. Thank you for that. Let me ask you, what is the threshold between "high fat to muscle ratio" and "low fat to muscle ratio" that you are using to demarcate feminine and masculine males?

 

 

I think you meant confirmation bias, but regardless... It's something about which we must all be cautious. Our brains are amazing tools, but they take shortcuts that often lead us to flawed understandings. We must be rigid in our approach and leverage the scientific method to ensure we're exploring reality, not speculation.

 

 

 

Damn Feynman and his full head of hair.

 

Anyways, bear with me here because psychology is a little more intuitive and a little less rigid than most sciences (though when research needs to be done, the numbers have to be right just as with all sciences). Again, the ratio is on a spectrum on the basis of population. There is no masculine or feminine but a spectrum of masculinity/femininity. Hence the 1-10. Because much of psychology is based on questionnaires, it should be no surprise that I'm asking you to give me your best subjective judgement.

 

Even though we are highly biased, we only know so many people in our lives. Yes, we are biased, but think about all the people you remember to the best of your ability. And by examining our memory, we can observe whether there is a clear link between liking to complain and femininity.

 

Admittedly, there is not a clear distinction from my experience either. But the most manly men and the most womanly men are clearly different in their approach to life. From my limited sample size of 12, the 3 most feminine men do complain more but highly intelligent while the 2 most masculine are most austere, quiet but practical. The men who like to complain have a reputation of complaining which, to me, is the most accurate gauge to measuring frequency of complaining.

 

Anyways, its an opinion that I want. And I know that each people will be different because everyone's threshold of thinking about an expression as complaining is different. But with enough subjective opinions, there will undoubtedly be an emergent pattern.

 

What I REALLY want to get at is the effect of testosterone and estrogen on our psychology. I believe these two chemicals have fate steering power. Testosterone is linked to muscle, libido and eve attention, among other things. But is estrogen linked to empathy, or even intelligence? The pattern is muddy but that's why I'm here

Edited November 26, 2012 by Miser

[iNow]

Even though we are highly biased, we only know so many people in our lives. Yes, we are biased, but think about all the people you remember to the best of your ability.

See above comments regarding the problems with confirmation bias.

 

by examining our memory, we can observe whether there is a clear link between liking to complain and femininity.

See above comments regarding the problems with confirmation bias.

 

Admittedly, there is not a clear distinction from my experience either. But the most manly men and the most womanly men are clearly different in their approach to life.

See above comments regarding the problems with confirmation bias.

 

But with enough subjective opinions, there will undoubtedly be an emergent pattern.

Speaking of emergent patterns, see above comments regarding the problems with confirmation bias.

 

Testosterone is linked to muscle, libido and eve attention, among other things. But is estrogen linked to empathy, or even intelligence?

It's not that simple. You're ignoring countless other rather critical chemicals that must be considered in discussions regarding empathy, attention, and even intelligence.

[Miser]

See above comments regarding the problems with confirmation bias.

 

 

See above comments regarding the problems with confirmation bias.

 

 

See above comments regarding the problems with confirmation bias.

 

 

Speaking of emergent patterns, see above comments regarding the problems with confirmation bias.

 

 

It's not that simple. You're ignoring countless other rather critical chemicals that must be considered in discussions regarding empathy, attention, and even intelligence.

 

How do you think psychologists identify who is normal and who is not. It is through observing hundreds or even thousands of people-training one's perception in order to discover patterns and oddities. Confirmation bias is powerful but doesn't cloud our judgments 100 percent. Even being aware of this bias makes the sway of the bias weaker. Once again, you are not aware of the point of the discussion. Only through talking about our experiences can we refine it. Just saying confirmation bias doesn't progress the conversation and makes an unjustified halt to it.

 

No duh. Here's just some of the effects of estrogen found in the paper Estrogen and Cognitive Function (Authors: Maria Clotilde Tavares, Antonella Gasbarri, Assunta Pompili and Carlos Tomaz)

 

"The nuclear receptors ER-[alpha] and ER-[beta] are products of different genes and show tissue- and cell-type-specific expression ^[28] . Both ERs are widely distributed troughout the body ^[27] . ERs have been localized in several areas in the CNS, such as the cortex, amygdala, HF, basal forebrain, cerebellum, locus coeruleus, rafe and central gray matter, confirming an involvement of estrogen in controlling cognitive functions in physiological as well as in pathological conditions ^[23,29] . Within these brain areas, ERs are found in nuclei within both neurons and glia."

