Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sex Differences

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544282741 Timestamp) SEX DIFFERENCES IN PERSONALITY – REFERENCES

    1. Buss DM. Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. Am Psychol. 1995;50:164–168. [PubMed]
    2. Del Giudice M. On the real magnitude of psychological sex differences. Evol Psychol. 2009;7:264–279.
    3. Eagly AH. The science and politics of comparing women and men. Am Psychol. 1995;50:145–158.
    4. Eagly AH, Wood W. The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. Am Psychol. 1999;54:408–423.
    5. Ellis L, Hershberger S, Field E, Wersinger S, Pellis S, et al. Sex differences: Summarizing more than a century of scientific research. New York: Psychology Press; 2008.
    6. Fausto-Sterling A. Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men (2nd ed.) New York: Basic Books; 1992.
    7. Geary DC. Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences (2nd ed.) Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2010.
    8. Halpern DF, Benbow CP, Geary DC, Gur RC, Hyde JS, et al. The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2007;8:1–51. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    9. Hyde JS. The gender similarities hypothesis. Am Psychol. 2005;60:581–592. [PubMed]
    10. Lippa RA. The gender reality hypothesis. Am Psychol. 2006;61:639–640. [PubMed]
    11. Lippa RA. Gender differences in personality and interests: When, where, and why? Pers Soc Psychol Compass. 2010;3:1–13.
    12. Maccoby EE, Jacklin CN. The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1974.
    13. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988.
    14. Hedges LV. What are effect sizes and why do we need them? Child Dev Perspect. 2008;2:167–171.
    15. Davies APC, Shackelford TK. Two human natures: How men and women evolved different psychologies. In: Crawford C, Krebs D, editors. Foundations of evolutionary psychology. New York: Erlbaum; 2008. pp. 261–280.
    16. Schmitt DP, Realo A, Voracek M, Allik J. Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in big five personality traits across 55 cultures. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008;94:168–182. [PubMed]
    17. Trivers RL. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B, editor. Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871–1971. Chicago, IL: Aldine; 1972. pp. 136–179.
    18. Kokko H, Jennions M. Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. J Evol Biol. 2008;21:919–948. [PubMed]
    19. Buss DM, Schmitt DP. Evolutionary psychology and feminism. Sex Roles. 2011 doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3.
    20. Ashton MC, Lee K, Pozzebon JA, Visser BA, Worth NC. Status-driven risk taking and the major dimensions of personality. J Res Pers. 2010;44:734–737.
    21. Bourdage JS, Lee K, Ashton MC, Perry A. Big Five and HEXACO model personality correlates of sexuality. Pers Indiv Diff. 2007;43:1506–1516.
    22. Del Giudice M, Angeleri R, Brizio A, Elena MR. The evolution of autistic-like and schizotypal traits: A sexual selection hypothesis. Front Psychol. 2010;1:41. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    23. Haselton MG, Miller GF. Women’s fertility across the cycle increases the short-term attractiveness of creative intelligence. Hum Nat. 2006;17:50–73. [PubMed]
    24. Jonason PK, Li NP, Webster GD, Schmitt DP. The dark triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. Eur J Pers. 2009;23:5–18.
    25. Lee K, Ogunfowora B, Ashton MC. Personality traits beyond the Big Five: Are they within the HEXACO space? J Pers. 2005;73:1437–1463. [PubMed]
    26. Markey PM, Markey CN. The interpersonal meaning of sexual promiscuity. J Res Pers. 2007;41:1199–1212.
    27. Miller GF, Tal IR. Schizotypy versus openness and intelligence as predictors of creativity. Schizophr Res. 2007;93:317–324. [PubMed]
    28. Nettle D, Clegg H. Schizotypy, creativity and mating success in humans. Proc R Soc Lond B. 2006;273:611–615. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    29. Schmitt DP. The big five related to risky sexual behavior across 10 world regions: Differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity. Eur J Pers. 2004;18:301–319.
    30. Schmitt DP, Buss DM. Sexual dimensions of person description: Beyond or subsumed by the big five? J Res Pers. 2000;34:141–177.
    31. Schmitt DP, Shackelford TK. Big five traits related to short-term mating: From personality to promiscuity across 46 nations. Evol Psychol. 2008;6:246–282.
