New study finds women have more sensitive hearing than men, regardless of age or environment
(www.psypost.org)
from neme@lemm.ee to science@mander.xyz on 30 Mar 01:48
https://lemm.ee/post/59852845
from neme@lemm.ee to science@mander.xyz on 30 Mar 01:48
https://lemm.ee/post/59852845
A new study finds that sex and environment, not just age, strongly influence hearing sensitivity in diverse human populations.
threaded - newest
As a cat burglar, women generally have better jewels, though. Sometimes you have spend money on good moccasins to make money on jewels.
What?
Yeah, millennia of oppression does wonders for your genetics favoring hypervigilance in your gender, down the line…
Not how evolution works, and not how oppression works either.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/882523bc-cfad-475f-9539-bc4ed883229c.webp">
One might guess men would have better hearing as they were often the hunters in our evolutionary history. But maybe women who would take care of children and the camp needed to be more aware of incoming dangers, for which good hearing would be an advantage.
As you’ve spotted, good hearing is advantageous to everyone.
However the men hunting/women gathering stereotype is increasingly regarded as wrong or at least simplistic.
phys.org/…/2023-10-prehistoric-gender-roles-women…
runnersworld.com/…/these-are-the-worlds-fastest-m…
This apparent advantage doesn’t seem to play out in the real world.
I’ve criticised several similar papers in the last few years, one of which was retracted. So far I have seen flawed methodology, cherry picking evidence and ignoring widely available data on uncontacted hunter gatherer societies.
This doesn’t seem like quality research and that’s just at a glance.
That’s a you problem. As it turns out, science isn’t based on glances and vibes.
It’s plainly evident that taking any person with high testosterone and getting them to train at a physical activity will almost always result in better performance than training a person in the same way with lower testosterone.
The papers talk about the evidence based on ordinary, presumably nonspecialised individuals, not cherry-picking a few thousand people who have trained in such a way that testosterone can make its difference over time.
It’s not a me problem just a statement of fact that I haven’t spent hours going over the paper and its references yet.
You think that people who were living in hunter gatherer societies didn’t experience enough physical exertion for testosterone to play a signficant role in their physical performance?
Otherwise you’re just talking completely out of context… which is what the authors did in the paper you linked.
Ooh, you’re fun at parties, no doubt
Do you usually interact with people at parties the way you interact with people in the comments section of a link aggregator?
You assume I interact with people at parties?
Hmmm, is that why I once heard a spider spinning a web? (It was a very quiet click click sound as it’s legs rubbed together) Wish I could just ignore more sounds, but that’s more a processing issue than an ear issue.
But that’s super cool
A spidey sense!
Was this written by AI?
Does environment effect hearing or not??
It does, but even when everyone’s hearing is lower because of the environment, women hear better. That’s how I would interpret that at least.
ZeroGPT says no way. I mean I get what they mean even if it’s a little awkwardly said. Local environment shapes your hearing. Whatever the environment, women end up two decibels more sensitive on average. That’s it.
Environment affects hearing, it just doesn’t affect the finding that women have better hearing on average.
I’ve never understood why some people find these kinds of discoveries surprising. What would actually be surprising is studying differences between groups and not finding any. The key is to remember that group differences are about averages - they don’t apply to individuals. A person won’t have better hearing just because they’re a woman. The variation between individuals within a group is usually greater than the average difference between groups.
It’s not necessarily surprising, more like… interesting? There are so many superstitions when it comes to differences between sexes. It is good to read something real science-based on these topics. The question is, how good of a research this is, though - it’s always good to check.
What you say about averages is true, but it can differ a lot. There can be characteristics in which the groups overlap so much that the effect is impossible to observe IRL. There can also be characteristics that overlap so little that it’s an obvious difference - I believe muscle growth and physical strength is an example of the latter.
Women can see more colors, live longer, enhanced hearing, smell better, im sure they can lift cars to save babies. Males are just there to carry the weight as pack mule apparently.
Men are built physically stronger and have superpowers of their own. The objective differences between sexes are interesting, as are the exceptions to the rules.
Thats the pack mule perk. Hardly consider height a separate advantage since its also part of same perk.
I can think of cold resistance since human females are colder generally
Could list thicker eye lashes.
Males and females have their own psychological issues so I give that even score
Team, What else human males have?
We have patriarchy.
Bur seriously, being tall means you are hotter than you would be as a shortie. You also look more dignified and authoritative if you are tall. So that is definetly an advantage.
We have more muscles generally. Muscles are
very hotuseful to have. But actually, being built more athletically is an advantage in terms of aesthetics IMO.Also, no periods or menopause.
Reproduction is easier.