"Estradiol administration to ovariectomized (OVX) rats decreases anxiety and depressive behavior in laboratory tests ^[49] . Estrogen effects on cognition are subordinate on the cognitive task and its relation with brain regions. For instance, while estradiol impairs performance on striatum-dependent tasks in female rats ^[50,51] , it improves performance on prefrontal cortical-dependent learning in female rats ^[52] , female rhesus monkeys ^[53,54] , and both young adult and postmenopausal women ^[55,56] . It also enhances performance on HF-dependent tasks in mice ^[57,58] , female rats ^[59-62] and rhesus monkeys ^[53,63] . Studies showing improved performance with estradiol infusion directly into the HF, but not other cerebral areas ^[64,65] , provide behavioral evidence that the estradiol enhancement of HF-dependent tasks indeed represents effects on HF function. However, the roles of estrogen on cognitive function most probably result from the sum of interacting influences on numerous cerebral regions, including the striatum, HF, basal forebrain and prefrontal cortex (PFC)."

"Estrogen not only modulates memory formation and maintenance processes in some contexts, but also biases the learning strategy utilized to solve a task, thus changing what information is learned and how, and therefore not only how much is learned but also the strength of the memory."

"Estrogen replacement enhances spatial WM performance both on water maze and radial-arm maze ^[91,112] . The results of Fader et al. ^[91] confirm previous evidence that estrogen selectively improves performance on tasks that depend on WM ^[59,127] . In fact, estrogen treatment improved WM performance during maze acquisition, without affecting reference memory performance; scopolamine treatment impaired WM, but not reference memory, while estrogen prevented the impairment of WM by scopolamine. "

Testosterone is linked with aggression and depression as addressed in Testosterone and Social Behavior

"The word most often associated with testosterone in everyday parlance is aggression. Although in some species (e.g., rats) higher testosterone is associated with aggression in everyday encounters (Monaghan and Glickman 1992), in humans (and other primates) higher testosterone is association with the type of dominance that sometimes entails aggression."

"The largest study of the link between testosterone and depression revealed an unusual finding. The study, which involved more than 4,000 men ages 32 to 48, found that a parabolic model best fits the data (see Figure 2). Men with above- and below-average testosterone levels reported more symptoms of depression (Booth et al. 1999b). The link between high testosterone men and depression is the inverse for men with below-average testosterone. The relationship disappears for those with above average testosterone when controls for antisocial and risk behaviors and the absence of protective factors such as marriage and steady employment are in the equation. Anti-social and risky behavior brings people into[End Page 175] contact with the criminal justice system and puts individuals at odds with relatives and friends.`

Damn chemists, have to have us psychology students explain everything. Why don`t you do us a favor and make us all some LSD. =P

Edited November 26, 2012 by Miser

[iNow]

Did I hurt your feelings, or something? I merely pointed out that all of the tests you proposed would suffer from extreme confirmation bias and hence would not be valid evidence in support of your conjecture.

Edited November 26, 2012 by iNow

[Miser]

Did I hurt your feelings, or something? I merely pointed out that all of the tests you proposed would suffer from extreme confirmation bias and hence would not be valid evidence in support of your conjecture.

 

I was joking. Lol. But srsly, LSD, tis why I love chemists...

 

But going back to the discussion, extreme confirmation bias would be countered when faced with contradictory facts. That's why reading broadly refines this bias. Obviously one needs some confirmation bias so as to find emerging patterns. For example, I hypothesize LSD use is linked to higher intelligence and I observe nature to find patterns. I find many smart people use LSD but many dumb people as well. So inconclusive. Another example, I hypothesize high testosterone is conducive to low concentration, then I find a research that says high testosterone is conducive to selective attention for negative faces. So I realize the operational definition is flawed and I make adjustments. In both of these situations, the confirmation bias is working to find patterns consistent with the hypothesis, but both is subject to modification.

 

Going back to the original claim that feminine men complain more. I hoped that you would talk openly and thoroughly about some of the experiences you had with feminine men. The most pronounced in my experience are gay men, and depending on how masculine they are, their tendency to voice complaints seem to differ. But obviously there are flaws to my experience (notably my brief acquaintance with them). Regardless, it's important to talk about subjective experiences so as to find emerging patterns. Isn't this the epitome of the social sciences?

