Slashdot Mirror


Girls Wired To Fear Dangerous Animals

Foot-in-Mouth writes "New Scientist reports that girls are more "primed" to fear spiders and snakes, compared to boys. Infant boys and girls were shown pairs of images, a fearful and a happy object (such as a spider and a flower), measuring the boys' and girls' dwell times on the images. And in another similar test, normally happy objects (such as a flower) were given a fearful face and fearful objects were given a happy face. The results of these two tests suggested to the researcher that girls are not wired to fear spiders, for example, but rather girls are wired to more quickly learn to fear dangerous animals. The researcher, David Rakison at CMU, 'attributes the difference to behavioural differences between men and women among our hunter-gatherer ancestors. An aversion to spiders may help women avoid dangerous animals, but in men evolution seems to have favoured more risk-taking behaviour for successful hunting.' This reminds one of men's obsession with video games. Will game designers use this information to tweak video games for gender, either to make the games more or less frightening?"

16 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. Dangerous animals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    i.e. mice

    1. Re:Dangerous animals by Taibhsear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mice bite. Bites get infected and transmit diseases. It makes sense evolutionarily speaking. Boys grow to be men and need to be able to not be afraid (or at least keep that fear in check) while hunting so that they can focus on the kill. Girls and women tended to be more on the gatherer side (why they can see colors better amongst other things) to pick fruit and what-not. Spiders and bugs and slithery things would be more dangerous to them than men since they'd be more likely to encounter them. Screaming when in fear alerts the tribe to danger and the higher pitch of their voices seems like it would travel better than a guttural manly tone.. Makes perfect sense to me.

    2. Re:Dangerous animals by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Funny

      Another possibility (not saying yours is wrong, but this "correction", is probably another factor).

      [..] It makes sense evolutionarily speaking. Boys grow to be men and need to be able to not be afraid (or at least keep that fear in check) while doing stupid but impressive things to show potential mates that they are strong. [...]

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  2. Video Game Changes by lymond01 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Will game designers use this information to tweak video games for gender, either to make the games more or less frightening?

    Tweak video games for gender? You mean like Sims 4 with the man-eating toilet seat?

    Wow. I just freaked myself out.

  3. Evolutionary origins of gender stereotypes by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Funny

    British scientists have uncovered why little girls like pink toys. "Women are hardwired to like pink," says Professor Gene Hunt of the University of Metro, "because their cavewoman foremothers spent their days gathering red leaves and berries amongst the trees." Later, women needed to notice red-faced babies and blushing boyfriends. Men are attracted to blue because of the colour of the sky as seen when hunting.

    Women are also predisposed to backstab one another in the workplace and cry in the boardroom, just like the social structures in the cave population as extrapolated from two bone needles. Being too successful will increase women's testosterone, giving them hairy nipples and male-pattern baldness. Females joining the hunt may also explain the end of the Neanderthals.

    IQ test studies show that women have lower IQs on average than men, undoubtedly from lesser need for environmental variation while taking care of the cave. Tests on little boys prove that testosterone correlates with a sense of humour, so women naturally can't take a joke. Housework has been shown to cut the risk of several fatal diseases, and dressing up nicely around the house is psychologically healthy as it uses the Homo erectus clan maintenance abilities of the female of the tribe.

    Men are naturally predisposed to sleep with as many women as possible, as proven by lions, whereas women are naturally predisposed to stay loyal to their man and their spawn. Women who sleep around are at increased risk of parasites and death, as proven by cheetahs, who are a pack of catty sluts.

    In a final crowning achievement, the team has shown that daily fellatio greatly reduces the incidence of breast cancer. Furthermore, regular sexual intercourse is essential to feminine health, but may be injurious if prolonged for more than two minutes or conducted while the man is sober.

    "In conclusion," says Professor Hunt, "all of this is top-notch science that you can absolutely rely on. Now get your knickers back on and make me a cuppa."

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  4. Re:Nature vs nurture. by Quothz · · Score: 4, Informative

    It seems foolish to base a scientific study off of some scientist's ability to objectively judge facial expressions in infants.

    That's not what the study measured. It used quantifiable criteria. The conclusions are debatable, but you have to read the study before you're entitled to an opinion.

    That's not science.

    That's not reading.

  5. Re:mice? by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Funny

    Actually I've noticed a HUMAN aversion to mice. A couple of mice in a room will often make a 250lb flanel-wearing truck driver hop up on the table to get away.

    I'll admit, they freak me out too. I went into the shed in my back yard to clean up a good while back. I had some scraps of carpet stashed in there that were left over from when I'd built a speaker box for my car. I picked up the pile and mice - dozens of them, just scattered everywhere. I'll admit, I shrieked like a girl and ran for mah life . . .

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  6. Re:mice? by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I always thought the mice thing was a construction of television, much like the toilet seat wars. I've never once seen a girl who reacts to a mouse with anything other than "Awwwwwwwwwwww, look at the mouse".

    I've seen a girl jump on a chair and shriek when a mouse scurried through the room. I've also been berated for leaving the toilet seat in the wrong configuration. Your anecdotal experience completely goes against my anecdotal experience, and guess whose anecdotal experience I tend to trust more?

