To me as someone with a uterus, reading the first article was at times very uncomfortable but yet so insightful. I think I was so scared that you had a hidden agenda that were too far off my values and core belief. I find your articles too rewarding to be forced to stop reading them. I quickly understood though that there were no such thing.
I think we too seldom go to first principle and truly dissect important topics like you are doing now.
Alexandra, you truly made my day. I have a big grin right now.
This is exactly what I was hoping.
Sometimes, I forget that you don't know me personally. I'm glad that your curiosity beat your fear, that in the process you got to know me better, and hopefully in the future we can all build something together from a place of trust.
I’ve written about 20k words on the game theory of sex this week. The goal is to get it done fast (at least the first batch) because I’ want to give news on that quickly!
I am finding it funny that people are complaining that you're not touching certain pet subjects when you're clearly saying "hey guys, I am approaching from first principles"
It's abundantly clear that in the 20th article of this series you could approach LGBT or whatever. But it helps very much to understand what differs men and women biologically BEFORE adding the social layer (because obviously the biology came BEFORE culture). And understanding what differs men and women socially BEFORE adding other variations like transsexuality.
Some people in the comments are like these people who want to study quantum physics before understanding cinematics.
Also, we can always decide that something is natural and do the unnatural thing, like wearing shoes. You shouldn't need to explain these things.
I'm not familiar with the broader conversation that's happening throughout the world, but here in my corner of the US, there is a movement towards the nonrecognition of differences between the sexes and classifying any difference as a difference between genders. It's almost heresy to write or say many of the things you've already written. Even your title "What Makes Men and Women Different?" is antithetical. I think this is why you got (and will continue to get) so much push back.
I believe you used to live in CA so I'm sure you're familiar with this cultural change, but I can't recall how long it's been since you moved to Europe and it's possible the conversation is happening differently over there. I am looking forward to this series, and please, don't walk on eggshells. There's enough of that happening all over the place. State your opinion boldly (hopefully backed by research and thoughtfulness) and try not to worry what people will think or say about you. I imagine you will lose readership no matter how you frame your articles and points of view. I will continue to read even if you disagree with me. Good luck.
I lived in the Bay Area for 15y or so until the early 2020s, and was at Stanford in the late 00s. Enough to have a taste of it, but I try not to pay attention to the news about it because everybody has an agenda and poor quality data.
I did want to signal that I wasn’t going to follow narratives (hence the title), but with warmth and consideration. That 2nd part was not as well achieved, hence this article.
I wouldn’t say I walk on eggshells, but rather I am trying to be considerate and listen (otherwise I don’t learn!). Respect is cheap. It’s only expensive if it comes at the cost of truth, but that won’t happen here.
Thank you for your support! Listening and disagreeing is probably the best we can do!
When I’ve gone out to have a good time, e.g., dancing. That is what I want to do. I am not looking to hook up, I just want to dance. Or, if I am walking down the street (at night) and some creep in a car starts waving money at me, I feel pissed off, not complimented. Finally, some guy leering at me as he tries to engage me in conversation makes me want to disengage.
I guess the fundamental issue for me is that when someone is “hitting” on me, I am being viewed as an object rather than a person and I don’t want more of that in my life. If I’m the exception, I am surprised. But perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by “hitting on”.
And yes, you’re right, I definitely want to read that article.
I don’t like the experiences I’ve described (more annoyance than nuisance). Flirting, when there is mutual attraction is fun. Being ‘hit on’, especially when it’s a one-way street, is not desirable.
I have one addition to this. For me flirting/"hitting on me" is only comfortable when the guy (I'm a bi ciswoman, but this only relates to men) comes forward with sensitivity and vulnerability - together with all the classic masculine & high social status moves. So, to get me, they have to be both warm and firm. It wasn't always like that, when I was young I could be more attracted to men with narcissistic tendencies, but the more self-development I've done (now 10 years), the more I cannot stand men who do not attend to me with sensitivity and vulnerability. It's the greatest turnoff, as letting them in (literally!), is so vulnerable, and if it's not mutual, Im harming myself and creating tension and armour in my body.
But I still want them to be cheeky and risk-taking 🤷♀️
"If your partner seems to criticize more, have less interest in sex, or act in ways that feel “crazy” to you, this book can help.
Fighting or defending yourself doesn’t resolve anything. Withdrawing into work or your phone makes it worse. And contorting yourself to avoid conflict just kills her respect for you.
The answer is to develop and live from your Masculine core. This book shows you how in an actionable three-part Masculine Blueprint: Respond vs. React, Provide Structure, and Create Safety. This is not the old model based on control, but rather one based on clarity.
This is not a manual for Alpha Dogs, nor a fuzzy spiritual guide. It is a clear set of principles that help you develop your Masculine leadership."
I've always gotten the sense that the poor understanding and toxicity surrounding this topic is rooted in the people that are so quick to jump down your throat about even broaching it. This has been going on well before the internet, as it's always been a faux pas to reference in conversation outside of your inner circle.
It's as if anyone who reacts this way is immediately assuming bad faith
This chills any discourse on the topic, and the information vacuum left is filled by those who don't care, who typically tend to be the ones spewing bullshit and acting in bad faith. Which perpetuates the toxic nature of this topic, and prevents evolving beyond it.
This leaves us with a bunch of people who know little - and what little they do "know" often is misconceptions - and yet they're too afraid to ask anything to fix that, while those who do are only left with vitriol and bullshit from bad actors, thanks to society generally making the topic taboo.