Also, do you hurt people's feelings often? (Optional question)

Edited November 26, 2012 by Miser

[iNow]

obviously there are flaws to my experience

More so with your assumptions, assertions, and approach.

 

Also, do you hurt people's feelings often?

Define "often."

Edited November 26, 2012 by iNow

[Miser]

More so with your assumptions, assertions, and approach.

 

 

Define "often."

 

Says the chemist who sees the world much differently than a psychologist. And please, do pick them apart one by one so I can rebut accordingly as I have previously.

 

 

Not everything needs to be defined. If you want me to define this degree word as .5<F<.8 then the conversation has already become too impersonal. It was a personal question, to get to know you. Life isn't 100 percent science. Subjectivity is important, at least to some.

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Miser- the bloke who won't play with himself, because it might reduce his intellect, but takes acid which is known to damage the brain.

"Not everything needs to be defined."

It does if you want to have a meaningful discussion about it.

[iNow]

Says the chemist who sees the world much differently than a psychologist.

Since when did I become a chemist?

 

 

Not everything needs to be defined.

I agree, but in this case I explicitly asked you to do so. Are you unable or are you just unwilling? Do you prefer not being properly understood by those with whom you are interacting? Do you intentionally try to avoid meaningful conversation in scientific contexts, and if so, why did you join a science forum?

[John Cuthber]

Since when did I become a chemist?

 

I wondered about that too.

[Miser]

Miser- the bloke who won't play with himself, because it might reduce his intellect, but takes acid which is known to damage the brain.

"Not everything needs to be defined."

It does if you want to have a meaningful discussion about it.

 

Then defend your claim. Acid is not known to cause brain damage according to reputable studies. Cats who are exposed to an overdose of acid and experience brain damage doesn't generalize to people who take acid once every few months with a low dose. Acid was used by scientists before it was banned to stimulate novel ways of thinking. There is now a resurgence of psychedelic research. Here's a relevant talk:

 

When you are talking about personal matters, its the visceral response that matters not solely a systematic study of the behavior of the person. Your response would indicate, if it wasn't bogged down by an obsession with definition, how often you perceive yourself as hurting other's feelings, how much you care about other's feelings and whether you care that you hurt other's feelings among other things. I didn't expect a robotic answer:"please insert proper parameter to proceed"... I'm used to people who flexibly use their gut feeling and logic when in the right context.

 

Meh, honest mistake. Mixed the two of you up. The two of you are some of most serious thinkers I have encountered in this lifetime. Maybe its the internet and the context but things get heavy when discussing things with you, for better or for worse.

 

We are all after knowledge, and objective reasoning is not the only way at it. Subjective truths reveal much more about the person and the topic. But if you were to say there's problems with my assumption and approach, then you would have to completely discard human intuition which as any sober-minded person would know is foolish.

 

I recommend you read more on the philosophy of science so as to curb your cynicism toward alternative views of science. Truth would not progress if it were defined as dogmatically as the two of you.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Miser

[John Cuthber]

OK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Psychosis

 

Not the pinnacle of peer review, but better than "Psychology today": at least you can check the references.

 

 

Lets just have another quick look at the OP. I have highlighted a bit

 

"It was Aristotle who, in his discussion of friendship, claims that women and womanish man makes their friends unhappy by seeking sympathy. Leave aside whether this statement is true, which would be a discussion in ethics, do feminine men complain more? "

 

No, it is, in principle, open to analysis.

It's true or it's not.

Strictly, there are several factors, notably.

 

"women and womanish maen makes their friends unhappy"

and

" women and womanish man seek sympathy."

(There are other questions like whether womanish men (whatever that might mean) behave like women in this asserted regard)

 

Now, actually examining those questions would be a hell of a job. It's open to all the biasses and confounding factors in history.

 

Let's just see if there's any apparent truth to it (before trying to explain it)

 

So, for example is there evidence that women make men unhappy?

It would seem at odds with evolution and so I'd not expect to see it.

I had a look and guess where I found an answer?

I'm happy to report the results of a study**

"The evidence is unequivocal that being married is correlated with happiness. "

from

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-happiness/201202/does-marriage-make-us-happy-should-it

 

 

How about the second tacit assertion: that "women and womanish man seek sympathy."

