Researchers identify "male warrior effect"

[Wanderer]

Glad they cleared that up.

Fri Sep 8, 12:14 PM ET

NORWICH (Reuters) - Men may have developed a psychology that makes them particularly able to engage in wars, a scientist said on Friday.

New research has shown that men bond together and cooperate well in the face of adversity to protect their interests more than women, which could explain why war is almost exclusively a male business, according to Professor Mark van Vugt of the University of Kent in southern England.

"Men respond more strongly to outward threats, we've labeled that the 'man warrior effect'," he told the British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting.

"Men are more likely to support a country going to war. Men are more likely sign up for the military and men are more likely to lead groups in more autocratic, militaristic ways than women," he added.

Van Vugt said the finding is consistent with results from different behavioral science disciplines.

In experiments with 300 university men and women students, Van Vugt and his team gave the volunteers small sums of money which they could either keep or invest in a common fund that would be doubled and equally divided. None of the students knew what the others were doing.

Both sexes cooperated in investing in the fund. But when the groups were told they were competing against other universities, the males were more eager to invest rather than keep their money while the number of women contributing remained the same.

"We all know males are more aggressive than females," Van Vugt said, adding that co-operation is needed to establish institutions and governments and to wage wars.

"Male co-operation is a double-edged sword," he added.

[Superman]

No way! Men and women are exactly the same! It's all because this culture teaches boys to play with with GI Joes as kids and girls to play with dolls! That's BS!

Seriously, I love when things are studied that have a resounding 'well, DUH' as the result.

[wolveraptor]

These kinds of studies are useful for backing up what's common knowledge with something a little more emphatic than, "Well everybody knows it!"
But insightful they're not.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Apparently men are also generally physically stronger. I don't know if that's just hearsay though.

[King Kong]

To make this thread more interesting, why have males developed this psychology?

At first glance, it might seem somewhat unexpected, since primate males are usually highly competitive within social groups, in order to improve their access to females. So it would be unlikely that males would band together in the face of a threatening outside force, rather than exploit the situation for their own personal benefit. Or at least splinter into different groups headed by different alpha males. Female primates would seem to be more likely to band together, since they are more socially unified and have a strong interest in protecting their children, which would likely be killed by any invading force.

But maybe it can be explained. Males would be very familiar with the current political situation with their own group, and totally unfamiliar with the invader's. If they were to join the invading group, they would likely be placed at the bottom of the social ladder, making it more difficult for them to advance and gain access to females. Perhaps they are fighting to perserve their current standing within the group, and their potential to move upwards.

However, explaining all of war and male aggressiveness as a way to make sure one's chances of poontang are secure seems pretty simplistic. And it still doesn't really explain why females aren't more aggressive. This is mostly off the top of my head. What do you think?

[LadyTevar]

Women's aggression is all based on social interaction.
We're aggressive socially between each other, to try to win the best mate. Think of the verbal cat-fights between two women after the same man. We're also socially aggressive when providing for our children. Sometimes this goes overboard, into the SoccerMom pheonomon.

Only rarely are we forced to become physically aggressive, but when we do we're vicious little beasts.

[King Kong]

So if it's true that women's reason for aggression are basically to men's (competition for social standing, mates, etc.), they why wouldn't women respond to an outside threat similar to a male response?

Don't women have just as much to lose as men, even without considering their children?

[Lord of the Abyss]

And it still doesn't really explain why females aren't more aggressive.

Because they generally can't win, because the increased male tendency to form groups for aggression and defense means that a conflict between males and females will almost always boil down to many bigger, stronger males against one or a few smaller, weaker women. Plus since males are more physically aggressive, a conflict between groups will almost always have the males on the front lines, so the will be facing men. Finally, one on one an unarmed, untrained woman probably loses to an unarmed untrained man, and that's the situation her instincts are evolved for, not "I have a gun and he doesn't".

As for why women don't form alliances as much as men, one theory that I've heard is that our female ancestors competed for vegetable food with something bigger and stronger; like a prehistoric version of gorillas. Unlike, say, bonobos, they couldn't pick a good spot for gathering and socialize with each other; they had to spread out and gather the food that wasn't being hogged by a bigger species ( chimps have similar problems with gorrillas IIRC ). Meanwhile, the males went out and hunted in groups, encountering dangerous animals and enemy groups. Women only came together at camp, where it was relatively safe.

[Lord Woodlouse]

To hideously generalise I'd say it's because women take individual responsibility for the children they create, while men have a more general protector urge for the tribe/species. Men have more free time and the physical strength to deal with these kinds of things, where as an instinct for a woman to go off and fight might potentially overide their desire to have and protect children. Hence their aggression is usually related to their maternal instincts in some sense.

Though I'm certainly no expert.

[King Kong]

Because they generally can't win, because the increased male tendency to form groups for aggression and defense means that a conflict between males and females will almost always boil down to many bigger, stronger males against one or a few smaller, weaker women. Plus since males are more physically aggressive, a conflict between groups will almost always have the males on the front lines, so the will be facing men. Finally, one on one an unarmed, untrained woman probably loses to an unarmed untrained man, and that's the situation her instincts are evolved for, not "I have a gun and he doesn't".

I think you may have misunderstood. I was asking why females aren't more aggressive than males, so it doesn't make much sense to answer: 'Because males are more aggressive.'

As for being less physically powerful, it seems likely that if females were more aggressive than males, then they would have evolved to be more physically powerful to protect their social and reproductive interests, along with their children. Though it might harder to define which came first.

As for why women don't form alliances as much as men, one theory that I've heard is that our female ancestors competed for vegetable food with something bigger and stronger; like a prehistoric version of gorillas. Unlike, say, bonobos, they couldn't pick a good spot for gathering and socialize with each other; they had to spread out and gather the food that wasn't being hogged by a bigger species ( chimps have similar problems with gorrillas IIRC ). Meanwhile, the males went out and hunted in groups, encountering dangerous animals and enemy groups. Women only came together at camp, where it was relatively safe.

That's an interesting idea and seems plausible, though it makes me wonder how this social arrangement developed in the first place.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I think you may have misunderstood. I was asking why females aren't more aggressive than males, so it doesn't make much sense to answer: 'Because males are more aggressive.'

Actually, the point is that males are more aggressive and females less because males have historically tended to be more organized, which has made violence more effective for them, especially against women who have been disorganized. Therefore, human and pre-human females who in ancient times tried to use violence in most cases lost badly, and often died, while the more violent males succeeded, and in the process raped women and spread those more aggressive, ruthless male genes. Keep that up for enough generations, and you have a species with males more violent than females. Bonobos are known for not being dominated by males, and that's because bonobo females do gang up on the males if attacked.

IMO, this is while women's rights are a modern phenomenon; women tend not to form the kind of informal allances that males do; you don't see much of an "old girls network", or female street gangs. Women on the other hand are just fine at formal organizations, like political pressure groups, probably because instincts aren't nearly as important in forming those. Women stopped losing all the time when they formed organizations that could oppose male dominated organizations, and when the open use of violence to enforce one's will within the group became discouraged.

As for being less physically powerful, it seems likely that if females were more aggressive than males, then they would have evolved to be more physically powerful to protect their social and reproductive interests, along with their children.

The problem is that being bigger and stronger would be a major nutrient/energy cost, on top of the extra burden of pregnancy/childbirth/nursing that women already face compared to men. From an evolutionary point of view, it made more sense for the genders to specialize. Especially since the genders cooperate at least as much as they compete.

[King Kong]

Actually, the point is that males are more aggressive and females less because males have historically tended to be more organized, which has made violence more effective for them, especially against women who have been disorganized. Therefore, human and pre-human females who in ancient times tried to use violence in most cases lost badly, and often died, while the more violent males succeeded, and in the process raped women and spread those more aggressive, ruthless male genes. Keep that up for enough generations, and you have a species with males more violent than females. Bonobos are known for not being dominated by males, and that's because bonobo females do gang up on the males if attacked.

Ok, sorry for the confusion. This ties in nicely with your point about less organized female gatherers and organized male hunters.

The problem is that being bigger and stronger would be a major nutrient/energy cost, on top of the extra burden of pregnancy/childbirth/nursing that women already face compared to men. From an evolutionary point of view, it made more sense for the genders to specialize. Especially since the genders cooperate at least as much as they compete.

Good point, I hadn't thought of the nutrient/energy cost.

[FTeik]

So if it's true that women's reason for aggression are basically to men's (competition for social standing, mates, etc.), they why wouldn't women respond to an outside threat similar to a male response?

Don't women have just as much to lose as men, even without considering their children?

Not necessarily from a biological point of view. No matter if the males of the original group or the invading males win, as a result the females will mate with the stronger/better candidate since he will be the last one standing.

[SyntaxVorlon]

These kinds of studies are useful for backing up what's common knowledge with something a little more emphatic than, "Well everybody knows it!"
But insightful they're not.

I would say this is very insightful, in that it describes well the cause. It's not like they discovered this just now.

[Junghalli]

But maybe it can be explained. Males would be very familiar with the current political situation with their own group, and totally unfamiliar with the invader's. If they were to join the invading group, they would likely be placed at the bottom of the social ladder, making it more difficult for them to advance and gain access to females. Perhaps they are fighting to perserve their current standing within the group, and their potential to move upwards.
However, explaining all of war and male aggressiveness as a way to make sure one's chances of poontang are secure seems pretty simplistic.

Actually that idea sounds suprisingly cogent.

If your country were to be conquered by another nation you would likely be placed at the bottom of the social ladder, as a slave or a subject. You might very well no longer enjoy the same rights and privilidges as you do now. The barriers against your advancement in the conqueror's society would very likely be greater than those in your own. You are fighting to protect your current social position and your upward social mobility.
You're not exactly fighting for females, but you're fighting for things that are similarly important to modern man: money, lifestyle, respect, freedom etc. This may not actually be the case, but it's what just about every propaganda campaign tries to convince you of.

It may be that the psychology you described kind of lends itself naturally to this way of thinking. After all, I'm sure there are roomfulls of psychologists who will tell you that the desire for money, power, respect, and social status are partially derived from a sublimated urge to "become the biggest bull in the herd" and all that entails.