|
Post by rammsteinrainbow on Oct 15, 2003 5:46:01 GMT -5
I like quiet guys. I think its hard to tell which gender has more shy people. Its more easily seen in girls, whereas boys may try to mask their shyness, false bravado, putting on a front etc.
|
|
|
Post by smartie on Nov 30, 2003 14:43:44 GMT -5
There are probably no more shy women than there are men. Men are expected to be louder and more boisterous than women (there is some scientific basis for this), and so a shy man is much more prominent than a shy woman. Testosterone has a lot to do with males being more forward; it's a biological disposition. Men were (and still are) the hunters. Hence men are expected to make the first move on a woman they find attractive. Unfortunately evolution has programmed all of us to look upon shy people as likely to be poor parents, (hunters are assertive, forward, confident - it's what gets the antelope from the plain to the campfire, and food gathering was what made men successful in pre-history) and consequently bad partners. It also explains why quiet men are often taken for being 'incomplete' in terms of manhood, and it probably explains the question 'Are you gay?' that often greets the shy man. Interestingly, testosterone charged male sexual aggression also explains the rejection and labelling (slut, whore, etc) that sexually aggressive women often face. Men are ill at ease with a woman who breaks the mould of normal courtship, and as a result men freak at a woman who displays the noisy in-your-face charcteristics that men show when in sexually charged, or critical social environments. Unfortunately there would have been a time when the genes of shy people would have been eradicated from a population by natural selection. Put quite simply, we would have not been successful breeding partners, and our genes would have perished long ago! How you view that is in itself a contentious subject. I hate to say it, but our relative lack of success in relationships now could quite readily construed as natural selection in progress. We are not viewed as good partners (weirdos, loners, losers, billy-no-mates, freak, nut-jack, gay boy, pervert, whimp...), and so we are sidelined by the mass as being poor specimins. In a hunter gatherer society, 'shy' genes (there is some evidence to suggest an inherited dispostiion towards shyness, as well as social conditioning) were of little use. We were hunters for hundreds of thousands of years, and we made little technological, artistic, or sociological progress in all of that time. When we started to gather in static agrarian communities, things developed at a fantastic pace. Why? Because the genes of shy people were no longer eradicated; suddenly we didn't all need to be hunters. Thinkers became just as important as hunters. The rest is most definately history! Take a look at a few biographies. You will find that a disproportionately large number of brilliant people were recessive, shy, introvert, suffered from depression, etc, etc. It's a fact. Whilst none of us may be brilliant, we are in distinguished company, and that is something we should all consider.
There was a time in Medieval Europe when people like us were regularly rounded up at the village pond, bound with our hands behind our backs and thrown in. If we floated, we were labelled as witches, and the path from pond to gallows was guaranteed. If we sank and drowned; well that was unfortunate. We the quiet ones are still viewed with suspicion.
I am currently studying animal behaviour, and there is a lot of information on this subject (as other social animals have shy members of their populations).
|
|
|
Post by spitzig1 on Nov 30, 2003 16:05:50 GMT -5
Evolutionary biology theories don't sound that solid to me. We don't really know the tracks evolution took. There may be parallels among animals to some of these theories, but that doesn't mean that's how humans were/are. An example of a counter theory for lack of aggression being weeded out among men: Who gets killed more in battle? The guy who's trying to kill all his enemies or the guy who's trying to avoid the battle.
Not all societies have men more aggressive, women more passive. Margaret Mead did a classic study of 3 societies.
One had both genders aggressive. Women considered childbearing an irritant. Both engaged in war.
One had both genders passive. Aggression was discouraged among both genders of children.
One had men passive, women aggressive. Men worried about things like clothing/accessories. Don't remember whether the society was advanced enough to have "shopping", but men were known for doing it's parallel a lot. I'm thinking women got more of the resources for the family/clan(?).
I obviously don't know whether it's nature or nurture. But, I prefer the sociological explanations for things, because that means they are changeable. If I were shy because of genes, I'd probably be screwed. If it's because of society, I can change. Of course, it could be a mix, too.
|
|
|
Post by CaryGrant on Dec 1, 2003 11:48:23 GMT -5
My understanding is that shyness is due to nature and nurture. There is benefit in shyness, as Spitzig points out, in that shyness is a form of caution. Shyness may simply be caution carried too far in some cases. After all, being afraid to ask a girl out is, logically, stupid, but is also, emotionally, terrifying. There is a biological reason you feel like you will die if you ask someone out: you are conjuring up the fight-or-flight response (in an inappropriate situation). Doing the things that scare you diminishes this response, as your brain learns that you will not, in fact, die if you ask that hottie out.
