What Do 3 Million Myopes Have to See About That?

in steemstem •  last month

Curtain Open

I recently happened upon an old VICE article about a lovely feminist who tried to introduce International Castration Day. Her utopian vision involved castrating 90% of the world's male population as that, in her opinion, would solve most of the world's problems, including males' rapy tendencies — since the remaining 10% would each get to enjoy their own small harem.

Even though the whole thing strikes me as a hoax, her thoughts are well laid out and argued, and I bet many a male would very much like to live in her ideal version of the world, though in their place I wouldn't bet on it to happen.

Utopia-Skyscrapers-Ball-City-Utopian-Mirroring-408952-.jpg

Putting a utopia inside a crystal ball is improbability squared.
Source: maxpixel w/ CC0 Public Domain license.

I decided to write this short post (though note that my 'short' is other people's 'long') to look at whether males might indeed be more rapy than women, and other related stuff, but mostly just expanding a bit on my last two posts where I talked about hormones and what they do to us and how they separate the sexes. The VICE article is really just a springboard-excuse for me to talk some more about stuff that I find interesting!

Are We a Polygynous Species?

800px-Rm-elk-male-female-.jpg

The bigger the polygynouser.
Source: Jim Richmond w/ CC BY-SA 2.0 license.

I won't treat this exhaustively. But I will note that there's probably a good biological reason why many males would enjoy the Femitheist's utopia as laid out in the VICE article — as long as they ended up in the 10%, that is!

Just looking at an average male and female human, there is something that immediately screams "polygynous" to a biologist — and he doesn't even need to wear his glasses if he needs them, a fuzzy picture will do just fine — and that is our size discrepancy:

Large male size relative to female size (sexual size dimorphism) is observed in animals with a high degree of male sexual competition, that is, polygynous species[1]

You see, males need their large size to fight other males, the prize being females. That our size difference is small compared to some other species means that "ours is a moderately polygynous species"[1].

Blood Spiked with Androgens: Do Androgens Cause Rape?

bloody-mary-3315409_960_720-.jpg

Source: pastel100 w/ Pixabay License.

In a report that did a combined analysis of studies of humans, nonhuman primates, and nonprimate mammals, the results — although they were couched in fancier names in the report — were basically separated into very strong, strong, and suggestive. Under very strong they listed "Assertive erotic sexual behavior"[2].

In case you take "assertive" to mean something less sinister than what it really means, let me pull your fears out of bed by noting that it includes rape. Specifically:

persistent attempts to mount and/or copulate, even when the recipient animal is noncooperative and possibly even actively resisting the attempts.[2]

No wonder they grouped that together with "forcible rape or attempted forcible rape" in humans[2].

Note that those who lean more toward sociological rather than biological explanations of behavior, will often claim that sex differences between males and females are the result of learned behavior. But what if actually lack of rape is the result of learned behavior? In our current cultural climate we are very actively trying to dissuade people (mostly men) from raping. What if, in our natural condition, rape was much more prevalent and much more comparable to what we see in all other mammals?

And I do mean all:

on average, there is no mammalian population in which males fail to be more forceful and/or persistent in their erotic sexual behaviour than females.[2].

This of course is concordant with a number of posts I've written lately investigating whether men are more sexual than women. (Spoiler: They are.)

Note that sexual behavior can be enhanced by chemically administering androgens to a subject (regardless of the subject's sex), and that lowering androgens (either by drugs or by castration) lowers assertive sexual behavior. Yes, International Castration Day has some science to back it!

Are Men More Tenacious SBD?

Tenacious_D_-_Rock_am_Ring_-.jpg

Source: Sven Mandel w/ CC BY-SA 4.0 license.

Other areas in which there is "beyond reasonable doubt"[2] evidence (i.e. strong evidence) are status-related aggressive behavior (i.e. aggression between males for rank and dominance).

Under "very well established" the paper lists the ability to rotate an object in one's head and to navigate space.