    32. Bentler PM, Newcomb MD. Longitudinal study of marital success and failure. J Consult Clin Psych. 1978;46:1053–1070.
    33. Kelly EL, Conley JJ. Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis of marital stability and marital satisfaction. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;52:27–40. [PubMed]
    34. Nettle D. Individual differences. In: Dunbar R, Barrett L, editors. Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007. pp. 479–490.
    35. Wiebe RP. Delinquent behavior and the five-factor model: Hiding in the adaptive landscape. Indiv Diff Res. 2004;2:38–62.
    36. Hyde JS. Gender similarities still rule. Am Psychol. 2006;61:641–642. [PubMed]
    37. Costa PTJ, McCrae RR. Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. J Pers Assess. 1995;64:21–50. [PubMed]
    38. Ashton MC, Lee K. Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2007;11:150–166. [PubMed]
    39. Zuckerman M, Kuhlman DM, Joireman J, Teta P, Kraft M. A comparison of three structural models for personality: The big three, the big five, and the alternative five. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;65:757–768.
    40. DeYoung CG. Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006;91:1138–1151. [PubMed]
    41. Digman JM. Higher-order factors of the Big Five. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997;73:1246–1256. [PubMed]
    42. Musek J. A general factor of personality: Evidence for the Big One in the five-factor model. J Res Pers. 2007;41:1213–1235.
    43. Just C. A review of literature on the general factor of personality. Pers Indiv Diff. 2011;50:765–771.
    44. Rushton JP, Irwing P. The general factor of personality: Normal and abnormal. In: Chamorro-Premuzic T, von Stumm S, Furnham A, editors. The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of individual differences. London: Blackwell; 2011.
    45. Saucier G. What are the most important dimensions of personality? Evidence from studies of descriptors in diverse languages. Pers Soc Psychol Compass. 2009;3:620–637.
    46. DeYoung CG, Quilty LC, Peterson JB. Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the big five. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007;93:880–896. [PubMed]
    47. Cattell RB, Cattell HEP. Personality Structure and the new Fifth Edition of the 16PF. Educ Psychol Meas. 1995;55:926–937.
    48. Cattell HEP, Mead AD. The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). In: Boyle GJ, Matthews G, Saklofske DH, editors. The Sage Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment: Personality Measurement and Testing. London: Sage; 2008.
    49. Costa PTJ, Terracciano A, McCrae RR. Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;81:322–331. [PubMed]
    50. Hough LM, Oswald FL, Ployhart RE. Determinants, detection and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence and lessons learned. Int J Select Assess. 2001;9:152–194.
    51. Lucas RE, Deiner E, Grob A, Suh EM, Shao L. Cross-cultural evidence for the fundamental features of extraversion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;79:452–468. [PubMed]
    52. Powell DM, Goffin RD, Gellatly IR. Gender differences in personality scores: Implications for differential hiring rates. Pers Indiv Diff. 2011;50:106–110.
    53. Weisberg YJ, DeYoung CG, Hirsh JB. Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the Big Five. Front Psychol. 2011;2:178. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    54. Booth T, Irwing P. Sex differences in the 16PF5, test of measurement invariance and mean differences in the US standardisation sample. Pers Indiv Diff. 2011;50:553–558.
    55. Soto CJ, John OP, Gosling SD, Potter J. Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011;100:330–348. [PubMed]
    56. French BF, Finch WH. Confirmatory factor analytic procedures for the determination of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2006;13:378–402.
    57. Meredith W. Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika. 1993;58:525–543.
    58. Widaman KF, Reise KF. Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In: Bryant KJ, Windle M, editors. The science of prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1997. pp. 281–324.
    59. Church AT, Burke PJ. Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the Big 5 and Tellegen’s 3-dimensional and 4-dimensional models. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;66:93–114. [PubMed]
    60. Harner EJ, Whitmore RC. Multivariate measures of niche overlap using discriminant analysis. Theor Popul Biol. 1977;12:21–36. [PubMed]
    61. Reiser B. Confidence intervals for the Mahalanobis distance. Commun Stat-Simul C. 2001;30:37–45.
    62. Zou GY. Exact confidence interval for Cohen’s effect size is readily available. Stat Med. 2007;26:3054–3056. [PubMed]
    63. Huberty CJ. Mahalanobis distance. In: Everitt BS, Howell DC, editors. Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science. Chichester: Wiley; 2005.
