43
submitted 3 months ago by spaduf@slrpnk.net to c/mensliberation@lemmy.ca
all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] dragontamer@lemmy.world 54 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Because it would be unethical to try to deliberately provoke children into aggressive behaviour, the boys were then asked to complete a commonly used cognitive task to measure how aggressive they felt in response to the feedback. This involved completing a series of words. For example, the letters “gu_” could become either “gun” (aggressive) or “gut” (not aggressive).

What the fuck is this drivel?

This 'study' doesn't study aggression at all. It studies how different people perform in a game of mad libs and then calls some of that aggression.


I'm sure there is a way to measure toxic masculinity. But I grew up in the video game era when people thought playing Mortal Kombat would turn you into the fucking Columbine shooters. It's all bullshit fake pseudo-psychology.

Be very wary of this fake science. There are good researchers out there but this methodology described here is some of the worst shit I've seen for proxy aggression ever.

[-] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 10 points 3 months ago

Such an experiment might be a better test to distinguish between call of duty players and kids that are into biology. Yes, word association in this case is just a load of bull

[-] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 5 points 3 months ago

This ‘study’ doesn’t study aggression at all. It studies how different people perform in a game of mad libs

Exactly. Word completion tasks are impossible to separate from confounding factors: the subject's vocabulary, their family ideolect, their family culture, their local culture, their ability to spell (especially a problem in English), children's tendency to try and please the adults around them....

I’m sure there is a way to measure toxic masculinity.

There are several. Many would even pass IRB review. This "study" has so many flaws that it should be a practice exercise for first-year research students, not something that The Conversation, of all publications, is flogging.

[-] kevindqc@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Do you have research experience in psychology or something, to unequivocally say that word completion tasks are BS pseudo/fake science?

[-] dragontamer@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago

Isn't this backwards? Isn't it on the onus of the psychologists out there to prove that word completion tasks are good measurements for aggression?

Statistically / politically speaking, the traditional measurements are like, "Gun Murders per Capita". You know, actual people killing each other, serving as the basis of an argument or indicators of aggression.

[-] kevindqc@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Isn't this backwards? Isn't it on the onus of the psychologists out there to prove that word completion tasks are good measurements for aggression?

Word fragment completion tasks have been used for decades, what makes you think no one made sure it's an effective way to measure things like aggression? Quick google search for example https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053482212001039

Statistically / politically speaking, the traditional measurements are like, "Gun Murders per Capita". You know, actual people killing each other, serving as the basis of an argument or indicators of aggression.

That's not what the study is about though. It's about the relation between aggression and masculinity, how do you measure this with a murder per capita number? You also cannot play with someone's masculinity and give them a gun, and see what happens.

Science is not perfect, especially in a field like psychology. You can't read people's mind. So we find alternate ways to measure things. Doesn't mean it's BS pseudo/fake science. It's just science.

[-] dragontamer@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Science is not perfect, especially in a field like psychology.

No kidding.

Your argument to prove the efficacy of this is basically "Trust in the decades of Psychological Research". To which I have to say....

My Psychology teacher from High School warned me that Psychology started as a Freudian Pseudo-science, turned into a Phrenology pseudo-science to help make Japanese people look dumber for WW2 propaganda purposes, and then had a bunch of poorly done experiments in the 1950s-1980s for various political games.

Anyone who has studied anything about psychology and its history as a subject is, and should be, 100% skeptical of everything. Including long-standing (decades or even century long) traditions like... IQ Tests or Freudian Psychosexuality.

It’s just science.

Psychology has a huge incident rate into pseudo-science / fake topics. I'm sure there's legitimate discoveries in here but I'm also sure that a huge amount of this field is bullshit.

But maybe I'm just a closted mother-lover in my subconcious who is suppressing my feelings of anger towards my father. My Asian skull is smaller than white people skulls so I can't think quite as well as some of you out there. Let along deal with issues of statistical auto-correlation or other such issues that occur in more modern studies.

Its not the science that's bad per se, its the politics that always get in the way. Psychology has a huge number of bad actors in it. And when the ultimate discussion point is "Look at these people... AGGRESSIVELY answering these word-game puzzles with more aggressive words. This proves that they're more aggressive".... I'm rolling my eyes into the back of my head so hard that I'm honestly throwing this entire piece away. Its not science by my standards.