 

Well, it's tricky to get decent research on this sort of thing.

But I'm prepared to go with this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_flu

as a start.

 

 

And, if you thought that was unscientific, try this one.

When Australians parody the English as "shining Poms" it's often in the context of sporting results. On the whole, it's an observation made by men about men.

What does that say for the idea that "feminine men complain more"?

 

 

To me it seems that before we can get anywhere discussing the dubious deductions from Aristotle (and he made a fair few wrong calls* we need to see if his assertions were right.

I think the evidence is, at best equivocal on that.

Unless someone can show that it is actually true that

"women and womanish maen makes their friends unhappy"

and

" women and womanish man seek sympathy."

we don't need to look at whether

 

"feminine men complain more? "

 

 

 

*First, Aristotle believed that thinking occurred in the region around the heart and not in the brain (a cooling organ, PA 652b 21-25, cf. HA 514a 16-22). Second, Aristotle thought that men were hotter than women (the opposite is the case). Third, Aristotle overweighed the male contribution in reproduction. Fourth, little details are often amiss such as the number of teeth in women. Fifth, Aristotle believed that spontaneous generation could occur. For example, Aristotle observed that from animal dung certain flies could appear (even though careful observation did not reveal any flies mating and laying their eggs in the dung. The possibility of the eggs already existing in the abdomen of the animal did not occur to Aristotle.) However, these sorts of mistakes are more often than not the result of an a priori principle such as “women being colder and less perfectly formed than men” or the application of his method on (in principle) unobservables—such as human conception in which it is posited that the male provides the efficient, formal, and final cause while the woman provides merely the material cause.

(pinched from the web)

 

**

Just kidding, here's the paper.

Edited November 26, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Miser]

OK

http://en.wikipedia....amide#Psychosis

 

Not the pinnacle of peer review, but better than "Psychology today": at least you can check the references.

 

 

Lets just have another quick look at the OP. I have highlighted a bit

 

"It was Aristotle who, in his discussion of friendship, claims that women and womanish man makes their friends unhappy by seeking sympathy. Leave aside whether this statement is true, which would be a discussion in ethics, do feminine men complain more? "

 

No, it is, in principle, open to analysis.

It's true or it's not.

Strictly, there are several factors, notably.

 

"women and womanish maen makes their friends unhappy"

and

" women and womanish man seek sympathy."

(There are other questions like whether womanish men (whatever that might mean) behave like women in this asserted regard)

 

Now, actually examining those questions would be a hell of a job. It's open to all the biasses and confounding factors in history.

 

Let's just see if there's any apparent truth to it (before trying to explain it)

 

So, for example is there evidence that women make men unhappy?

It would seem at odds with evolution and so I'd not expect to see it.

I had a look and guess where I found an answer?

I'm happy to report the results of a study**

"The evidence is unequivocal that being married is correlated with happiness. "

from

http://www.psycholog...happy-should-it

 

 

How about the second tacit assertion: that "women and womanish man seek sympathy."

 

Well, it's tricky to get decent research on this sort of thing.

But I'm prepared to go with this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_flu

as a start.

 

 

And, if you thought that was unscientific, try this one.

When Australians parody the English as "shining Poms" it's often in the context of sporting results. On the whole, it's an observation made by men about men.

What does that say for the idea that "feminine men complain more"?

 

 

To me it seems that before we can get anywhere discussing the dubious deductions from Aristotle (and he made a fair few wrong calls* we need to see if his assertions were right.

I think the evidence is, at best equivocal on that.

Unless someone can show that it is actually true that

"women and womanish maen makes their friends unhappy"

and

" women and womanish man seek sympathy."

we don't need to look at whether

 

"feminine men complain more? "

 

 

 

*First, Aristotle believed that thinking occurred in the region around the heart and not in the brain (a cooling organ, PA 652b 21-25, cf. HA 514a 16-22). Second, Aristotle thought that men were hotter than women (the opposite is the case). Third, Aristotle overweighed the male contribution in reproduction. Fourth, little details are often amiss such as the number of teeth in women. Fifth, Aristotle believed that spontaneous generation could occur. For example, Aristotle observed that from animal dung certain flies could appear (even though careful observation did not reveal any flies mating and laying their eggs in the dung. The possibility of the eggs already existing in the abdomen of the animal did not occur to Aristotle.) However, these sorts of mistakes are more often than not the result of an a priori principle such as "women being colder and less perfectly formed than men" or the application of his method on (in principle) unobservables—such as human conception in which it is posited that the male provides the efficient, formal, and final cause while the woman provides merely the material cause.

