They just don't carry the social risks that they used to.
I mean, divorcing Baby Daddy and collecting child support and pension whilst seeing some other guy, its not The Scarlet Letter.
These are the same women who won't go outside after dark in one of the safest cities in the world. Whilst young guys (at 20-fold the risk of suffering a violent crime by a stranger) wander around blithely at night like they're in their own homes...
*By his
Amethyst editing still a work in progress...
I love how in early Anglosaxon society, a man could be granted the rank of Thegn (byhiss Hundred members) for low time preference investment in clearing his farm, building a hall, and a bell tower.
That is not the normal path to the nobility, not even in that time and place.
I agree, but the modern West IS a giant multi-generational natural experiment in the ramifications of hormonal contraception.
The data seems to show the reverse of the rats' experience; with increased prevalence of anxiety, safetism and need for control, suggesting reduced risk appetite.
It certainly is in high-density neolithic+ societies, where most threats are intra-group.
It may have been less so in the preceding 99% of human existence.
The Alpha will still defend you against lions or raiders if you're banging his skinny Beta brother or cousin. Against one of his homies, maybe not so much, but the balance of threats will have varied over time and space. The Beta may have been "good enough" most of the time.
I think you're right about that.
Still doesn't show a trend towards more risk appetite with more contraceptive use. The reverse, in fact.
A pity really, the theory has a lot of face validity.
That's drawing a fairly long bow, there.
Equally we could interpret changes in tastes as being actually risk-averse - settling for the Beta Male she already has for the duration, rather than taking risks in the hope of bagging the Alpha (or at least his genes).
Or, they just robbed somebody else who did all that.
Usually after living above their means to build a social following, and getting into debt to moneylenders.
Oliver Cromwell is a striking example, but there have been so many. Julius Caesar.
4:1 makes perfect sense if treating seawater, but quite ridiculous for fresh.
Can you adjust the cut?
In rats, definitely. Would be interesting to see a follow up study to confirm whether these rat girls also have a greater appetite for social risk.
If this effect translated directly to human girls, we would expect to see less anxiety, less safetyism, less need for control in cohorts who used hormonal contraception at earlier ages.
But we are seeing the opposite.
Between a third and two-fifths of Western women are dependent on antidepressants, typically SSRIs. Our governments have never been more female-led, but have also never been more panicky, irrational and controlling.
There are many terrorist hideouts, from which the IDF is taking fire.
Not a one has been found in a hospital yet.
This article is pro-genocide BS trying to run interference for war crimes
Well done, and good luck!
Theses scare me :-p
Politicised BS still probably BS.
Glyphosate is one of the most aggressively studied (and litigated) products in history, and WHO still had to cook the books to give it that label.
Imagine if this level of scrutiny was applied to vegan soybean sausages? Edible bugs? Or the psychological effects of exposure to government propaganda? Not gonna happen.
But Bayer is an monopolistic megacorp and bona fide https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AssholeVictim
Hard to feel sorry for their loss!
I hope the elderly Californian plaintiffs enjoy the money, and live another thirty years.
Silly clickbait title not related to actual article.
Nothing directly about sexual behaviour, lads! Actual article interesting and well designed.
Girl rats on the pill since adolescence were less afraid of dangerous locations, and more interested in food treats. This is correlated with slight morphological changes in the brain.
Never go to bed with wet hair :-p
A small and not especially capable module localised to the frontal lobe, often called "consciousness" or "executive control".
Whether it has nonphysical mirrors, one cannot determine by empirical methods, but it itself is accessible to manipulation and research.
Indeed.
If we interpret "nature" as φύσις, then many senses of the word are clearly metaphysical.
One cannot marshal empirical arguments to take and hold that ground, any more than one could ask infantry to dig foxholes below the high tide mark. :-p
The best I can do is an analogy that we may all agree on.
A Chinese counterfeit guitar cannot become a Fender. No matter the build quality, no matter if it matches the Fender on every observable quality, it will always remain a counterfeit.
Insight itself is largely illusion - some semi-autonomous modules of the human mind are capable of quite sophisticated goal directed planning and behaviour even when consciousness is directing attention elsewhere (or even asleep!).
The output - the insight - is experienced as coming "out of nowhere" by the consciously accessible parts of the human mind. But this is not irreducibly different in kind from a computer CPU experiencing an interrupt from a co-processor with a calculation to deliver.
Cognitive psychology is an Alice-in-Wonderland rabbit hole sometimes! I blame Sci-Hub for making the research so accessible :-p
I can haz transcript? :(
I think there is a lot of overlap between people who are too self-absorbed to notice an ugly truth on their own, and people who are too self-absorbed to notice you deflecting the conversation back to them rather than answer the question :-p