There is an interesting thing. If you study the socialization patterns there are only small to moderate average differences and huge overlap between individuals (all genders). This is in part social construct and in part nature. When you average things statistically you can mislead yourself pretty quickly reading some of these studies.

There is more overlap than not. So, how do we reconcile that with how things end up: network effect. Small biases in socialization norms lead to significant non-linear outcomes due to amplification of these biases leading to norms that exaggerate these biases and end up creating norms that are quite distorted from the average. Leads to some significant consequences for how different genders end up socialization.

While that may be true, there are exceptions. And hence I think parents comment is more inclusive to say: some people (that are overwhelmingly male) need activities to bond, while others (majority female) do not need that. (May not be the best example here but helps i.e criticising certain toxic behaviours that are somehow more linked to one sex without blaming everyone of that sex)

That assumes that there is something called 'male/female' that humans can be more or less of - what is the definition there? Certain hormones?

Also, it assumes that there's a correlation between these behaviors and that definition. For example, it could be more common in people who are non-binary.

To be honest, I apologise if the following appears a bit terse; I’m just really frustrated with what you’ve said and this is the best I can describe why that’s the case (without watering it down)

We don’t need to step back and work out the fundamental nature of sex and gender in order to have a functional conversation about them.

I don’t need to provide a definition of a chair before I can tell you that ones with three legs are more stable (“but what is a chair? what is the exact definition? aren’t some of them tables? aren’t some three legged chairs less stable?”). We just don’t have to do this. Do you do it for chairs? Or just gender? Why? Does it help feminism or trans rights to interrupt a conversation about male mental health with a semantic rabbit hole?

As for your second paragraph, there very much are studies showing the correlation being described, and they’re very easy to find. It would have been far more constructive to actually ask rather than suggest it’s an “assumption” — or even better, to research it yourself.

Among my favorite Paul Graham essays:

<https://www.paulgraham.com/heresy.html>

>For example, when someone calls a statement "x-ist," they're also implicitly saying that this is the end of the discussion. They do not, having said this, go on to consider whether the statement is true or not. Using such labels is the conversational equivalent of signalling an exception. That's one of the reasons they're used: to end a discussion.

>If you find yourself talking to someone who uses these labels a lot, it might be worthwhile to ask them explicitly if they believe any babies are being thrown out with the bathwater. Can a statement be x-ist, for whatever value of x, and also true? If the answer is yes, then they're admitting to banning the truth.

----

Please don't try to end our constructive discussions, mmoose; people (men and women sure fine) have a tough enough time without having to get the language police involved.

[this will be my last response to this thread, as I continue hoping somebody learned anything, today]

I'm not trying to end anything. What an absurd way to address disagreement, to try to censor it, and on Hacker News!

Do you need a 'safe space'?

I don't know what the 'personal' issue you have is. Perhaps a stereotype of people whose beliefs might overlap with mine in this area? It's not personal to me.

Just stick to the merits of the issue; you don't need to bring in ad hominem arguments.

> This is generally known to be true for men.

I haven't heard it before.

> We have a much harder time connecting socially without some sort of shared activity or action.

You might have a harder time doing that; other men have different experiences. The average man has brown eyes and is 1.72m tall; does that mean your eyes and height are that way? It's certainly an error to take statistical generalizations and apply them to individuals - one of the first things you learn in statistics.

Also, the studies you cited don't address this issue. The psychcentral link is about memory research. The other looks at social relationships, but doesn't look at this aspect of them. Do you actually know of any research?

> incredbly personal

Don't bother with the ad hominem distractions.

Chill, dawg.

>I haven't heard it before.

You learned something, today.

Do you have something to say about the issues? Don't worry about me, thanks anyway.

Edit: As far as learning something, the GGP's citations were nonsense, as I pointed out. What has anyone offered, other than a demonstration of the fundamentals of misapplying statistics.

you're ruining the mood of the discussion generally bringing in negative vibes.

nobody's worrying about you, rest assured.

Spot on.

Social interactions don’t thrive when negative emotions are present.

People want to feel good about what they are doing.

Even the used car salesman that wants to be your friend knows this… bring good energy to HN as well.

That's your argument? You don't want bad energy, whatever that is? Maybe that can be added to the HN guidelines.

lol. Just address the issues, if you can. I've done nothing more.

I don't even see something negative in what I posted - it's pretty positive to me. I didn't say, 'we're all going to die' or say something fatalistic (like the comment I originally responded to).

Unless you mean 'negative' is 'disagrees', which of course badly is miscontrued in open intellectual debate, especially on HN.

> nobody's worrying about you, rest assured.

That seems pretty negative! :)