But it is certainly true, I think, that shy people, especially shy men, are regarded as less desirable mates, because shyness, generally speaking, also equals low confidence.
|
|
|
Post by smartie on Dec 1, 2003 15:53:32 GMT -5
We are all right in our views. Behaviour is a combination of our 'hard wiring' - our biological make up and endocrine system function - and our experiences (natural, nurtural, and cognitive etc). Our minds are very complicated, science hasn't scratched the surface yet. Some of us do have a 'shy' gene, that much is known, but as both CG and Spitzig have suggested we can learn shyness from our parents or others, we can be conditioned by experience into being withdrawn, and we can therefore unlearn it. There is a problem with that theory though, in that it is very hard to do, but not impossible. It's an unfortunate fact that most 'shy' behaviours are imprinted when we are children. At that stage our brains are at their most receptive and malleable, and so the positive and negative learning experiences are recorded and stored at a deep level. If you are chastised and fed negative feedback for your actions as a child, the imprint is loaded into the subconscious as part of our 'operating system' (as opposed to most adult experiences, which we can liken to peripheral software).
I also agree with your assertions that shyness has many (perhaps incidental) benefits. The point I was making in my first post is that the shy gene was not the handiest of attributes in pre-history; certainly not in the male anyway. Both sexes are hormonally differentiated. Male horomones are antagonistic, dominating, and generally more passive in a parental role, and female hormones are broadly speaking the opposite - essential for the deeper bond that motherhood requires. I am not just talking about humans. These are characteristics that are observed in everything from sticklebacks, to wolves.
Anyone who finds fault with the differences of behaviour in the sexes and suggests that either male or female characteristics are rubbish is missing the point. Evolution selected both male and female characteristics to give us the best chance of passing on our genes; in nature, a bad mother is a bad mother. An inattentive mother neglects her young and her genes perish, as either her young die, or they grow up to be poorly adjusted and fail to pair and mate. Similarly a recessive male turns out to be an ineffectual hunter, and a bad father; the young die, or the male may eat them. His genes perish too.
Sptizig has pointed out that there have been socities where roles have been different for the sexes, and he/she used that as evidence to discount the genetic facts. Those 'role swaps' are societal modifications in behaviour, and do not alter the fact that we have genetically predetermined behavioural differences. What it does indicate is that we can override our hard wired behaviours. Just as I suggested that with agricultural settlement 'shy' genes got a greater toe hold, so cultural and societal development has finally brought women to the position they should rightly occupy. It's taken the best part of 10.000 years of the development of 'our' society for that to be the case, (just think, only 2 or 3 generations ago, women were still the home keepers and had responsibility for the majority of hands on parenting). If you look at businees and commerce (the hunting grounds of today) you will still find women establishing themselves as the equals of men, but only after considerable effort and often gaining less reward for the same output.
We can only generalise in these postings, but I am very interested in any ones response. I'm learning a lot, and I know that I still have a lot to learn, and I respect your opinions. :-)
|
|
|
Post by spitzig on Dec 2, 2003 3:47:04 GMT -5
Evolution selected both male and female characteristics to give us the best chance of passing on our genes; in nature, a bad mother is a bad mother. An inattentive mother neglects her young and her genes perish, as either her young die, or they grow up to be poorly adjusted and fail to pair and mate. Similarly a recessive male turns out to be an ineffectual hunter, and a bad father; the young die, or the male may eat them. His genes perish too. Recent studies have shown that in the classic "male-hunter/female-gatherer" societies, the female-gatherers provided a higher percentage of the food. I'd guessed it was based on fruit and vegetables being more consistently available. The point being that men aren't the only ones preventing the babies from starving. Just because the roles are swapped from what most current societies consider the norm doesn't mean that norm is hardwired. That was why I brought it up. The women at home taking care of the family/men at work is not as much the traditional standard as people expect. One major trait in differentiating sexes is an economy industrializing. And, the Victorian Era was when our economy got industrialized, and our sexes got a lot more differentiated. I'm in America, and Europe wasn't mentioned. But, in the US, before then was the "Frontier Era", and women worked just like the men did. Even in the Victorian Era, women still tended to work. Just not in jobs that were considered as "real" as men's jobs. I'm just finishing a class on gender(for fun), so I've looked at a lot of this stuff. The author of the textbook, and to a lesser degree, the prof., seem to think everything is sociologically based. I've noticed that tendency among most theorists--everything is caused by their field. I just mention these theories as ways of saying "not necessarily".
|
|
|
Post by MissAnxiety on Dec 2, 2003 10:21:34 GMT -5
We are all shy and all suffer living in this society that we do. We should all encourage each other and stick together no matter what our sex is ;D
|
|
|
Post by CaryGrant on Dec 2, 2003 12:13:20 GMT -5
Hear, hear, Miss M! The research shows that 20% of American children are shy, and this increases to ~50% of American teenagers and adults. Further, this latter percentage is increasing. Shyness is NOT valued in Americansociety (as if I need to tell anyone here that... : . In other cultures (Asian, for ex.), shyness is valued, so being shy is much less stressful. In my experience, sociology professors like everything to be culturally determined because that gives them license to be the arbiters of "good" and "bad" culture. Also, 90% of them are Marxists, and Marx decreed that culture determines character, conveniently ignoring cross-cultural commonalities and significant differences between individuals.
|
|
|
Post by MissAnxiety on Dec 2, 2003 12:32:38 GMT -5
Okay maybe I should have rephrased that. Forget the society thing...my whole point was that "We are all shy and all suffer..." And that "We should all encourage each other and stick together no matter what our sex is ;D." Better?
|
|
|
Post by MissAnxiety on Dec 2, 2003 12:35:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by smartie on Dec 2, 2003 12:58:43 GMT -5
Yes that's very true, and I am not disputing it. The point I'm trying to make is that of the dysfunctionality. Not all females are/were good gatherers, not all males were good hunters. Not all of either sex were good parents, and by virtue of that their offspring didn't always make it, or were poorly adjusted adults, and were thus subject to natural selection. It can take generations to eradicate bad genes, and I am not and was not suggesting that a 'shy' gene is a bad gene, merely a less appropriate one for males in a hunter/gatherer society.
We have devolved responsibility for hunting now to specialists; but we still have the hunting instinct, and we still produce the hormones that made us male, and that gave/still gives us some of our predating inclinations. We still hunt (symbolically), we still subject to hormonal components of mating and pairing behaviour, and our endocrine system is still operating an influence on our behaviours.
I refered to women yesterday simply to illustrate some of the very basic attrbutes of behaviour that have SOME biological determiners. We all know that this is a tiny part of the overall picture as to what influences ANY behaviour of any man or woman. Hereditary characteristics do have some influence though, as do the effects of parenting, peer pressure, cognitive influences, intellect, sensory experience, etc etc. We are the sum total of everything that has been passed on to us from previous generations, and of every event in our lives, from the moment we were born up until and including today (for me that means the writing of this post, and the fact that I have run out of cigarettes).
I'd be interested to hear from both of you again, I appreciate the things you say. CG is right; too many academics assume the role of God... The reason they have an inclination to pigeon hole things in to good and bad, right and wrong, stems I think from their attitude that the masses are not capable of resolving the finer points of their theories, or maybe they just stop looking when they think everything fits the bill (maybe an application of Occam's Razor?)
So, to answer the original question... who is the shyer, male or female, and why?
|
|
|
Post by InmanRoshi on Dec 13, 2003 16:02:00 GMT -5
I think that girls might very well be more shy as a whole than men. On the other hand, I think there's also more of a stigma attached to shy men, as typically admired masculine traits in our western society: decisive, confidant, assertive, etc. etc. are pretty much the antithesis of shyness.
I grew up as the only boy among sisters. I was always amazed out how cruel my sister and her friends could be when talking about shy guys .. "What a loser .. he's probabaly, like, a serial killer or something. The guy never talks, its creepy."
And when it comes to dating, its still the emphasis of the man to approach the woman, even in these modern times, so shyness and a lack of self-confidence can be particularly debilitating to a man in regards to love-life.
|
|