Also, to procure, mark, patrol, and defend said space.

Also, pain tolerance.

Also, an interesting thing called "retarded acquisition of aversive conditioning (RAAC)", or what I prefer to call "Skinner-be-damned (SBD)". Basically, a person with RAAC/SBD is a person who keeps performing an action despite significant punishment being contingent upon doing it.

So yeah, men are more "retarded" that way ("stubborn" is another possible adjective). But it also explains their single-minded pursuit of subjects, which might explain why they may excel at them and why there's so many more men in the genius category compared to women (see a previous article of mine).

A related sex difference (but one categorized under "strong evidence outside the human species") is "task control-oriented tenacity", which is:

The tendency for animals to stick to a task long after all ‘external’ reinforcement has been terminated[2].

Again, stubbornness is an apt synonym. Note that although the evidence for humans is not strong, it's still corroborative of the studies from other mammals: "human males have been found to display greater tendencies to persist at long tasks to completion than females"[2].

In case you're wondering whether we're still on the topic of hormones, I'll remind you that all these categories involve studies that manipulate androgens, and increasing them increases the behavior in question, while decreasing them decreases it.

An example of androgen manipulation in humans is a study of 22 female-to-male transsexuals that were tested twice, once shortly before and then 3 months after their androgen treatment. Their spatial performance abilities improved while their verbal fluency diminished. This jibes with the spatial and verbal cognitive differences between men and women as revealed in the rest of the literature, but here the cause is more directly teased (as there are other differences between men and women besides hormones that could explain the differences), though strictly speaking it's still correlation rather than causation at this point.

Note that the researchers, in order to make sure the performance of the subjects was not influenced by possible stereotypical beliefs the subjects might have held about cognitive differences between the sexes, also tested them in a topic in which the literature finds no sex difference, but which the subjects might believe there is: verbal reasoning. The results?

As expected, the treatment did not influence verbal reasoning performance.[3].

Maps, Spatial Abilities, & the File Drawer Problem

filedr--.jpg

The file drawer problem.
Source: OpenClipart-Vectors w/ Pixabay License, modified.

Spatial ability and map-ability are quire related, and one of the reasons @lordnero loves maps might be because he's a male:

Map-learning and spatial ability appear to be related in the present study, and a male advantage is found for both abilities.[4]

"In the present study"? Give me a break. I need more than one to believe that...

The male advantage in spatial ability is well-documented, as is the female advantage in verbal ability[5]

"More than one" was rhetorical. I meant I need quite a few to be convinced that....

The overall analysis of 286 studies revealed a mean weighted d of 0,37 (z = 2.61, p < .01), which demonstrates that sex differences in spatial abilities favoring males are highly significant.[6]

286 is indeed quite a few. But then again, who knows how many null finding papers go unpublished...

The fail-safe analysis indicated that 178,205 studies with nonsignificant results would be needed to offset the significance of the results at the .05 level.[6]

Oh boy. Believing that 178,205 studies have been shelved is quite a stretch.

filedr-.jpg

The impossible file drawer problem.
Source: OpenClipart-Vectors w/ Pixabay License.

This deserves a longer quote:

The results of the present analysis strongly suggest that sex differences in spatial abilities do exist. The astronomical overall fail-safe number of 178,205 is much larger than the criterion suggested by Rosenthal (1980), that is, 5(286) + 10 = 1,440. This finding makes it obvious that the file drawer problem is not plausible as an alternate explanation. It is unlikely that over 170,000 studies on sex differences in spatial abilities with nonsignificant results are gathering dust in file drawers around the world.[6]

But what's the evolutionary reason men are better at navigating (map + spatial ability)? The most common suggestion is that males had larges range sizes than females, due to the males being the hunters and the females being the gatherers, as well as the rearers:

Early hominid males may have had naturally larger ranges than females due to the division of labor, as the men would hunt for food in the traditional hunter-gatherer society [...] Females may have stayed closer to the home base, in order to care for infants, effectively making their ranges smaller.[4]

Sounds reasonable enough, but what's the evidence for it? Science is not just about coming up with theories, but mostly about coming up with ways to test those theories, to see whether they're right or wrong. Unless some prediction can be deduced from the assumption laid out in the quote above, it's just a just-so story. Or it was, until this happened...

