Re: Women's longevity linked to avoiding risky habits

Stupendous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted:

>>> The article is badly flawed - since it treats behaviour as not
>>> biological in nature - saying:
> 
>>> ``The study by the Canadian Institute for Health Information
>>>   rejects the widespread assumption that women live longer because of
>>>   an inborn biological advantage.''
>>>
>>> ...and...
>>>
>>> ``"It's not biological advantage that makes the difference, it's
>>>    the kind of habits that people have that make the
>>>    difference," Stewart said.''
>>>
>>> Risk-taking behaviour in males is not some sort of
>>> easily-dispensed-with cultural phenomenon.
>>>
>>> Rather, it *is* inborn - it has a biological basis.
> 
> I believe this to be a pretty silly comment to say the least. How is
> it badly flawed because of a misuse of a word or phrase? Does that
> have any significence in terms of the result of the experiment
> whatsoever?

I said the *article* was badly flawed.  I have no strong opinions on
the experiment - since I haven't looked closely at it - since AFAIK,
it isn't publicly available.

However, I should perhaps say that I'm often sceptical of such
provocative articles.  Often the results seem to be calculated
more to generate sales of the paper they are published in -
than to throw light on the subject.

> People understand biology to mean if humans were kept in a cage. Of 
> course all behaviour results from biology, are you going to say that 
> being able to speak Japanese is a biological trait and everyone that 
> says it isn't is "badly flawed"?

Speaking Japanese is clearly not an inborn trait.  Take Japanese babies
and raise them in another culture - (or do the reverse experiment)
and the results are pretty good.

However male risk-taking behaviour isn't like that.  Males have a tendency
towards riskier behaviour that transcends cultural and species barriers.

It basically comes down to reproduction.  Being female is (more-or-less) a
sure thing.  However, being male is a gamble - you might have many
offspring - or you might have none.  Those who think they are in the
latter category are liable to gamble on risky ventures that /might/ pay
off and catupult them into the former one - including behaviour
patterns that might adversely affect mortality - such as physically
attacking rivals.

Characterising the male tendency towards such behaviour as "not inborn"
is very misleading.
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Remove lock to reply.