    64. De Maesschalck R, Jouan-Rimbaud D, Massart DL. The Mahalanobis distance. Chemometr Intell Lab. 2000;50:1–18.
    65. Noftle EE, Shaver PR. Attachment dimensions and the big five personality traits: associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality. J Res Pers. 2006;40:179–208.
    66. Merz EL, Roesch SC. A latent profile analysis of the Five Factor Model of personality: modeling trait interactions. Pers Indiv Diff. 2011;51:915–919. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    67. Conn SR, Rieke ML, editors. The 16PF fifth edition technical manual. Champagne, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc; 1994.
    68. Rossier J, Meyer de Stadelhofen F, Berthoud S. The hierarchical structures of the NEO PI-R and the 16 PF 5. Eur J Pers Assess. 2004;20:27–38.
    69. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2010. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org.
    70. Archer J. Does sexual selection explain human sex differences in aggression? Behav Brain Sci. 2009;32:249–266. [PubMed]
    71. Biernat M. Toward a broader view of social stereotyping. Am Psychol. 2003;58:1019–1027. [PubMed]

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544282741 Timestamp) SEX DIFFERENCES IN PERSONALITY – REFERENCES

    1. Buss DM. Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. Am Psychol. 1995;50:164–168. [PubMed]
    2. Del Giudice M. On the real magnitude of psychological sex differences. Evol Psychol. 2009;7:264–279.
    3. Eagly AH. The science and politics of comparing women and men. Am Psychol. 1995;50:145–158.
    4. Eagly AH, Wood W. The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. Am Psychol. 1999;54:408–423.
    5. Ellis L, Hershberger S, Field E, Wersinger S, Pellis S, et al. Sex differences: Summarizing more than a century of scientific research. New York: Psychology Press; 2008.
    6. Fausto-Sterling A. Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men (2nd ed.) New York: Basic Books; 1992.
    7. Geary DC. Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences (2nd ed.) Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2010.
    8. Halpern DF, Benbow CP, Geary DC, Gur RC, Hyde JS, et al. The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2007;8:1–51. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    9. Hyde JS. The gender similarities hypothesis. Am Psychol. 2005;60:581–592. [PubMed]
    10. Lippa RA. The gender reality hypothesis. Am Psychol. 2006;61:639–640. [PubMed]
    11. Lippa RA. Gender differences in personality and interests: When, where, and why? Pers Soc Psychol Compass. 2010;3:1–13.
    12. Maccoby EE, Jacklin CN. The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1974.
    13. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988.
    14. Hedges LV. What are effect sizes and why do we need them? Child Dev Perspect. 2008;2:167–171.
    15. Davies APC, Shackelford TK. Two human natures: How men and women evolved different psychologies. In: Crawford C, Krebs D, editors. Foundations of evolutionary psychology. New York: Erlbaum; 2008. pp. 261–280.
    16. Schmitt DP, Realo A, Voracek M, Allik J. Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in big five personality traits across 55 cultures. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008;94:168–182. [PubMed]
    17. Trivers RL. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B, editor. Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871–1971. Chicago, IL: Aldine; 1972. pp. 136–179.
    18. Kokko H, Jennions M. Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. J Evol Biol. 2008;21:919–948. [PubMed]
    19. Buss DM, Schmitt DP. Evolutionary psychology and feminism. Sex Roles. 2011 doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3.
    20. Ashton MC, Lee K, Pozzebon JA, Visser BA, Worth NC. Status-driven risk taking and the major dimensions of personality. J Res Pers. 2010;44:734–737.
    21. Bourdage JS, Lee K, Ashton MC, Perry A. Big Five and HEXACO model personality correlates of sexuality. Pers Indiv Diff. 2007;43:1506–1516.
    22. Del Giudice M, Angeleri R, Brizio A, Elena MR. The evolution of autistic-like and schizotypal traits: A sexual selection hypothesis. Front Psychol. 2010;1:41. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    23. Haselton MG, Miller GF. Women’s fertility across the cycle increases the short-term attractiveness of creative intelligence. Hum Nat. 2006;17:50–73. [PubMed]
    24. Jonason PK, Li NP, Webster GD, Schmitt DP. The dark triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. Eur J Pers. 2009;23:5–18.