What Do 3 Million Myopes Have to See About That?

468px-Alfred_Stevens_La_myope_1903-.jpg

Source: Bonhams w/Public Domain license.

Two researchers decided to deduce a prediction from a model much similar to the one quoted above. "We sought to deduce a hypothesis that could be falsified", they wrote.[7] They reasoned that, "Selection pressures for clear vision across moderate distances on a nonwooded, open savannah would pertain more to males than to females."[7] This led them to formulate the following prediction:

Based on these assumptions we predicted that deficits in distance vision (defined as myopia) would be more prevalent in contemporaneous women than in men. That is, over generations, men with myopia would tend to have been filtered out of Homo’s gene pool. Women with myopia who fulfilled traditional feminine roles would be less subject to such filtration.[7]

So they undertook to find sources where this could be ascertained. It proved to be more difficult than they expected, since most literature didn't seem to think it important to indicate the sex of the eye patient. But finally they located several sources that included the sex of the sampled subject, and they came from several countries. These studies tested for several vision problems, and among them were almost 3 million people with myopia. The results?

The data supported the hypothesis: For the 2,982,000 cases of refractive myopia in the DA sample, 58.0% were females and 42.0% were males[7]

The DA was a specific US sample. Other samples, from countries like Israel, Japan, and Finland, gave similar results, often more extreme (almost twice as many female myopes compared to men), and sometimes less (the smallest being ~ 11%).

Alternative explanations of the data were quickly disposed of. For instance the idea that women outlive men, and vision issues arise at older ages, therefore the women will be overrepresented, was destroyed by the mere fact that the median age of the subjects was 24 yo. Furthermore, many of the studies were conducted on prepubescent children, and showed the same results.

Another alternative explanation—that the culture may be more solicitous toward women compared to men—was deflated by noting, again, that the school data was collected based on the condition that a person was a student, not a sufferer of eye problems; and secondly, the authors assessed visits to eye doctors due to eye injuries, and found that only about 20% of them were women. This of course could be because men are more likely to get injured because of their more dangerous lifestyle, but it does shift the onus of proving that the culture is more solicitous toward women to the other side.

Indeed, a priori, the expectation would be that males would suffer more from myopia, seeing as "the males’ greater vulnerability to a host of maladies might well lead a theorist to expect a greater male incidence of myopia."[7] (For an explanation of why males are prone to more adverse mutations, see a previous article of mine).)

Curtain Close

600px-XN_Platycnemis_pennipes_10-.jpg

Two ways to being partial.
Source: Guido Gerding w/ CC BY-SA 3.0 license.

A strong undercurrent of this post has turned out to be about science method and bias rather than hormones. I would like to end it by reminding the reader that bias can go both ways, one of which we often don't expect. Plenty of scientists today are complaining about PC culture, are actually worried of getting fired for reporting what the science says (listen to this sex differences researcher for instance). This might lead to null findings actually getting published, while positive findings go unreported:

results found in the literature may not accurately reflect findings obtained in psychological research because of selectivity among scientists as to which findings to report. For example, findings that males are more assertive than females, if deemed "politically incorrect," may more often go unreported than findings of no gender differences in assertiveness, thus resulting in an artifactually deflated effect size in the results from a metaanalysis of studies in the literature.[8]

Reporting the truth, apparently, can be politically incorrect.

But not reporting it is scientifically incorrect! And we all know science > politics.


REFERENCES

  1. Weisfeld, G. (1997). Puberty Rites as Clues to the Nature of Human Adolescence. Cross-Cultural Research, [online] 31(1), pp.27-54. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/106939719703100103.

