Researchers identify "male warrior effect"

[scout26]

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

ADVERTISEMENT

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
==================================================

In other news, scientists not only anounce that men and women are different, but that water is wet and fire is hot.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Well, I guess that team-based investing is the obvious test of the determination of aggression and government formation.

I don't follow the part about men banding together against threats given that in the test, none of the men or women were told what any of the other participants were doing. As such, they could not actually band together in a common goal since they had no way of knowing if what they were doing was the same as anyone else.

Men may be more aggressive during times of stress and may band together, even though this doesn't seem well supported in the argument. Such cooperation may be critical to forming governments. The fatal flaw here is that it means governments form out of response to threat only. It could well be argued that governments form under other conditions of peace time cooperation as a direct result of female networking as specifically tied to resource availability.

Sorry, but this all sounds rather hokey, especially given that the investing test doesn't seem to have any of the components critical to the theory, such as cooperation and warfare. Moreover, the male test subjects did not form any sort of government in order to battle more effectively during the investment competition.

Other than being sorely lacking and inconvlusive, I think the article was spot on!

 

[Kaylee]

um... duh?

Men are the guardians in our (and pretty much every) human culture. I'd expect you guys to be more agressive.

(and we like you that way. )

-K

 

[bumm]

Any conclusions coming from psychological studies comparing men and women are often subject to the preconceived notions of the researchers... all one has to do is look at the work of radical feminists. I think though, that this study raises a valid point. It's often said that men traditionally fight wars due to some type of "innate aggressivenes," but all one has to do is look at the real world to see that women can be extremely aggressive. If you've had sons and daughters in high school and college, which ones get along with their classmates and room mates better? How do your wives get along with other women they have to deal with on a daily basis? Women as a group are every bit as aggressive as men, and probably more so.
In this day and age, the greater physical strength of males is probably less of an advantage in war than a greater tendency of men to bond together and cooperate as a group.
I could go on and on here, but I'm probably ranging pretty for OT already...
Marty

 

[rbernie]

And in further news, Harvard researchers have concluded that water is wet.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Some of these basic premises are pretty obvious to most of us and deserve a "duh" but I always see a push for PC "gender equality" where men and women supposedly have no physiological/psychological differences and that women can do anything men can and vice versa (regardless of all the research out there which goes ignored or sneered at). We end up with feminist women and metrosexual men running around confused wondering why the opposite sex doesn't find anything attractive about them.

Men and women think different and are physically different. I don't see why that is so difficult to accept.

 

[bumm]

cesiumsponge was saying
>Some of these basic premises are pretty obvious to
> most of us and deserve a "duh"

Very true. The rather unusual thing about this study is that most studies coming out of higher academia seek only to explain why men are violent and aggressive, while women are caring and nurturing. Any evidence to the contrary is obviously faulty or requires further study.
Before I wind up looking like I hate women in a closed thread, I'll say that the differences between men and women are rather wonderful and complementary. And yes, that's obvious too, to most of us.
Marty

 

[SiG Lady]

Waste-of-money test or a "duh"...? (or both)

",,,none of the men or women were told what any of the other participants were doing. As such, they could not actually band together in a common goal since they had no way of knowing if what they were doing was the same as anyone else."

Precisely.

 

[Warren]

Isn't a big part of it that men are the expendable ones?

That is womb space is too precious to risk in combat, but sperm deliverers are everywhere and just one is able to engage multiple wombs if needed so the excess can be comfortably risked in combat to protect (or try to impress) the stock of wombs back home.

 

[Limeyfellow]

Most of this has been known before we were even living in caves that groups would bound together against common threats as predators and rival packs and add to the greater size over females, increased aggression and strength the whole male has evolved into these traits to prolong the species. Its one of humanity's greatest strengths that males will put up with rivals in their territory for greater protection against others, while many species haven't developed to allow that.

 

[MrZ]

"In this day and age, the greater physical strength of males is probably less of an advantage in war than a greater tendency of men to bond together and cooperate as a group."

Nope.

Not even close...

The greater physical strength and endurance of males will ALWAYS be a greater advantage in war. ALWAYS.

Here's a statement about current combat loads:

"After reviewing the data, the average rifleman's fighting load was 63 pounds..."

The fighting load is what the soldier fights in, and excludes a rucksack. This is the minimum amount of weight he is carrying at any one time while on patrol. Here's the link:

http://www.natick.army.mil/about/pao/2004/04-03.htm

The fighting load has changed little over the years, nor will it ever. Soldiers have a propensity to bring everything they CAN carry into the fight. Less ammo means another grenade, less grenades means more chow, less chow means more batteries etc... Throw in the "special equipment" such as litters, med kits, radios, NVG's, weapon accessories, and it all adds up.

So, contrary to popular belief about "technology" reducing the need for strength and endurance in combat, the greater overall strength and endurance of males is STILL needed to fight. Always has been, always will be...

