
The Hidden Sexism of How We Think About Risk - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/48/chaos/the-hidden-sexism-of-how-we-think-about-risk
======
abandonliberty
Sexism? This is fundamental evolutionary psychology.

A male who takes greater risks has a chance to mate with many more partners
and produce substantially more offspring. Women don't have the same sort of
payoff opportunity. There's evolutionary pressure for men to take greater risk
than women.

Think Genghis Khan or [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358654/The-
worlds-b...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358654/The-worlds-
biggest-family-Ziona-Chan-39-wives-94-children-33-grandchildren.html).

~~~
zzalpha
And this article cites various studies that call into question just how
"fundamental" it is.

Did you even read it?

~~~
abandonliberty
Didn't make it far enough :) Thank you.

------
trendia
1\. If white males are at fault, why do Chinese men exhibit more risk taking
behavior than Chinese women? This is the example used in the story, yet the
author ignores this obvious contradiction. A country that had minimal western
intervention for thousands of years cannot have a culture caused by
Westerners.

2\. What if economic incentives, not culture effects, are at fault? This would
explain why countries with higher inequality have higher violcence and risk
taking -- being "passive" could mean death. That is, people will act risky
when the economic incentives reward them for it and avoid acting risky when
there's only downside potential. This would make culture a result of, and not
the cause of, differences in perceived risk.

Anyway this is a good first draft of an article, I look forward to seeing
revisions in which the author makes a good faith attempt to represent the
opposing view.

~~~
wcummings
>If white males are at fault

At no point does this talk about "fault", all its saying is white men rightly
perceive greater benefits from risk taking. Stop moralizing.

~~~
trendia
I do not mention anything about morality, I'm pointing serious flaws in the
author's analysis.

The article blames culture for the difference, when it is likely caused by
economic incentives. My comment pointed this out.

(your comment assumes it's caused by economic incentives as well. The author
of the linked article does not.)

~~~
wcummings
The article doesn't "blame" anything. The author literally says exactly what I
said in my comment.

~~~
trendia
From the article:

Flynn and colleagues then established that it was a particular subset of white
males who were particularly cavalier about risks: those who, in response to
the social justice movement’s currently fashionable suggestion to “check your
privilege,” would take significantly longer than others to complete the task.
These men were well educated, rich, and politically conservative, as well as
more trusting of institutions and authorities, and opposed to a “power to the
people” view of the world. A number of studies have now replicated this so-
called “white male effect” with other large U.S. samples, and the research
points to it being “not so much a ‘white male effect’ as a ‘white hierarchical
and individualistic male effect.’ ”

~~~
wcummings
"Blame" implies responsibility, they're describing an effect not the cause.

It all sounds very matter of fact to me so it's funny to see you throw around
words like "fault" and "blame". Seems like you're taking this personally.

------
kolbe
In a day and age of such magnificent progress in knowledge and science, I'm
flabbergasted about how much time we spend pouring over anecdotes about the
idiosyncrasies of racial/gender/economic 'privilege'