    25. Lee K, Ogunfowora B, Ashton MC. Personality traits beyond the Big Five: Are they within the HEXACO space? J Pers. 2005;73:1437–1463. [PubMed]
    26. Markey PM, Markey CN. The interpersonal meaning of sexual promiscuity. J Res Pers. 2007;41:1199–1212.
    27. Miller GF, Tal IR. Schizotypy versus openness and intelligence as predictors of creativity. Schizophr Res. 2007;93:317–324. [PubMed]
    28. Nettle D, Clegg H. Schizotypy, creativity and mating success in humans. Proc R Soc Lond B. 2006;273:611–615. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    29. Schmitt DP. The big five related to risky sexual behavior across 10 world regions: Differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity. Eur J Pers. 2004;18:301–319.
    30. Schmitt DP, Buss DM. Sexual dimensions of person description: Beyond or subsumed by the big five? J Res Pers. 2000;34:141–177.
    31. Schmitt DP, Shackelford TK. Big five traits related to short-term mating: From personality to promiscuity across 46 nations. Evol Psychol. 2008;6:246–282.
    32. Bentler PM, Newcomb MD. Longitudinal study of marital success and failure. J Consult Clin Psych. 1978;46:1053–1070.
    33. Kelly EL, Conley JJ. Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis of marital stability and marital satisfaction. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;52:27–40. [PubMed]
    34. Nettle D. Individual differences. In: Dunbar R, Barrett L, editors. Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007. pp. 479–490.
    35. Wiebe RP. Delinquent behavior and the five-factor model: Hiding in the adaptive landscape. Indiv Diff Res. 2004;2:38–62.
    36. Hyde JS. Gender similarities still rule. Am Psychol. 2006;61:641–642. [PubMed]
    37. Costa PTJ, McCrae RR. Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. J Pers Assess. 1995;64:21–50. [PubMed]
    38. Ashton MC, Lee K. Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2007;11:150–166. [PubMed]
    39. Zuckerman M, Kuhlman DM, Joireman J, Teta P, Kraft M. A comparison of three structural models for personality: The big three, the big five, and the alternative five. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;65:757–768.
    40. DeYoung CG. Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006;91:1138–1151. [PubMed]
    41. Digman JM. Higher-order factors of the Big Five. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997;73:1246–1256. [PubMed]
    42. Musek J. A general factor of personality: Evidence for the Big One in the five-factor model. J Res Pers. 2007;41:1213–1235.
    43. Just C. A review of literature on the general factor of personality. Pers Indiv Diff. 2011;50:765–771.
    44. Rushton JP, Irwing P. The general factor of personality: Normal and abnormal. In: Chamorro-Premuzic T, von Stumm S, Furnham A, editors. The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of individual differences. London: Blackwell; 2011.
    45. Saucier G. What are the most important dimensions of personality? Evidence from studies of descriptors in diverse languages. Pers Soc Psychol Compass. 2009;3:620–637.
    46. DeYoung CG, Quilty LC, Peterson JB. Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the big five. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007;93:880–896. [PubMed]
    47. Cattell RB, Cattell HEP. Personality Structure and the new Fifth Edition of the 16PF. Educ Psychol Meas. 1995;55:926–937.
    48. Cattell HEP, Mead AD. The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). In: Boyle GJ, Matthews G, Saklofske DH, editors. The Sage Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment: Personality Measurement and Testing. London: Sage; 2008.
    49. Costa PTJ, Terracciano A, McCrae RR. Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;81:322–331. [PubMed]
    50. Hough LM, Oswald FL, Ployhart RE. Determinants, detection and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence and lessons learned. Int J Select Assess. 2001;9:152–194.
    51. Lucas RE, Deiner E, Grob A, Suh EM, Shao L. Cross-cultural evidence for the fundamental features of extraversion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;79:452–468. [PubMed]
    52. Powell DM, Goffin RD, Gellatly IR. Gender differences in personality scores: Implications for differential hiring rates. Pers Indiv Diff. 2011;50:106–110.
    53. Weisberg YJ, DeYoung CG, Hirsh JB. Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the Big Five. Front Psychol. 2011;2:178. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    54. Booth T, Irwing P. Sex differences in the 16PF5, test of measurement invariance and mean differences in the US standardisation sample. Pers Indiv Diff. 2011;50:553–558.
    55. Soto CJ, John OP, Gosling SD, Potter J. Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011;100:330–348. [PubMed]
    56. French BF, Finch WH. Confirmatory factor analytic procedures for the determination of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2006;13:378–402.
