Scientists Say Men and Women Process Risk Differently

imagesI can’t wait to see how the men and women in our comment section “process” these findings.

Via Scientific American:

Researchers use gambling games to understand what we do when immediate rewards are pitted against long-term gains. Most of these games find no major differences in how men and women play. An experimental setup called the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), however, finds consistent—and large—differences between the behavior of men and women: men are better at figuring out the strategy that reaps the bigger payoff.

Keep reading.

  • Anarchy Pony

    There are women in our comment section? o_0

    • Hadrian999

      usually the internet job spammers have female names, does that count

    • Dionne Seevers

      Yes

  • Dionne Seevers

    Yes.

  • Hadrian999

    gambling is a poor measure of risk, we need some sort of running man/ the most dangerous game type of experiment to get to the reality of risk

    • InfvoCuernos

      like “Hunger Games”?

      • Hadrian999

        well I would say create the illusion not actually kill people, that would be tough to get past the institutional review board

  • emperorreagan

    On the handful of times I’ve tried to play blackjack or poker or something, I lose interest about 4-5 hands in and just start betting everything every time.

    • Rhoid Rager

      You too, eh? Gambling never interested me much. Posting comments on the Internet is enough of a risk to get my rocks off.

      • emperorreagan

        I guess I always viewed gambling more as a cost versus being a risk – I’m paying $20 to do this thing that is supposedly enjoyable. Then it inevitably turns out that it’s not enjoyable AND everyone takes it incredibly seriously.

  • sambrown299

    I would think that throughout our time, men and women have sort of branched out from each other. They would then process most experiences uniquely, it goes for every human as well. Our brains are so complex that each person can have a different reaction to any situation.

  • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

    There’s some TV show currently on called “Naked and Afraid”.

    They drop a “naked” man and woman off in some remote location (with a film crew), generally with a knife and 1 other item (along with recording equipment in a burlap sack). They are strangers to one another until that moment. The goal is to be able to survive 21 days.

    On the emotional front, the men tend to go to shit pretty quickly, then finally rally.

    The women are the ones who definitely hold it all together, from day 3 to 10.

    The men frequently take some outsized gambles which would either doom them or improve things considerably.

    In a more “natural” setting(than a highly edited reality tv show), losing a man or two in order to secure a perpetual source of food or water or shelter might not negatively impact the survival and reproductive capacity of a group.

    Indeed, I notice I only have one rooster out there for every 4 or 5 hens.

    • Ted Heistman

      women have been holding it together for about a million years!

      • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

        Yeah, they don’t get nearly enough credit.

  • bobbiethejean

    I have one word to say to this: Walstreet. That is all.

  • Ted Heistman

    I think this is true and it leads to arguments. Once again I turn to evolutionary psychology, not because its necessarily true, because basically being a hunter gatherer just seems more fun! Originally women cultivated plants, gardened, built shelter, cooked the meals and raised kids.

    So guys really had fuck all to do. So they would basically do the risky shit, like hunt, where often enough they would encounter members of the enemy tribe and then they would fight. Also they were keen on taking psychedelic drugs.

    So basically men were expendable. Lose enough women and then suddenly everything goes to shit, because nobody knows how to make houses or clothing anymore or prepare food or raise kids. Lose some guys, just have more, or join the other tribe.

  • Ted Heistman

    Men from intensively Agricultural societies are more risk averse than men from hunting or herding societies. Because raising things like wheat and rice takes men and women working together. After the plow was invented, men got in on the Farm work, before that it was women doing all the gardening.

    Mongols, etc. More risky

  • Ted Heistman

    Well if you think about it, killing an elephant and gathering veggies to make a salad are two pretty different tasks. One is really risky with a huge pay off, the other one is more reliable.

    Modern life basically entails not much risk. Its all about enduring the daily grind, hence video game escapism for many males.

21
Read previous post:
Wall Street and the Hegelian Dialectic

Via orwellwasright. These days, describing the big banks as criminal syndicates extorting billions from the public is hardly sticking one's head above the parapet: the foreclosures scandal, in which GMAC,...

Close