And we are less risk averse which means we are cooler on average.
Hmm Trade uncontrollably periods for uncontrollably elections. Both have blood loss and mind altering effects. ill give the point since while both sux, one sux for less time. Plus the other can be 1 week straight and needs specialized gear to mitigate the debuff.
Hmm pack mule perk gives beauty benefits. I dk about that. Seen plenty of badly shaped men. Shrek is peak performance lol. Meanwhile women hide fat easier. Men abs is like 3% fat meanwhile women is like 11% (numbers made up). All those ripped dudes had to sacrifice carbs and time for those bodies.
Lol less risk averse is a debuff that leads to the shorter life span avg.
Women get horny too, fyi. And I can’t blame them, considering how hot MEN are.
It is easier to build muscle for men, and a lot of men and women try really hard to do that. Being stronger is not about being a “pack mule”, can an average woman pick me up? NO!
You just don’t appreciate the aesthetics of masculinity. I think your aversion to it is pretty gay tbh.
You are such a boring person.
Rofl these comments. The Chuckles are real.
I Never said women aren’t horny?
Women doesn’t need to pick men up. They dont have pack mule perk. Men do. Now uppies please faithful battle beasts!
ultra cut body builder male or female is scary looking. I prefer builds Like swimmer/volley ball bodies. I consider this topic an opinion regardless. So I won’t count. Muscle mass for protection value dropped after the projectile patch with David v Goliath event. Tools are just more effective.
Yes I am boring and safe like Nemo dad.
Sorry, I don’t talk to HOMOSEXUALS who don’t appreciate masculinity.
Rofl homosexual that only like fem boys are being attacked here.
You don’t need to control your elections, Russia has your back
Lol that auto correct.
The ability to not spend energy on reproduction and force mating with those who can. That’s why males are stronger, often larger and generally more aggressive and more domineering. It’s also why men are percieved as more intelligient and competent. Relative bodysize is what triggers the increased respect. After all, you shouldn’t piss off the largest, more aggressive male.
It’s the male meta. It’s more based on individual success rather than a benefit for a species. When a male is too “successful” it becomes beneficial for there to be a high turn-over rate. All to avoid too many siblings and subsequent incest.
Humans basically said F this. Women(or some female homonid) started killing their own offspring to avoid caring 15 years for a child they did not want to invest in. Embryonic wasting (menstruation) furthered this process. It’s why in most primates, the males commit the most infanticides. Humans are an exception. Infanticide is almost exclusively done by women. Usually postpartum related issues.
Monogamy became a thing as a result. Which subsequently decreased both male-male competition and female-female competition.
We invested in expensive brains at the cost of women’s lives. Which resulted in men also developing paternal instinct as well as the ability to give a damn and bond with something. Something that is far too rare in nature. Men who gave a damn about their offspring, took care of them. It became more a team effort. An interesting example is prolactin expression when exposed to their newborn, causing adaptations in the brain seen in pregnant women too. Another example is increased sensitivity to oxytocin. Allowing men to bond with their partner, people and pets! Males express less oxytocin in the brain, but human men simply adapted their sensitivity to it.
Kind of crazy to think human males caring for kids is a social perk not commonly found. Now that you mention it lots of other species males kill babies like lions and hippos.
And horses, most zebra species, elephants and elephant seals (by crushing the newborn. You have to see those 4tonne blubberfucks run at a female who just gave birth. It is glorious), rats, mice and many other rodents.
Some bears. Black or grizzly bear if I remember right, kills 14 cubs a year on average. They then stalk the female till she ovulates, mate and move on to the next target.
Primates in general. Mandril alpha’s sometimes kill their own out of aggitation. Chimps cannibalize orphans if the mother dies/gets killed. Sometimes female chimps are killed for being too assertive, or struggling back too much when males force mating.
Cats and tigers kill their own because they can’t discern nor care about decerning whose cubs they are.
Kangoroo’s don’t kill joeys per se, but they choke the female to death sometimes. Really just because they are as horny as they are aggressive. Females are always pregnant. When their pouch is already occupied, the embryo goes into diapause. Slowing down its development. A queue for the pouch if you will.
It’s only useful to the male. But energywise, it is detrimental for the female and the species as a whole.
In other words. Men are fucking awesome. We are much more like birds in our reproductove strategies. We form a partnership, and work together. Men and women developed ways to cooperate together. That’s awesome. It’s just that the chances of unwanted behaviours, come from “old habits die hard.”
I’m here to find out if males really can’t get pregnant
Please see the documentary junior with Arnold.
Wrong, my wife can’t hear for shit. Me i can hear the neighbors talk in their own home. Its mumbled but goddammit my hearing is super sensitive.