Big dicks

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

In the aggregate, males have personality traits better suited for executive positions like Presidency.

---

I may regret asking, but what traits are those?

---

The data is overwhelming.

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-personality-differences-sexes-largest-gender.html

http://www.midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1779.pdf

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/games-primates-play/201201/gender-differences-in-personality-are-larger-previously-thought

I think most people find this intuitively and observably true in their lives, but many are stridently in service to their social and political ideologies that they cannot accept it.

Most instructive is their finding that cultures that become more egalitarian between the sexes socially and legally, the differences in their choices and outcomes become greater, not less. Men aren't underrepresented in childcare because of discrimination or social pressure. It's because their personality traits and pursuits don't align with childcare, by and large.

The pathology often necessary to successfully navigate the high stakes corporate and political world is borderline psychopathic in my view, an arena more suited to mens' personality traits -- one of them that men desire things (money) and status and achievement and recognition more so than women (women like money and status too, but they prefer to achieve it via hypergamy). The corporate and political high stakes world appeals less to women, who also score higher in neuroticism

Meanwhile, our good friends at the San Francisco Chronicle have endorsed Amy Klobuchar!

(yes, this is sort of an open-ended set-up line... run with it)

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

In the aggregate, males have personality traits better suited for executive positions like Presidency.

---

I may regret asking, but what traits are those?

---

The data is overwhelming.

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-personality-differences-sexes-largest-gender.html

http://www.midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1779.pdf

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/games-primates-play/201201/gender-differences-in-personality-are-larger-previously-thought

I think most people find this intuitively and observably true in their lives, but many are stridently in service to their social and political ideologies that they cannot accept it.

Most instructive is their finding that cultures that become more egalitarian between the sexes socially and legally, the differences in their choices and outcomes become greater, not less. Men aren't underrepresented in childcare because of discrimination or social pressure. It's because their personality traits and pursuits don't align with childcare, by and large.

The pathology often necessary to successfully navigate the high stakes corporate and political world is borderline psychopathic in my view, an arena more suited to mens' personality traits -- one of them that men desire things (money) and status and achievement and recognition more so than women (women like money and status too, but they prefer to achieve it via hypergamy). The corporate and political high stakes world appeals less to women, who also score higher in neuroticism

---

I don't doubt that men and women have broadly different emphases in personality traits, but I'm not sure this proves that politics has to inherently value traits mostly favored in males. One could argue that it's only this way because of previous generations of male leaders building it that way.

I suppose you could argue that the American system with a separately-elected executive leader is more likely to favor males as heads of state versus a parliamentary system that rewards coalition-building. Maybe.

sycasey said:

---

I don't doubt that men and women have broadly different emphases in personality traits, but I'm not sure this proves that politics has to inherently value traits mostly favored in males. One could argue that it's only this way because of previous generations of male leaders building it that way.

I suppose you could argue that the American system with a separately-elected executive leader is more likely to favor males as heads of state versus a parliamentary system that rewards coalition-building. Maybe.

---

Predictable answer from you. If one acknowledges the different psychologies of the sexes -- differences that drive interest including career paths -- than why would somebody jump to conclude it MUST be something else (without evidence) unless its in service to some tightly held socio-political world view and ideology? It MUST be the opposite of the evidence. It must be bias in the social structures of society that is holding back equal representation in politics and executive positions generally. There are more men choosing to enter electoral politics, just as there are more men choosing to enter business fields and cutthroat environments generally, just as there are more women in education, nursing in chilldcare. There are inequities across virtually all professions, so it must be a field day to be able to just pick one out of a hat and claim institutional bias and discrimination.

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I don't doubt that men and women have broadly different emphases in personality traits, but I'm not sure this proves that politics has to inherently value traits mostly favored in males. One could argue that it's only this way because of previous generations of male leaders building it that way.

I suppose you could argue that the American system with a separately-elected executive leader is more likely to favor males as heads of state versus a parliamentary system that rewards coalition-building. Maybe.

---

Predictable answer from you. If one acknowledges the different psychologies of the sexes -- differences that drive interest including career paths -- than why would somebody jump to conclude it MUST be something else

---

I didn't say "must." I said it could be. I don't think you've proven these traits are inherent to certain professions here, only that differences between the sexes exist. Nor have I proven that it's all down to social structures . . . but I never claimed I had. I merely raised it as a possible factor. You're the one trying to deal in absolutes here.

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I don't doubt that men and women have broadly different emphases in personality traits, but I'm not sure this proves that politics has to inherently value traits mostly favored in males. One could argue that it's only this way because of previous generations of male leaders building it that way.

I suppose you could argue that the American system with a separately-elected executive leader is more likely to favor males as heads of state versus a parliamentary system that rewards coalition-building. Maybe.

---

Predictable answer from you. If one acknowledges the different psychologies of the sexes -- differences that drive interest including career paths -- than why would somebody jump to conclude it MUST be something else

---

I didn't say "must." I said it could be. I don't think you've proven these traits are inherent to certain professions here, only that differences between the sexes exist. Nor have I proven that it's all down to social structures . . . but I never claimed I had. I merely raised it as a possible factor. You're the one trying to deal in absolutes here.

---

You're treating your hypothesis as equally plausible, which is it demonstrably not. It is pretty one sided.

I mean, the Earth could be 5,000 years old. I'm just sayin and I'm not dealing in absolutes here.

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I don't doubt that men and women have broadly different emphases in personality traits, but I'm not sure this proves that politics has to inherently value traits mostly favored in males. One could argue that it's only this way because of previous generations of male leaders building it that way.

I suppose you could argue that the American system with a separately-elected executive leader is more likely to favor males as heads of state versus a parliamentary system that rewards coalition-building. Maybe.

---

Predictable answer from you. If one acknowledges the different psychologies of the sexes -- differences that drive interest including career paths -- than why would somebody jump to conclude it MUST be something else

---

I didn't say "must." I said it could be. I don't think you've proven these traits are inherent to certain professions here, only that differences between the sexes exist. Nor have I proven that it's all down to social structures . . . but I never claimed I had. I merely raised it as a possible factor. You're the one trying to deal in absolutes here.

---

You're treating your hypothesis as equally plausible, which is it demonstrably not. It is pretty one sided.

---

I don't think you've demonstrated that, only asserted it.

GBear4Life said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Does anybody remember when I posted many months ago about my conversations with some people waiting for their cars in the Walmart automotive area? I asked them if they thought a woman could be president, and two or three different women said, "no".

I was shocked at the reasons why these women said no. Complete gender bias and lack of faith in their own gender. For this reason, I would not be confident that Amy can be Trump, which is too bad because she is my second choice after Bloomberg. Too many women out there who are not yet woke.

---

In the aggregate, males have personality traits better suited for executive positions like Presidency. Of course, there is so much variance in personality traits, preferences, skills, intelligence etc within sexes more so than between them that to write off an individual woman or all women purely on the basis of their sex is silly.

They're wrong and so are you, so there were no winners in those Walmart parking lot conversations, which isn't surprising.

---

Lol. "They are wrong and so are you".
Hmmm, and I suppose you are right, right??

Normally your posts disturb me, but this one made me laugh. Thx.