(pinched from the web)

 

**

Just kidding, here's the paper.

 

 

You can check all the research articles at the bottom of each entry on Psychology today. It's one of the best sources to get information on psychology. As an aside, wikipedia isn't the best source for information either. Just about anyone can change the information on any given page.

 

"In most cases, the psychosis-like reaction is of short duration, but in other cases it may be chronic. It is difficult to determine whether LSD itself induces these reactions or if it triggers latent conditions that would have manifested themselves otherwise"

Psychosis is not a good premise to base your assertion that LSD causes brain damage. This happens in a very small fraction of cases and when it does its effects dissipate with time.

The reason I choose the quote from Aristotle is because I thought it coincided with my observation too, thus using it to better illustrate my point. I didn't mean it as an appeal to authority.

All the rest is fair. Thanks for the insight.

I want to add that Aristotle's claim that we use our heart to think still has a wide appeal among literary circles. "My mind says I should give in but my heart says no. I always listen to my heart." It would be interesting to see what the basis of our intuition is to assert our heart as a governance for our emotional, egoistic drives.

One case I heard of was a man received a heart transplant from an adrenaline junkie, the man soon became an adrenaline junkie himself, pursuing activities such as sky diving, heli-skiing etc., I wonder if anyone can find the source for this.

 

Edited November 27, 2012 by Miser

[John Cuthber]

"Psychosis is not a good premise to base your assertion that LSD causes brain damage. "

Are you saying that psychosis is a sign of a healthy brain? I accept that it's difficult to distinguish cause and effect, but that article suggests they have,and that the link is causal.

Are you saying that LSD causes psychosis without damaging the brain?

 

 

"I want to add that Aristotle's claim that we use our heart to think still has a wide appeal among literary circles"

And, in bar room conversation, the idea that men think with their dicks is pretty commonplace: but that doesn't make it true either.

 

"One case I heard of was a man received a heart transplant from an adrenaline junkie, the man soon became an adrenaline junkie himself, pursuing activities such as sky diving, heli-skiing etc., I wonder if anyone can find the source for this"

Finding a source is probably easy.

Finding any credible reason to believe it is more difficult- after all, the heart doesn't actually make decisions.

[iNow]

Just a quick note to remind you that I'm still hoping to receive a response to this question I asked you early on in the thread:

 

Let me ask you, what is the threshold between "high fat to muscle ratio" and "low fat to muscle ratio" that you are using to demarcate feminine and masculine males?

[Ringer]

I think the heart of the men/masculinity thing is that a lot of people like defining feminine men as people who complain more on the onset. In the English language a man being called a 'bitch', 'pussy', 'girl', etc. is usually do to things such as complaining about something. In that context asking if feminine men complain more is like asking if sailing men are on the water more. You are asking a tautological question because the question is the, assumed, definition.

 

 

Things like this are exactly why iNow is asking for a definition of these things. Even if you use a scalar model if the question is tautological it will always be assumed as yes, but since the way the question is phrased makes it seem as if you are asking a different question. If you are you are using a different definition of feminine than many people do. Also, I'm not sure about brain damage but LSD is known to cause chromosomal damage, especially in white blood cells

 

[edit]

Found a paper with some indications of brain impairment with higher usage of LSD, it's pretty old though so new data may be available (also I can't link it because it's through my University's library).

Cohen, S., & Edwards, A.E. (1969 LSD and organic brain impairment

Edited November 27, 2012 by Ringer

[iNow]

I think the heart of the men/masculinity thing is that a lot of people like defining feminine men as people who complain more on the onset. In the English language a man being called a 'bitch', 'pussy', 'girl', etc. is usually do to things such as complaining about something. In that context asking if feminine men complain more is like asking if sailing men are on the water more. You are asking a tautological question because the question is the, assumed, definition.

That's another really good point, and one I hadn't considered. Thanks, Ringer.

[iNow]

Just because I thought it made the same point I did on page one, but in another way, here's one from yet another very brilliant mind:

 

 

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/c1.0.403.403/p403x403/542603_529294693764894_2031711715_n.jpg

Edited November 28, 2012 by iNow