~~~
wcummings
You're _flabbergasted_ that we invest time in social sciences at a time when
we're making great progress in science? Can't say that's very surprising to
me.

~~~
kolbe
Social Science is what Gary Becker did. It's an insult to real science to put
anecdotal obsessions over micoragressions in the same category as Becker's
work.

And no, it's not flabbergasting that you care. It's flabbergasting that a
highly educated place like hacker news, in aggregate, might care enough.

------
equalunique
"What on first inspection seemed like a sex difference was actually a
difference between white males and everyone else."

Articles like this remind me that I'm having an identity crisis.

While the focus is on western civilization, it's still valid to say that the
assertions can be generalized to any society. I make this point because I
partly identify as a white male stereotype. I'm using the word stereotype here
as something we're both told we are and also an expectation we must
simultaneously live up to. Criticism of my stereotype threatens my identity,
or the amalgamation of concepts I have of who I am, most of which consists of
stereotypes. It's through my identity that I achieve my purpose. If you
identify differently and there's a conflict between our stereotypes, then I'll
at least start by acknowledging that. While there could very well be little
overlap between our stereotypes, chances are there's lots more overlap between
what's important to you and I. We both want food, shelter, happiness for
ourselves, and the same for people we're close to.

But like, when someone says for example that it's unjust for me as a white
male to earn a lot of money - I cannot accept that. Personally, my mother is
on the brink of poverty and is unable to work. She doesn't qualify for
disability and her social security isn't enough to sustain her. Her health
expenses have been $1.5k per month. She's going into $100k worth of debt just
to survive. In my immediate family, between my mom, two grandmas, one uncle,
and one aunt - I'm the only one with job. When it comes to my income, someone
who says that I don't need that money because I'm privileged is making enemies
with me. If I loose then my whole family looses. Academics talking about class
hierarchy sound smart and may even be right, but they aren't going to save my
family.

My identity leads me to disagree with some of the ancillary statements in this
article, such as the generalization below. Like a minority of men, a
significant part of my childhood was with just a single mother. I believe that
for me personally and for others who fall into the same category, "a
cringingly low sense of self-worth, apathy, incompetence, and stupidity" are
glaring red flags in a woman. For people like me, this is because from a young
age, our parental role model has shown us these strong personality traits are
important for both sexes.

``But for women, there are no such benefits to be gained from taking risks.
This is because—the authors seem to try to put it as tactfully as they
can—“men tend to desire women with characteristics that signal high
reproductive capacity (e.g., youth) rather than characteristics that might be
signaled by risk-taking.” In other words, so long as the hair is glossy, the
skin smooth, and the hip-to-waist ratio pleasing, then a cringingly low sense
of self-worth, apathy, incompetence, and stupidity are relative trifles, more
easily overlooked from the male perspective.``

This next one is also not true for me personally. Again, generally I'm trying
to make sense of articles being critical of white men yet they also assume
masculine traits have been fostered in these men by patriarchs. In my own
opinion and experience, powerful women in the workplace are _especially_
effective.

``For example, there is a stronger expectation of women to “be nice” than
there is of men. When women violate this norm in a workplace setting (by
behaving in domineering ways or negotiating for better remuneration and
conditions, for instance) they encounter backlash from others, who become less
willing to work with them, and like them less.``

My identity is more than just a white male stereotype. In terms of ethnicity,
I'm also part Indonesian, but that's not where I'm going with this. I identify
partly as an effeminate male. I had a distant father figure. Not only was he
distant, but for decades and because of a troubled history, I viewed him as
the opposite of a role model. Other than men wearing a suit and tie, there's
very little he did to reinforce for me the white male stereotype. It's the
absence of a patriarch which magnifies the force of the matriarch (and vice
versa). Fact is my concept of manhood and the male stereotype was dominated by
the conservative ideals of my mother and her mother: My sole propose is to
produce.

To the extreme white male stereotype, my small hint of femininity is "cancer"
and "degeneracy" and "being a cuck". Their mantra is simply to become more
like them, at which point, I shall magically become more confident, sure of
myself, and successful. To the opposite ends of the many spectrums, my
participation in the oppressive power structures - and by proxy my mere
existence - are what damn me. It's an identity crisis, I tell you.

After a long rant what I have to say is: What this article highlights for me
is identity-based division and hierarchy make the world a terrible place.

Seemingly the perfect world would be one where everyone could achieve the same
things. If sexism hadn't existed, then my mother could have been better off
financially, and I wouldn't have been obligated to take on the bill in her
late age. If she hadn't been indoctrinated with conservative values through
her religion, then maybe she'd have made a better match for my liberal father,
and maybe I'd be a more well-rounded person having had grown up with a balance
of matriarchal and patriarchal influences - right now I feel like something's
missing. My father might also be alive today if he had stayed married to a
partner who could have watched over him.

In contrast my present situation is dissatisfying and what's even scarier is
that the sheer myriad of conflicting identities inside, let's say, current
western civilization, ensures people will continue treating each other in what
amount to terrible ways. In a sense I feel an existential crisis as well. By
virtue of existing none of us can ever absolutely change the stereotypes
assigned to us. Our identities may therefore always be at odds. Seems the best
way to get around this is to acknowledge and focus on the common needs we all
share, but what an insurmountable challenge it is when our behaviors are ruled
by blindness and fear.

------
douche
Ah, blame everything on the white men. What an unexpected conclusion.

~~~
trendia
You're likely getting downvoted by people who havem't read the article. The
article highlights the following quote not once, but twice:

"What on first inspection seemed like a sex difference was actually a
difference between white males and everyone else."

~~~
zzalpha
If you did read it, you'd know the article claims that systemic bias leads
some to be privileged over others in society, thus causing them to be more
willing to take risk since they perceive less risk in the first place.

The "white male", in that case, is used because it was an American study, and
in America "white males" are privileged due to socioeconomic structural
biases.

The article goes on to point out that in a more egalitarian country like
Sweden there is far less gender bias in risk taking, which further supports
the article's claim.

The article then goes on to discuss similar biases in China, where, again,
males are privileged, though obvious they aren't "white" in that case.

If one is reading this article without an intent to take offense, one would
realize its conclusions would lead us to predict that, in truly matriarchal
society, it would be the women who would predominantly be risk takers.

