Why are women, on average, more prone to conformity than their male counterparts?
Examples?
>>64750465
Real life desu
https://vimeo.com/147767325
Acceptable answer: sexist culture pressuring women to comply to men.
True answer: brain differences resulting in production of enjoyment being dependent on social approval, which is a co-product of childrearing empathy.
>>64750549
>your personality is dependent on your brain chemistry!
fuck off reddit fedora, essence precedes existence
What does Freak Out! have to do with this
>>64750435
Have you ever had a girlfriend?
>>64750549
>>>>/r/TheRedPill
>>64750549
these are the reasons why dykes are so good at music
>>64750549
Lol pls provide more info on this logical link between social approval and childrearing empathy. dont even need something academic just in your own words elaborate on your rationale
>>64750435
and why do you even care?
>>64750580
your quote and statement are the same faggot, are you stupid?
how is brain chemistry not essence
>>64750580
>essence
nice woo there
are you one of those nurture over nature fags sticking to an opinion solely out of fear of the unlikely rise of the fourth reich, i. e. a nigger?
>>64750771
Not that anon but have you never heard of Sartre?
>>64750549
>>64750435
Also, OP, you might be amused to notice that your disclaimer of 'on average', that normally should be understood, is itself a product of such conformity in yourself, whereby you've superfluously come to add it to avoid accusations of 'what? are you saying every woman...'.
>>64750636
Empathy such as vividly imagining the dire fate of an otherwise-neglected family member, i.e. being preoccupied with one's emotional/instinctive behavioural bounds ('I can't let that happen!'), also results in primarily remembering the emotional context of having been exposed to a piece of art (the positive/negative reception colouring future memories of it).
>>64750869
this supports the claim they are "empathetic" but im still looking for the tie that connects empathy and social approval/conformity...
>>64750512
>https://vimeo.com/147767325
frats exist as well mate
>>64750869
>>64750934
hey zizek
>>64750934
You could probably inhibit some substance or area in the brain and see it's responsible for both, e.g. in a study relate indifference to seeing someone get hurt and change in rating a song after having been told it sucks.
>>64750860
of course. who hasn't. never read any of his pinko guesswork. ain't nobody got time for that. i wonder why you ask. it couldn't be that i'm in for an 'intellectual' ballbustery, now could it?
>>64751028
idk, i just dont think its a satisfying answer that's all. the reason for conformity being "empathy" based on childrearing instinct. its not bullseye enough
>>64751028
And then that to gender (and determine its heritability).
This is coming from someone who posts on the male dominated board that is obsessed with the melon and scroof and freaks out when they give an album "the wrong score" lol.
>>64751276
Anon, I think you might be projecting.
>>64751308
How so? Have you been to mu?
>>64751378
Not that anon. I've seen the accusation of 'projecting' thrown around hundreds of times, and not once do I remember that I found it justified, meaning, probable. I think it's a typical psychological concept that looks legit on paper, but hasn't been confirmed and in reality just doesn't happen. It's just a nice term to throw around.
>>64750435
Let me guess, you played a girl a song, or recommended an artist or album. She didn't like it and are scrambling for any reason to explain it? we even had a "why can't women enjoy things like men?" (not exactly worded like that, but that was the point) thread the other day.
>>64751486
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGuxkuXzO9Y
>>64751486
even if so, he wouldn't be wrong assuming he rec'd her Freak Out.
>>64750549
>enjoyment being dependent on social approval, which is a co-product of childrearing empathy.
or maybe, just maybe, it comes from living in a society where it's beaten into their minds that they need the approval of men to feel validated? where they're constantly being appraised an judged, and if they don't live up to a certain standard they're considered useless?
>>64751471
Yeah, it's like calling someone a cuck or an sjw. It doesn't really mean anything. I know mu throws around the word "autistic" as a generic insult, but I'm honestly starting to believe a significant portion of this board is actually autistic. Neurotypical human beings don't behave this way.
>>64751629
I'm pretty sure that upon inspection, female upbringing would turn out to be much more arbitrary than male upbringing (in the sense of women imposing more arbitrary standards that the child -- regardless of gender -- should behave or like this or that). I think that fathers are generally chiller about their sons' and daughters' preferences.
>>64750435
Why did OP, on average, make this thread?
>>64751704
>>64751629
(And, naturally, men are objectively held to higher standards than women, but that's common knowledge.)
>>64751637
>calling someone a cuck or an sjw doesn't mean anything
>autistic is a lazy insult
>y'all autistic
can't tell if a cuck or autistic
>>64751704
Okay, I have to know if this is something that you honestly believe.
>>64751828
I wasn't using autistic as an insult. All I"m saying is that it would explain a lot of the quirks many of the users on this board have.
>>64751830
Why shouldn't I? Simply count the amount of 'you must', 'you should', 'you need to', spoken by mothers and by fathers (not objectively, of course, but per a pedagogical talk with the child, so to control for gender roles).
>>64751486
the posts after this just prove brandon's point
>>64751894
>pedagogical
*paedagogical
>>64751894
Alrighty then
>>64752001
>this permissive reply
Clearly you're a male.
>>64752036
I'm actually not, but okay.
>>64752106
LONDON
O
N
D
O
N
>>64752106
tits or gtfo
>>64750860
>Sartre
he's really cancerous
why are french philosophers so good at fooling pseuds in believing that what they're saying is of any of worth?