But if its science by your standards, that's... fine I guess.


I get that we don't want to return to the 1970s where we get children to push a button to shock animals, and then determine the length-of-time or frequency of this to use as a proxy as "aggression". And I understand the need and struggle of modern psychologies to try to come up with modern tests that are humane and effective.

But I have severe concerns that this test isn't testing anything at all, aside from the biases of the tester.

[-] JoYo@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago

Right, it wasn't that long ago that they left dogs in electrocution cages over the weekend to study PTSD. By not long ago I mean they tried to do it again recently but were shot down by their particular ethics board.

[-] mranachi@aussie.zone 3 points 3 months ago

I'd say if you are concerned, then the door is open to start a career in psychology research. But I think you'd struggle to move your emotions and pre-convinced notions out of your own way.

[-] dragontamer@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

Or perhaps there's a simpler option here than me switching careers over a disagreement.

The simpler option is for me to ignore this paper.

[-] mranachi@aussie.zone 2 points 3 months ago

That's sure is some verbose ignoring you've been doing.

[-] kevindqc@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Sure, jan. Well I've had enough of your armchair psychology for today.

You could've just started with "psychology is a fake science" and saved me some time.

[-] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

You're talking about statistics and sociology. The article talks about a psychology research. How do you make research in psychology?

[-] dragontamer@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

This is literally an article about culture: traditional masculinity and it's alleged effects on an individual.

Note: I think the argument makes sense. My only qualm here is that the evidence listed fails to pass my muster. I think it's a good question and a worthwhile study. I just wish the evidence was stronger.

[-] PotentialProblem@sh.itjust.works 25 points 3 months ago

This is a bit off topic, but I really dislike terms like toxic masculinity or traditional masculinity.

I prefer talking about it in terms of “prescribed masculinity” which I think is the actual problem here. If you enjoy being a sports bro, who lifts weights, and is really into cars. Awesome! If you enjoy table top games and reading, awesome! Something completely different? Believe it or not, also awesome! As long as you’re not using it as an excuse to be an asshole to someone, men should pursue whatever will make their life the most fulfilling. But as far as defining masculine as some specific traits or interests, fuck that noise.

[-] threeduck@aussie.zone 19 points 3 months ago

I'm pretty sure toxic masculinity only applies to the toxic parts, right? Surely no one thinks getting excited about the Nissan Z is toxic?

[-] PotentialProblem@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 months ago

I’ve seen plenty of people equate toxic masculinity to “traditional masculinity” (for lack of a better term) and make fun of guys that fit that mold or, alternatively, get very defensive as though you were attacking their hobbies.

I agree with your sentiment though. I just think.. since toxic masculinity hasn’t been clearly defined and what’s toxic will vary significantly from one person to another… that a much better term is “prescribed masculinity”. It also helps prevent that knee jerk reaction some will have when you bring up the term. (I find most folks will agree that prescribed masculinity is a fucked concept, but may get defensive over the concept of “toxic masculinity”)

Also I’m not a car person but that’s a slick looking car.

[-] meyotch@slrpnk.net 6 points 3 months ago

You are correct. Only loving the Honda Odyssey is toxic.

[-] EddoWagt@feddit.nl 2 points 3 months ago

That's not toxic, just a bit sad

[-] Jarix@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I don't like segregating toxic behavior into perceived gender roles. It's just toxic behaviors. Which exist across all genders and spectrum.

I watched my grandmother's mental state decline into pretty bad dementia before she died. Sat on her bed next to her now than a few times because she couldn't figure something out. "Your brain is being an asshole gran"

But sometimes it wasn't the dementia that made her an asshole, it was being both in 1934 and moving through a world war having to raise her younger brothers at an early age have her peculiar views in the world and never believed the world moved on.

So she treated some people very poorly by today's standards. She believed people but also institutions didnt listen to women. And ya know what? She lived in a time when she literally had to get her husbands approval on many things we would find just as if not more than the current situations women still face on somethings. Forget all about how her husband spent little time at home, and even when he was home from working trades out of town, he spent most of his time on his hobbies, not the home unless gran had to get him to do something, but she can manage all the admistration of household without him most of the year, but she needed to get his permission for other people, not because he needed her to get his permission to handle the finances. But that was just an annoying part of dealing with the bank, to them it was an inconvenience that they had to put up with, not much more inconvenient as bank holidays when you needed to go to a bank, which you had to go often in the days before debit cards

That was the environment that she formed significant preceptions about the world.