  2. Ellis, L. (1986). Evidence of neuroandrogenic etiology of sex roles from a combined analysis of human, nonhuman primate and nonprimate mammalian studies. Personality and Individual Differences, [online] 7(4), pp.519-552. Available at: http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/0191-8869(86)90131-5.

  3. Van Goozen, S., Cohen-Kettenis, P., Gooren, L., Frijda, N. and Van de Poll, N. (1994). Activating effects of androgens on cognitive performance: Causal evidence in a group of female-to-male transsexuals. Neuropsychologia, [online] 32(10), pp.1153-1157. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(94)90099-X.

  4. Galea, L. and Kimura, D. (1993). Sex differences in route-learning. Personality and Individual Differences, [online] 14(1), pp.53-65. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90174-2.

  5. Sanders, B. and Soares, M. (1986). Sexual maturation and spatial ability in college students. Developmental Psychology, [online] 22(2), pp.199-203. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.2.199.

  6. Voyer, D., Voyer, S. and Bryden, M. (1995). Magnitude of Sex Differences in Spatial Abilities: A Meta-Analysis and Consideration of Critical Variables. Psychological Bulletin, [online] 117(2), pp.250-270. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.250.

  7. Mackey, W. and Johnson, J. (1994). Gender Dimorphism of a Visual Anomaly: A Deductive Prediction Based on an Ethological Model. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, [online] 155(2), pp.219-231. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1994.9914773.

  8. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, [online] 116(3), pp.429-456. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429.


Some earlier Sex Differences episodes:

16: Is More Sex Indicative of an Average Intelligence?

15: Cuming of Age: The Boys That Drink Semen to Become Men

13: Sex and the Sexes: Talking Past Each Other

12: Sex Drive in Action

9: The 70-year Cognitive Puzzle That Still Divides The Sexes

8: Do Transsexual Persons Have An Opposite-Sex Brain?

4: Sex Differences: Do females and males have different brains? Pt 2

1: Sex Differences: Does the Chromosome Maketh the Man?


steemSTEM is the go-to place for science on Steemit. Check it out at @steemstem or browse the #steemSTEM tag or chat live on discord and definitely visit www.steemstem.io


Have you voted for steemSTEM Witness?



Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Awesome to see a full article from you and a great one at that. I’ve enjoyed your posts on sex differences in the past and this one is no exception. More “aggressiveness” from males isn’t unexpected but it’s interesting to see how researchers approach the subject. Also, I’d never think that studies could be biased to avoid backlash but in a field like this it makes sense.

I thought about an April's fool joke after the first paragraph.... Castrating 90% of the human males based on the raping tendency of all males? Really? Generalisation is very often ridiculous, and this is not an exception.

Anyways, the myopia part is very interesting, and actually sounds logical. It is evolution after all. For the same reason, couldn't we expect the different to tame down in the next hundreds (thousands) of years? As more and more humans are living all together in big cities, etc...

PS: Reading something about Tenacious D... yeah! I am 23 again ;)

·

I don't think there'll be a human race after thousands of years, and maybe even hundreds! We'll either be extinct or super-human!

PS: Reading something about Tenacious D... yeah! I am 23 again ;)

:P

·
·

I don't think there'll be a human race after thousands of years, and maybe even hundreds! We'll either be extinct or super-human!

Extinct is the way we seem to go, as a race... ;)

Good to have you back with such an amazing piece! Keep up the good work!

Hi @alexander.alexis!

Your post was upvoted by Utopian.io in cooperation with @steemstem - supporting knowledge, innovation and technological advancement on the Steem Blockchain.

Contribute to Open Source with utopian.io

Learn how to contribute on our website and join the new open source economy.

Want to chat? Join the Utopian Community on Discord https://discord.gg/h52nFrV

I am disappointed where this was published from.