 

[308nato]

Warren:

Great post ,cant stop laughing as I clean the coffee off my monitor
screen.

thanks

 

[LAK]

What? Another study that reached the conclusion that there are fundamental differences between male and female beyond the physical?

And as was noted a very long time ago, there is nothing new under the sun.

---------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Ryder]

Humans didn't invent that.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060910094630.htm

 

[ctdonath]

308nato,
Warren is right. The USA has been so comfortable and abundant for long enough that discussions of "precious womb space" sounds like a joke ... but that hasn't been the case for most of human history. Limited numbers of fertile women, faced with various threats to a community's ability to reproduce at a survivable rate, meant that viable wombs had to be protected and used ... and that men, being able to service more than one (and do so quickly as contrasted with gestation), were more suited for hunting out & defending against threats to those wombs. Those men who did not survive combat were, relatively speaking, expendible; those who survived were generally more fit & more desireable, and could easily make up for the absence of others.

Sounds odd to a culture that tends to view pregnancy as a nuisance ... a mindset which cannot last long.

A corrolary is: if there are too many males, wars may be started to effectively reduce the excess hormonally-frustrated population. This is one reason to expect a major war from China soon, as their cultural preferences produce a significant percentage of their population who, to put it starkly, won't be gettin' laid anytime soon. Also partly explains the most violent Islamofacists, finding their social worth only in being expendible.

Lacking something to live for, males look for something to die for.

 

[Jrsmith]

Reminds me of a study UW-Green Bay (I think) performed a few years ago that concluded that married men were more likley to cheat on their spouses if the couple was no longer "intimate".... who would have ever thought that?

 

[bearmgc]

Men are more agressive than women? Maybe physically, but women are more covert in their agression. Many famous spies were women. Ever been in a totally female work environment? Women can be totally cut throat to each other on a very sublime level. Way more dangerous....no cues to pick up on first.

 

[SiG Lady]

Well said...!

"Lacking something to live for, males look for something to die for."

A great way to say it.

Things have really changed over time, though... We have no real immediate need for families with 10 kids on the farm. Importantly, we can't AFFORD that kind of indulgence! Who can afford to have that many (or even fewer) kids and be able to feed them, let alone HOUSE them??!! I once knew of a couple with 6 kids who couldn't find a rental home. Let alone an apartment.

And don't get me started about the Chinese murdering their female offspring. What 'n hell are they thinking??!! Who do they think provides the other half of a relationship, for cryin' out loud? Hey guys over in China, if you want SONS then you can't go killing off the mothers. Hello!!!!!!! Well, and they made cripples of their women in the past, too, for some bloody insecure reason...... Killing off their female babies is along the same lines. The men will HAVE to go to war for lack of something to do! Gah!

Oh, and women in the workplace? I trust no one any more on that matter. "Covert" is a pretty good way to describe it.

Otherwise, have a nice day.

 

[thexrayboy]

The reason for the difference is biology

Testosterone is the key. Men have more of it. This makes them bigger, stronger and more aggressive when compared to women. It's the same for most mammalian species. Testosterone is the hormonal drive that makes men what they are. Take it away and men become more docile. Give it to women and they become more masculine and aggressive. All other societal behaviors such as the male warrior mentality evolved from this basic biological difference. However it is no longer PC to acknowledge that men and women are fundamentally different. Such a thought may offend the liberal muffin heads.

 

[MikeH]

And don't get me started about the Chinese murdering their female offspring. What 'n hell are they thinking??!! Who do they think provides the other half of a relationship, for cryin' out loud? Hey guys over in China, if you want SONS then you can't go killing off the mothers. Hello!!!!!!! Well, and they made cripples of their women in the past, too, for some bloody insecure reason...... Killing off their female babies is along the same lines. The men will HAVE to go to war for lack of something to do! Gah!

Hi SiGLady! While I do agree foot binding is cruel, I still need to clarify that it wasn't for some insecure reason. It was done because it was considered beautiful by men at that time. The motivation, or perhaps social pressure, wasn't too different as women today have for wearing high heels or get a job done on any of the bodyparts.

Of course, young girls in China went through the ritual mostly against their will, and the physical pain and suffering is just too great to be justified by the pursuit of beauty. My grandmother was one of them, and she was happy that her daughters and granddaughters need not go through the same thing.

 

[roscoe]

Males are only more aggressive in specific contexts. As a test, I recommend trying to separate a female brown bear from her cubs. Try to find a male bear to match that level of aggression in any context.

 

[bigun15]

Well let's just thank God that Captain Obvious was here to write an article and save the day.

 

[FilJos]

I recently concluded a 25 year study that determined that the sun, otherwise known as Sol, is our primary source of life giving light and heat.

 

[BigG]

Another answer to a question nobody asked.

Jeez - I wonder if testosterone has any bearing on this?

 

[MikeH]

Jeez - I wonder if testosterone has any bearing on this?

Certainly, because estrogen tends to make one ask questions impossible to answer truthfully, such as "do I look fat?"

[insert standard disclaimers on gender stereotyping]