I got a bit off track, toxic behaviour is what we should be framing this problem as, its all part of the same problem, with the same bad behaviours expressed differently reliant on your gender expression.

Though i might be able to be convinced to think of it as toxic worldviews, as a worldview is already multifaceted and ones toxic behaviours are quite often caused by what worldviews you choose to express

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago

I think it's underappreciated how much traditional masculinity persists because it is attractive to women.

[-] bouh@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

While I agree, it must be stated imo that it's not about the toxicity itself. It is about the interdépendancy between this toxic masculinity, and the submissive feminity.

Women are tought to be passive and fragile. Thus they need a man who is proactive and strong to lead her and protect her. Women are expected to hide what they think in order to not offend people around them, and thus a man is supposed to state things both for himself a'd for her.

Toxic masculinity and submissive feminity go hand in hand. They are, in fact, both toxic, especially together.

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Personally I prefer to refer to the broader term "toxic gender roles" as it covers a wider range of interdependent behaviors. I also think it goes deeper than just submissive femininity. It's the old nature vs nurture argument. It's not all societal. Some of it is biological. Larger, more physically imposing-looking men being preferred by the majority of women cuts across all times and cultures.

[-] bouh@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

I don't buy this nature thing. All societies have been exposed to violence, and women make babies. Then the same causes will lead to the same consequences.

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

So it's hopeless and cannot be changed then?

[-] bouh@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

It's the opposite. Because it's not nature but culture, it can be changed.

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Women making babies is culture? And as far as violence being culture, that has never been eliminated from any society and I don't see it happening any time soon.

[-] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

You should certainly try to understand this in a different way, because you obviously misunderstood this badly.

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I understand it. I thought my sarcasm would be clear. I think it is absurd to say that nature plays no part in human sexual attraction in spite of it affecting literally every other sexually reproductive animal on the planet.

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Because men are inherently masculine, and it's in their nature.

[-] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 4 points 3 months ago

Culture resists change. That's its role. And it's all but impossible to force lasting change in a particular direction (see former Soviet republics, for example). If there's no societal benefit to a change, it won't happen.

[-] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Value the chains around held around your neck, because one they they will be around someone else's neck, and you'll be doing the holding.

EDIT : So, I summed up the answer in the article as a response to the question in the title, and I get percieved as someone encouraging the obviously wrong viewpoint? Thanks for the downvotes.

[-] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago
[-] clark@midwest.social 6 points 3 months ago

Shit, I'm in

[-] motor_spirit@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

it is now for sure

[-] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 months ago

Temporarily embarrassed neck chain holders?

this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2024
43 points (100.0% liked)

Men's Liberation

1845 readers
2 users here now

This community is first and foremost a feminist community for men and masc people, but it is also a place to talk about men’s issues with a particular focus on intersectionality.


Rules

Everybody is welcome, but this is primarily a space for men and masc people


Non-masculine perspectives are incredibly important in making sure that the lived experiences of others are present in discussions on masculinity, but please remember that this is a space to discuss issues pertaining to men and masc individuals. Be kind, open-minded, and take care that you aren't talking over men expressing their own lived experiences.



Be productive


Be proactive in forming a productive discussion. Constructive criticism of our community is fine, but if you mainly criticize feminism or other people's efforts to solve gender issues, your post/comment will be removed.

Keep the following guidelines in mind when posting:

  • Build upon the OP
  • Discuss concepts rather than semantics
  • No low effort comments
  • No personal attacks


Assume good faith


Do not call other submitters' personal experiences into question.



No bigotry


Slurs, hate speech, and negative stereotyping towards marginalized groups will not be tolerated.



No brigading


Do not participate if you have been linked to this discussion from elsewhere. Similarly, links to elsewhere on the threadiverse must promote constructive discussion of men’s issues.



Recommended Reading

Related Communities

!feminism@beehaw.org
!askmen@lemmy.world
!mensmentalhealth@lemmy.world


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS