Comments by "wishsnfishs" (@Umbrellagasm) on "Elephants in Rooms - Ken LaCorte" channel.

Interesting how aggression and male variability were framed as somehow more inherent and less socialized than the other factors. They may be more inherent, but I'm curious why that adsumption was made. Is there really an understanding that men are not "naturally" cooperative? Even war, the most stereotypically masculine enterprise, is an extremely cooperative activity. If you have two groups of men at war, group A of average cooperativeness and outstanding aggression, and group B of average aggression but outstanding cooperativeness, I'm not at all convinced group A would be at an advantage. Sounds like berserkers vs legionaries, and we all know how that turned out historically
22
@xHannibal I believe it is linked, but how are we defining "strongly" here? And proportionally, how strong is that effect compared to cultural forces? Having lived in both places, from my observation the average woman in New York is more aggressive and less agreeable than the average man in Cambodia.
10
The answer is of course extremely complicated with dozens or hundreds of significant factors, but one of the most obvious is curiously rarely brought up - the Islamic world took the full force of the 13th century Mongol invasions, which to Europeans never amounted to more than frightening rumors. The destruction of Baghdad and its universities represented an intellectual loss the Islamic world never recovered from. Also the trade routes that fueled their wealth faded from significance in the age of sail, cutting off the surplus funds that could support centers of scholarship.
5
@adrianbunea2006 Because we're talking about the meaningful definition of competence in this situation - my argument being that driving competence is highly multifactorial
4
I'm not convinced - if I wanted to hire someone to drive for my company, I care about outcome, not process. Not doing stupid things is a cognitive skill that's actually pretty hard to teach. And addiction science demonstrates it actually often easier to enforce positive behaviors than extingush negative ones - so even if i had a choice between a levelheaded, low technical skill candidate, and a reckless talent, who both had equal initial outcome levels, I would chose the former candidate 10/10 times because their path to improvement will be much faster. That's just pragmatism
2