    57. Meredith W. Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika. 1993;58:525–543.
    58. Widaman KF, Reise KF. Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In: Bryant KJ, Windle M, editors. The science of prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1997. pp. 281–324.
    59. Church AT, Burke PJ. Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the Big 5 and Tellegen’s 3-dimensional and 4-dimensional models. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;66:93–114. [PubMed]
    60. Harner EJ, Whitmore RC. Multivariate measures of niche overlap using discriminant analysis. Theor Popul Biol. 1977;12:21–36. [PubMed]
    61. Reiser B. Confidence intervals for the Mahalanobis distance. Commun Stat-Simul C. 2001;30:37–45.
    62. Zou GY. Exact confidence interval for Cohen’s effect size is readily available. Stat Med. 2007;26:3054–3056. [PubMed]
    63. Huberty CJ. Mahalanobis distance. In: Everitt BS, Howell DC, editors. Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science. Chichester: Wiley; 2005.
    64. De Maesschalck R, Jouan-Rimbaud D, Massart DL. The Mahalanobis distance. Chemometr Intell Lab. 2000;50:1–18.
    65. Noftle EE, Shaver PR. Attachment dimensions and the big five personality traits: associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality. J Res Pers. 2006;40:179–208.
    66. Merz EL, Roesch SC. A latent profile analysis of the Five Factor Model of personality: modeling trait interactions. Pers Indiv Diff. 2011;51:915–919. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    67. Conn SR, Rieke ML, editors. The 16PF fifth edition technical manual. Champagne, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc; 1994.
    68. Rossier J, Meyer de Stadelhofen F, Berthoud S. The hierarchical structures of the NEO PI-R and the 16 PF 5. Eur J Pers Assess. 2004;20:27–38.
    69. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2010. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org.
    70. Archer J. Does sexual selection explain human sex differences in aggression? Behav Brain Sci. 2009;32:249–266. [PubMed]
    71. Biernat M. Toward a broader view of social stereotyping. Am Psychol. 2003;58:1019–1027. [PubMed]

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1544282456 Timestamp) CORE RESEARCH – DIFFERENCES IN PERSONALITY BETWEEN GENDERS Summary: “only 10% overlap” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3251566/

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1544282456 Timestamp) CORE RESEARCH – DIFFERENCES IN PERSONALITY BETWEEN GENDERS Summary: “only 10% overlap” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3251566/

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544380948 Timestamp) GENDER BIOCHEMISTRY by Bill Joslin As far as I can tell – testosterone in men increases in-group loyalty and bonding (ingroup preference) but not out-group hostility. Oxytocin in women increases out-group hostility. This makes sense. Women in charge of young (reduced mobility and defense) by being outgroup sensitive would afford “proximity” sensing for a group (enemies are at the gates). Men who must then defend, do so cooperatively and this ingroup loyalty would have men fight to protect each other (opposed to fighting to kill an enemy or flee and abandon brothers). The two together: female-low resolution high sensitivity may not provide much detail in assessing the quality of a threat (those strangers might not be hostile, they might be, but might not be) – where as men, driven by loyalty will approach and assess the threat (they are not necessarily out-group hostile) and if it is a threat will not flee, but rather stand and defend. So we have a binary, at a distance, early warning (female) coupled with a spectrum, approach and assess defense (male). Our current migrant sentiment might be best seen as a female out-group hostility turned in on the ingroup (toward their own males due to feminist political power seeking) coupled with or playing off males low outgroup hostility and high loyalty (to their woman). We might harp on the girls in Curt’s circles – but it is the gals through mate selection who drive changes in males (hypergamy creates male hierarchy and selects for robustness and agression or the inverse as laid-out above). Girls maketh the man. It’s then males that provide a counter-balance. Women drive changes, men constrain the tails.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544380948 Timestamp) GENDER BIOCHEMISTRY by Bill Joslin As far as I can tell – testosterone in men increases in-group loyalty and bonding (ingroup preference) but not out-group hostility. Oxytocin in women increases out-group hostility. This makes sense. Women in charge of young (reduced mobility and defense) by being outgroup sensitive would afford “proximity” sensing for a group (enemies are at the gates). Men who must then defend, do so cooperatively and this ingroup loyalty would have men fight to protect each other (opposed to fighting to kill an enemy or flee and abandon brothers). The two together: female-low resolution high sensitivity may not provide much detail in assessing the quality of a threat (those strangers might not be hostile, they might be, but might not be) – where as men, driven by loyalty will approach and assess the threat (they are not necessarily out-group hostile) and if it is a threat will not flee, but rather stand and defend. So we have a binary, at a distance, early warning (female) coupled with a spectrum, approach and assess defense (male). Our current migrant sentiment might be best seen as a female out-group hostility turned in on the ingroup (toward their own males due to feminist political power seeking) coupled with or playing off males low outgroup hostility and high loyalty (to their woman). We might harp on the girls in Curt’s circles – but it is the gals through mate selection who drive changes in males (hypergamy creates male hierarchy and selects for robustness and agression or the inverse as laid-out above). Girls maketh the man. It’s then males that provide a counter-balance. Women drive changes, men constrain the tails.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544648838 Timestamp) DIFFERENCES —“Compared with Whites, Native Hawaiians had higher androstenedione (+22%, P = 0.017), total testosterone (+26%, P = 0.013), bioavailable testosterone (+33%, P = 0.002), E1 (≥21%; P = 0.009), total E2 (+26%, P = 0.001), bioavailable E2 (+31%, P < 0.001), and lower SHBG (−12% P = 0.07) levels. Compared with Whites, Japanese Americans had higher E2 (+15%, P = 0.036) and bioavailable E2 (+18%, P = 0.024) levels. African Americans also had higher E1 (+21%, P = 0.004), E2 (+20%, P = 0.007), and bioavailable E2 (+20%, P = 0.015) levels compared with Whites, whereas mean levels in Latinas were similar to those of Whites.”—-

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544644340 Timestamp) Papers by Japan’s Dr. Kenya Kura —“Dr. Kenya Kura of Japan has quite a few papers on racial differences in behavior and cognitive ability and he actual teaches on economics and racial differences. In one of his works, he argues that although East Asians have higher average IQs than Caucasians, they win far fewer Nobel Prizes because of their tendency towards low risk-taking and low-sensation seeking.”— by Rosenborg Predmetsky Links below added by CurtD https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282411443_Why_do_Northeast_Asians_win_so_few_Nobel_Prizes_1 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265090206_The_correlation_between_g_loadings_and_heritability_in_Japan_A_meta-analysis https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262383148_Cognitive_function_among_the_Ainu_people https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259098419_Japanese_north-south_gradient_in_IQ_predicts_differences_in_stature_skin_color_income_and_homicide_rate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265525298_Do_testosterone_levels_in_females_have_influence_on_the_distrust_game_the_beauty_contest_game_and_risk-aversion

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544648838 Timestamp) DIFFERENCES —“Compared with Whites, Native Hawaiians had higher androstenedione (+22%, P = 0.017), total testosterone (+26%, P = 0.013), bioavailable testosterone (+33%, P = 0.002), E1 (≥21%; P = 0.009), total E2 (+26%, P = 0.001), bioavailable E2 (+31%, P < 0.001), and lower SHBG (−12% P = 0.07) levels. Compared with Whites, Japanese Americans had higher E2 (+15%, P = 0.036) and bioavailable E2 (+18%, P = 0.024) levels. African Americans also had higher E1 (+21%, P = 0.004), E2 (+20%, P = 0.007), and bioavailable E2 (+20%, P = 0.015) levels compared with Whites, whereas mean levels in Latinas were similar to those of Whites.”—-

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544644340 Timestamp) Papers by Japan’s Dr. Kenya Kura —“Dr. Kenya Kura of Japan has quite a few papers on racial differences in behavior and cognitive ability and he actual teaches on economics and racial differences. In one of his works, he argues that although East Asians have higher average IQs than Caucasians, they win far fewer Nobel Prizes because of their tendency towards low risk-taking and low-sensation seeking.”— by Rosenborg Predmetsky Links below added by CurtD https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282411443_Why_do_Northeast_Asians_win_so_few_Nobel_Prizes_1 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265090206_The_correlation_between_g_loadings_and_heritability_in_Japan_A_meta-analysis https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262383148_Cognitive_function_among_the_Ainu_people https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259098419_Japanese_north-south_gradient_in_IQ_predicts_differences_in_stature_skin_color_income_and_homicide_rate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265525298_Do_testosterone_levels_in_females_have_influence_on_the_distrust_game_the_beauty_contest_game_and_risk-aversion