On average, men and women have different levels of self-concern and other-concern. Men are, on average, more concerned about appearing to have high status and may be able to demonstrate this status by acting independently from the opinions of others. On the other hand, and again although there are substantial individual differences among them, women are, on average, more concerned with connecting to others and maintaining group harmony. Taken together, this means that, at least when they are being observed by others, men are likely to hold their ground, act independently, and refuse to conform, whereas women are more likely to conform to the opinions of others in order to prevent social disagreement. These differences are less apparent when the conformity occurs in private (Eagly, 1978, 1983).
The observed gender differences in conformity have social explanations—namely that women are socialized to be more caring about the desires of others—but there are also evolutionary explanations. Men may be more likely to resist conformity to demonstrate to women that they are good mates.
One difficulty for women as they attempt to lead is that traditional leadership behaviors, such as showing independence and exerting power over others, conflict with the expected social roles for women. The norms for what constitutes success in corporate life are usually defined in masculine terms, including assertiveness or aggressiveness, self-promotion, and perhaps even macho behavior. It is difficult for women to gain power because to do so they must conform to these masculine norms, and often this goes against their personal beliefs about appropriate behavior (Rudman & Glick, 1999). And when women do take on male models of expressing power, it may backfire on them because they end up being disliked because they are acting nonstereotypically for their gender.
>>64752441
the french have been long associated with nihilism which applies to the pseuds' preoccupation with rebellion, obviously.
>>64752441
what's a non-cancerous philosopher then señor totally-not-a-pseud?
>>64750580
i think you meant existence/being precedes essence senpai
essence, to sartre, meant a predetermined framework
>>64752718
Richard Dawkins
He really gets my gears going
>>64752718
anyone who relies on empirical data and is not a pinko
>>64752464
>women are more likely to conform to the opinions of others in order to prevent social disagreement.
or you know, its possible to have a respectable discussion in which you disagree but no "bad blood" comes out of it, just an interesting discussion.
um............
>>64750771
nurture over nature is psychology 101 you retard. david hume was the first to theorize it read a fucking book
>>64752798
>>64752808
>>64752911
>nigger libraries can't afford new sources
>>64752798
Ezra Levant really gets my dreidel spinning
>>64753081
its ok anon you have the internet. all the evidence to support nurture over nature is out there waiting for you.
>>64753258
>pretending not to understand a comment in order to keep beating a dead horse
wew lad: the wew lad
>>64752718
I'm the anon you were asking
Thomas Reid
>>64753431
in addition:
>>64752682
I was mostly referring to descartes
>>64753515
if you really think descartes is a nihilist there is absolutely no way you have ever read anything by him
>>64753610
he was replying to my post, not saying that Descartes was a nihilist
>>64753610
I'm not at all saying he's a nihilist???
I meant that in >>64752441 I was mainly referring to descartes, not to what >>64752682 was talking about
Cogito ergo sum was a horrible mistake, that ruined the bulk of predescartian epistomology
>>64753732
>ruined the bulk of predescartian epistomology
how so? not b8ing, swear on me mum.
>>64754024
I would've spoonfed you if we were on /lit/, but I'm not going to write a master thesis for you right now, senpai.
If you're genuinely interested, I'll give some hints.
>Cartesian circle (& much more)
if you read the meditations of Descartes, you'll notice he's full of shit. Any non pseud who cares about philo can tell you this. However, somehow many philosopher felt for this meme and thus epistomology was send on the wrong track for the years to come.
(the core problem is Plato's Theory of Forms tho. Descartes is just another victim)
tl;dr: pre-socratic philosophy is the patrician way
>>64754424
>pre-socratic philosophy is the patrician way
holy fuck, and you're calling other people pseuds
>>64754424
cool. tnx.
>>64754578
the last sentence is a common joke........
plus the word 'patrician' made this extra obvious
No, but men are more likely to be contrarian for attention and stubbornly refuse to listen to others which they mistake for individualism.
>posting philosopher's thoughts on the matter
this is a question of biology, specifically neuroscience
sartre gtfo pls god bless senpai>>64754864
>>64754424
>if you read the meditations of Descartes, you'll notice he's full of shit. Any non pseud who cares about philo can tell you this. However, somehow many philosopher felt for this meme and thus epistomology was send on the wrong track for the years to come.
this isn't really true there are plenty of interesting modern era philosophers that rejected descartes and his shit.
He's probably not a victim to plato's thoery of forms he kind of just really bought into his own shit and was just using his own method and went to pretty great lengths to prove to anyone who doubted him that he was right.
also you sound like a complete dumbass saying that pre-socratic philosophy is patrician and you'd probably get laughed at by anyone who takes philosophy seriously.
>>64754917
>this isn't really true there are plenty of interesting modern era philosophers that rejected descartes and his shit.
I said a bulk, not all
>he kind of just really bought into his own shit
and I have the suspicion that this 'own shit' is heavily influenced by the ancient Greeks
>also you sound like a complete dumbass saying that pre-socratic philosophy is patrician and you'd probably get laughed at by anyone who takes philosophy seriously.
see>>64754760
>>64753335
it's not easy to understand you when you communicate in slurs and memes, prick
>>64751471
nice projection
>>64750635
the only people I've met IRL with good taste have been lesbians.
>>64755225
>and I have the suspicion that this 'own shit' is heavily influenced by the ancient Greeks
I'm not really sure what you mean by this. his method fundamentally wouldn't allow for any kind of influence like that
>>64756167
>his method fundamentally wouldn't allow for any kind of influence like that
he executes his method very poorly. That's the core of the critic against him
>>64756267
I agree I think there are times when he yields some pretty absurd results but where is the ancient greek influence?
