women criminals get away with it better. It’s not only a cliche that women are more likely to poison. Graveyard is likely full of unsolved murders that looked like natural causes.

women criminals get away with it better. It’s not only a cliche that women are more likely to poison. Graveyard is likely full of unsolved murders that looked like natural causes.
==
You find what you’re looking for. This is true among civilians and law enforcement alike.
===
 Different crimes have different lengths of sentencing. Long term prison is usually reserved for only certain types of crimes.
===
  It’s saying more women go through short sentences. Those short sentences weren’t even counted in roll up statistics before.In short, your data is likely flawed.
===
You’re taking flawed criminal statistics and making an evolutionary theory about the nature of humans.
===
You’re starting with a hypothesis.
Then you’re finding statistics that match the hypothesis.
===
  Your process is backwards from science. You are using a political strategy, not a scientific one.
===
  “Men and women have particular temperaments” is a hypothesis.
That is not data.
==
  I’m giving you a simple fact of your reasoning flaw and you are dancing around it.Are you talking about aggression? Or about crime?
===
Now you’re reaching anywhere.

====

 Now you’re splitting up crimes. WHAT are you trying to measure? If you want to exclude data then you should say so from the start.
===
  People go to prison when they are caught by law enforcement after a crime is noticed or reported, go through the legal process and are sentenced.Example of a flaw in this: domestic violence against men or children by women.It is vastly under reported for reasons having nothing to do with evolution. These will not show up in your #’s.
===
  Your process is broken Naveed and I suggest you abandon this course.
===
 NOW it’s “hard crimes only” and not aggression? Dude, you keep moving those goalposts to fit your hypothesis.
===
  Are men in prison for long sentences for bloody murders and violent rapes more than women?Yes.That was easy.
===
  Try being specific in the future instead of dancing all around being vague like a politician.
===
  No. Tell me first: What does ” men in prison for long sentences for bloody murders and violent rapes more than women” say about the nature of men vs the nature of women?
===
Ok. Next: What excludes everyday violent child abuse by women against children or against spouses or boyfriends from this aggression metric?
====
 You’re fixated on murder and prison. Think smaller. Moms twisting their children’s arms so they get in the car. Is that not aggression? Or is that something … new? Do we need a new word for that?
===
 So, all humans have aggressive violent potential as a baseline.
====
 Yes. Women are just as aggressive as men. Different outlets, different degrees. But the impetus of aggression is in all humans.
===
  I’d say a combination of levels of free testosterone in the blood and social acceptability.It’s more acceptable for a man to commit violent crimes.
====
  I go with free testosterone levels to start with, not “man vs woman”.Example: Children and violent acts. Their free testosterone levels are similar up to puberty. I haven’t checked but I *suspect* rates of violent acts are similar in boys and girls up to puberty.
===
  Also, it might be worth looking into comparing violent crime rates between men and women 50+ where levels of estrogen and testosterone start balancing out.If they’re similar, it’s not male vs female but free testostrone levels.
====
 So, the answer to the problem is: Lower the T levels in both males and females and you’ve made society safer. [Keep a few high T freaks around for grunty war stuff]
====
  There’s High vs low T rat tests around though. But no, I wouldn’t seriously eliminate high T. I’ve always been high T and I’m a peaceful guy, but that’s because I _know_ my strength and it scares me.
===
 Looks like a “why can’t we let boys be boys” thread.
===
You’re all “glory of honor” stuff. Society hasn’t stopped that. They punish when caught if that’s your problem, but men defend their honor and turf all the time.
===
  Defend if it matters. There’s no consequence free process though, in ANY society. Clan societies have rules too.
===
Ah, you’re into chest bumping glory, establish and maintain pecking order stuff. I never did finish college but never got into the boys club pecking order game either. I hold my own and dominate when challenged (when it matters) but I channel my blood lust differently. I’m not claiming superior, just that the fight hierarchy social network game isn’t my turf.
===
  I know what fictional portrayals of pre-agricultural life is like. Men are men, women are women, no rules stuff.
===
  There’s always power differences between people. I find the navigation of that process on an individual-to-individual level fascinating.When moves into clans / tribes/societies/politics, my interest wanes because then it’s about navigating rules, sliding around them, etc.
===
  I’m responding to what I see. Am I wrong? I dunno. I imagine you might have a house god of some kind, find society generally oppressive and look to a noble savage for hope.Or you’re a boring troll. But I’m giving you the benefit of being earnest.
===
 Ah, looks like boring troll ftw. Sorry if I stepped on your sacred cows guy but argue back if I’m wrong. Man up.
===
 No, you’re right. I was throwing dismissive stuff your way. Years of dealing with clan fantasies, guys who saw a few movies and want to reclaim a fictional primitivism, or get enthralled by one particular author / speaker / writer and paraphrase their stuff constantly. Last couple of years it’s been Jordan Peterson fandom and the illogic he feeds into otherwise smart people, or that Saargon guy who was worse.So, I got used to fists up.
====
 I think that’s it. Asaad. i dunno. I tried a vid or two of his and he leads his fans down the garden path. Maybe he unironically believes it, I dunno.
===
  JP I couldn’t get more than a few mins of. Hard wired junkie, seemed like an edgy Pinker.
===
 Stephen Pinker. There’s been an ongoing battle between connectionists and the hard-wired folks for a while, in various fields.
===
 Basically, a battle btwn emergent properties of complex systems vs reductionist gene ->behaviorism with some looking at current behaviors and tossing causation back to before history etc.
===
 oh don’t look at it too long. There’s known side effects. His stuff is “mostly ok” until he starts talking “hard wired” – then he gets ridiculous.
===
  Most of my JP judgement was a “fruits of his labor”. Getting a toxic fandom as part of his base doesn’t automatically invalidate his stuff but it’s an indicator that there might be something worth not getting involved in.I did read some of his critique on post modernism and it was the same kinds of vague criticisms I always hear.Not sure what the slighted is about though. I’ve been online since ’89 and conversations online don’t sway me emotionally if that’s what you mean.
=—
 28 yrs of variations-on-a-theme writing with people online and I always enjoy it.
===
  The trapping? I run the biz side. Other people do the work. It could be a talent agency, all the same to me. Systems Analyst was my ‘real job’ b4.My ‘brags’ are just stupid marketing shit. I did SEO BS a few years back so it’s 2nd nature.
===
It’s words manipulating algorithms in machines programmed by faulty humans.
===
  Not even flying [I helped a few times – actual killer bees dive bombing after me in a $5 painter suit was interesting)]. I do the minimal requirements for the state. Paperwork, a little marketing, write checks. Dealt with customers for years but passed that on. All subcontracting though. Mostly in-laws. They get $ up front and can deal with tax stuff themselves. Running a biz under 50 workers as EMPLOYEES is foolish as the system’s not set up for them. Under 50 you subcontract or you’re dumb.
===
 First nature? Probably epitomized by a career test I paid for yrs ago and it nailed me and I enact it in my own way]I think JP’s over his head but he’s SUPER popular, so it’s important to know something about him. I just know enough to know he’s not my thing tbh.and yes, I know it was a metaphor, thanks.

===
 The rise of low-empathy individuals online over the past 15 yrs or so has been good for enacting my first nature, esp since they’ve “found each other” en masse and bounce off each other.
===
 t’s likely. I mostly wanted to dispel a notion that women don’t have aggressive tendencies as a rule. It’s expressed differently but it’s there as it is in men.

Naveed’s correct about the far end of the aggression spectrum being overwhelmed by men.

====

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


4 − = zero

Leave a Reply