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  7. Re:Unscientific conclusions? by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No reason to believe it? I mean sure it is kind of speculative, but over the whole of history, that's been the way it's been done for the vast majority of civilizations. What you're suggesting is probably even more speculative than that. Men being typically larger and stronger clearly doesn't indicate anything, neither does anything about the distribution of brain mass. On top of that, for organisms that have live young, it would be decidedly inconvenient for the primary hunter to be largely out of commission for the better part of a year before giving birth. Yes pregnant women can do a lot, but it's not a good step evolutionarily for the hunter to also be with child.

    Yes it's pretty speculative, but suggesting that it's a blind guess requires real ignorance of both history and biology.

  8. Re:Girls can be fun by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Congratulations, you've just told us what every little boy already knew.

    The main attraction of toads, frogs, worms, and bugs is the fascinating effect they have on girls.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  9. Gender discrimination? Say it ain't so. by skornenicholas · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I find it rather humorous that it is considered so taboo to say that maybe, just MAYBE, men are discrimnated against as well. Don't believe me? As a male, also kinda a large guy I'm 6'3" and 220, I also happen to LOVE kids. And not in the have some candy and get in my van way, in the oh my God have candy and a pony and if you smile I might just steal a space shuttle and go to the moon to get you moon rocks, kinda way. Living in America if I so much as "Oooh, awwww" over a small child, especially if it is female, I am treated as a pervert. Not just sometimes, but 99% of the time. I found a lost crying child in Wal*Mart and I bought her a sucker and put her in a stroller going aisle to aisle to find her parents. I was tackled from behing by security with no verbal warning what so EVER. It hurt like hell and busted my nose. I am now terrified to so much as smile at a child, even my own small cousins. The thing is that every male habit is viewed as bad from the get go and we have to fight to prove it is useful. I work two jobs, my father is dying of cancer, my mothers mill was outsourced, and neither of them graduated High School. I support me, my parents, my ex wife, putting my oldest cousin through ACC, while taking guardianship of his sister while she completes school because both of her parents are now in jail. I come home, I cook, I clean, make sure everyone is okay, laundry is done, homework is done, medication is taken. If I decide to spend two hours shoving bayonets in the throats of other dudes in Call of Duty what right do you have to say I shouldn't? It is a stress reliever. Am I addicted? It depends, it doesn't interfer with my life so I would say no, but I do enjoy it very much. It is time to put aside our "beliefs" about what is male and what is female and look at it from a completely open point of view. Let us start all over with new ideas and create a new comprehensive study using double blind standards, then find out is it male/female, is it race, religion, upbringing, or does it simply vary wildly from person to person? I am thinking it is the latter, I find demographics studies to be prebiased and largely absurd.

    1. Re:Gender discrimination? Say it ain't so. by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you find a lost child, you take them to customer service. They have a PA system, much more effective than "going aisle to aisle".

      Yes, most of the "gender differences" we see are primarily nurture, not nature. Even if you don't brainwash your own daughter, trust me, other kids will.

      As an adult male, I too find it depressing that I apparently cannot be trusted around children, but my daughter's male teacher and principal can (strange double standard). Unfortunately, I do like kids, in the sense that I want to see them be happy. And, as creepy as I am, little girls adore me. Why? Because, unlike most adults, I actually pay attention to them, and treat them like human beings. Which apparently is something that their paranoid parents are failing to do. I believe giving your kids the time and attention they crave would protect them much better than training them to fear all strangers. The "stranger danger" myth is bullshit - the vast majority of child abuse is perpetrated by people the parents know, those same school staff and relatives that the parents trust unconditionally.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  10. Re:Nature vs nurture. by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can you isolate the experiment from their expectations?

    Yes, you can, though I don't know if this study did so.

    Make it more blind. Have volunteers (who can't see the images) classify the infants' reactions to the images.

    Whoops, hold on. I just RTFA. They're not evaluating based on the infants' facial expressions--they're evaluating based on how long the infants looked at each image. That's objective--hard to see how the scientists' expectations would be affecting the data. Mind you, "more time looking==more scared" isn't obviously valid, but the difference in times between the tests is still significant. You could question whether the girls are learning fear vs something else, but the test still seems to show that the girls are being trained by the images while the boys aren't.

  11. Re:mice? by clone53421 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No... it's in women's best interest for the men to put the seat up when they go and back down when they're done. Prevents the "them falling in" problem, prevents the "them sitting on a wet seat" problem, and prevents the "them actually having to do something" problem.

    Me, I just leave BOTH seats down anymore. Nobody complains and it doesn't look like the toilet is yawning at you when you walk into the room. ;)

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  12. Re:Dangerous animals? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Women are wired to fear ME.

    Hey, my mom's first laptop had ME installed on it - and I'd say fear was a completely reasonable reaction.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  13. Re:mice? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

    True that! It doesn't really matter if some other women are afraid of mice or not or if they don't care about toilet seats if the one you're with threatens to cut your junk off in your sleep if they fall into the toilet, or if you look at other women, or try to leave. (please help).

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are