·

Oh sorry about that! When I published on steemstem.io, I kept returning to steemit to edit things that I couldn't make work on the former, and then I read you saying (or at least I think that's what you said) on discord that the last edit is what counts, and so I thought doing that was pointless, and I instead concentrated on commenting via steemstem.io (as I'm doing now).

So, is it not pointless?

·
·

Why worry about how things appear on steemit? Why not just edit with our platform?

Actually... I shouldn't have to ask. So I will stop asking.

The commenting is nice, it helps. I am doing it too. Its actually why I have returned to leaving comments in the first place. :D

·
·
·

I wasn't editing just for steemit: I couldn't make things look right here either. And it's important to me how a post looks!

Also, I do think we should care how it looks on steemit as well, since steemit has more traction currently, and therefore chances are that the scientifically inclined will get their first taste of steemstem content from that site.

You shouldn't stop asking!

·
·
·
·

I also waver on writing posts here or on steemit. I find it easier to paste some of my writing straight onto the steemstem platform, but I often can't get images where I want them and I usually have to dive into steemit after I make the post to fix errors.

I'm assuming these technical issues will go away so I still plan on focusing most of my efforts on Steemstem.

·
·
·
·
·

Do you mind giving me detailed information about errors? How have you initially written the post, what have you exactly changed on the steemit editor, etc... Thanks in advance!

·
·
·
·
·
·

The biggest issue I've run into is if I paste a bullet point or numbered list from word. Somehow the formatting gets messed up and reads as

(html comment removed: [if !supportLists])1.) (html comment removed: [endif])

On steemit and doesn't show up on steemstem.

I go to steemit to fix these manually, but I've kept a few examples on one of my previous articles (https://steemit.com/steemstem/@tking77798/developing-a-develop-1549556482).

I haven't posted in a month, but I've got an article almost ready to go so I'll let you know if this problem re-occurs or if something else pops up.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I have fixed many things recently. In principle, this should be fine. However, feel free to reach me on discord if needed.

·
·
·
·

You should tell me what is not working so that I could fix it. I am planning to rewrite the post editing part later this week. Really. To make it better working.

·
·
·
·
·

I should check in more detail next time I post. One of the issues is compatibility, i.e. it will look good on steemstem.io or steemit but not both. Ideally, any post prepared for steemit should be just pasted into steemstem.io and be interpreted correctly, instead of using different code formats.

A thing that has to do with my personal taste, is that I use the captions beneath the pictures to make jokes. But they appear too small on steemstem.io, so a person is likely to just skip them, thinking they are just links to the images.

·
·
·
·
·
·

The problem here is that steemit allows for breaking the markdown syntax, and we don't. I can probably fix most of these things (the only problem being time).

Concerning the captions, this is something I can't fix. You are using both a multiple-hastag and a "sub" environment. As a result, we got a tiny result here. This is not really a bug but a feature of the font choice. using only the sub part should be sufficient, no?

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I guess the real underlying problem might be that you can't write something that will look the same on every site. Perhaps I should preface my posts with 'this post is best viewed at steemstem.io' and give a direct link to the post (tough I'd have to post it first!), as the very first line of the post, when I manage to get things looking right.

EDIT: Cos often my captions are long, and if I don't do the hashtag and sub, the lines spill over on top of each other and are unreadable. I experimented till I got something that worked. But on steemstem.io a different rationale might work better.

·
·
·
·
·

Btw editing a comment doesn't seem to work. I edit it, I click 'update', but then the change doesn't appear.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Any issue with the steemconnect token (this will be automatically fixed when we will offer other ways to authenticate in v0.8 :p)

·
·
·
·

therefore chances are that the scientifically inclined will get their first taste of steemstem content from that site.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

loved your last line, couldn't agree more

If environmentalists were as succesful as feminists...

Congratulations @alexander.alexis! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You made more than 3000 comments. Your next target is to reach 3500 comments.

You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:

3 years on Steem - The distribution of commemorative badges has begun!
Happy Birthday! The Steem blockchain is running for 3 years.
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!