What I really don't understand though, is how people who subscribe here couldn't catch their knee-jerk reactions before trying to shut down the conversation. It's evident from your past content that you're clearly acting in good faith, and correct yourself when missteps occur. This is the exact kind of person you want to fill the information vacuum.
Comments like that only serve to perpetuate the toxic discourse on this topic, and yet they come from people who clearly wish it wasn't so cancerous.
Just let him cook, and correct things as they come
I also think that most people don't know me, and that for many, this is such an important and personal topic that it's very hard to get the emotions out of the way.
I think it's very important to bring these people along the way. Their feelings are legitimate, and represent a big share of the population. Only when we assuage these fears can we have a true conversation about it. I hope we do in the coming weeks!
Helpful to have this outline of where the series is heading.
At the risk of widening your scope - or this might be a suggestion for the next series...
... I feel there is more to life than maximising happiness and rights. These things are important but i think there are other bases to cover. Example: a happy idyllic island society that gets hit by a tsunami, or suffers a massive crop failure, or discovered by a colonising power and overrun, possibly wiped out. The happiness drops dramatically as a result. The society's happiness was not resilient to external threats. It was not even aware of the threats.
So i think there is another category of stuff that matters. Stuff that protects us against bad things. Resilience or antifragility. Main components include:
- awareness of threats
- inclination and capabilities to manage these threats if they arise and or prevent them
- long term growth in skills and capabilities
- means by which these elements can be retained and grown over generations.
I agree! This is part of happiness mgmt I'd say though, isn't it?
Because maximizing happiness is not about just maximizing present happiness, but the expected value of happiness, which means future happiness is important too, albeit discounted by some factor that we should decide as a society. Even if you discount it a fair amount, the amount of time that we have left in the universe is so big that a bias towards the future is an inherent part of happiness.
This is why for example I have been covering climate change and AI—AI being the single biggest threat to this all, through the singularity.
In other words, I'm pretty effective altruist on all of this, without going to their extremes.
These are enormous questions with even bigger ramifications.
I’ve really enjoyed some unique perspectives on Substack. I love the diversity and rawness of opinions direct to an audience, and the high quality of reasoning but get really concerned about the scientific knowledge and how thorough authors are at finding and referencing high quality existing research.
Super glad that you’re keeping an open mind during this series and making corrections as you go based on reader feedback - bravo for that truly!
Please consider proactively engaging with more expert guest opinions and research first like scientists studying evolutionary biology and psychology, sexual selection, reproduction and genealogy studies, gender study historians, and philosophers as well as female or other gender/sex contributors instead of relying on reader feedback.
Based on how you’re referencing your research in first article, it seems you may be unaware of several existing bodies of research.
Thanks Mimi! Can you point to some specifics that illustrate your point?
I would argue that I interact with plenty of experts! Every paper I quote is a conversation with an expert (me reading their paper and putting in context with the other papers I read). I would want to believe that talking directly with them wouldn’t change substantially their take, since they took years to publish these papers.
I do want to do what you say, more narrowly, but so many people have an agenda here that it’s hard to pick whom. So I prefer to form an independent opinion, and then talk with experts live. Otherwise they’re just going to sway me without an ability on my side to question them.
Is this reasonable?
If you have specific names, I’d gladly look at them though!
First, I am an admirer of a lot of your work and ideas. But...
I am sorry, but I stopped reading pretty early in the first article in this series. Here are my basic criticisms:
- You are in fact going over some hoary old "evolutionary biology explains gender differences" tropes from 20 years ago
- The premise itself is faulty. Evolution is complex, mate selection takes place exclusively within a cultural context and not in a void, and the number of factors is almost certainly much greater than the ones you are considering.
- As a result, any conclusions you make are likely to incomplete at best, harmful at worst, and likely to be misinterpreted and misused.
By comparison, long-term, careful studies of human behavior in cultural context, like the ones done by John Gottman and co-workers, are much more likely to be helpful in helping people understand their relationships and how to manage/improve them.
You’re basically saying that evolutionary psychology is unknowable. Here’s why I disagree:
- the replication crisis in psychology touches mostly things like priming and the like, educational psychology like types of learning, clinical psychology, or developmental psychology. Not as much evolutionary psychology
- For each claim, I mention the papers behind it. I look at all the abstracts, and frequently read full papers. I don’t make claims when the support is only in one paper, and if there’s more than one, I compare all the papers I can find on the topic. If they mostly agree, I make the claim. Many times, the papers I read are meta-analyses or reviews, so they already look at all the evidence. As a result, I feel you can challenge specific claims, but challenging them all does not sound reasonable.
- unlike other fields of psychology, ethnographic and zoological studies here are extremely relevant. When you see the same behavior across animals and societies, you know the cultural substrate is controlled for
The conclusions will certainly be incomplete, but I don’t know why they would be hurtful and misinterpreted, when you get the entire community to read tens of thousands of words on the topic, hopefully put in a way that reflects what we know and is nuanced.
Here’s another way to put it: Where else can you read the latest science on the topic, without an agenda, and in a way that can be discussed honestly and openly? Is that not a worthy endeavor?
Once again I am enjoying your writing. I admire your focus on the topic, while responding to inquiries kindly.
One way I like to think about biology is that living things are simply vehicles for their DNA to pursue immortality. What those living things feel or think is utterly unimportant to their DNA.
And so unemotional exploration of scientific fact leads to a better understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe.
Fairness and morality are not necessary for life to exist and haven't been part of the equation for the majority of life's history.
Tomas, when you use the term "hit-on," do you mean "initiate?" That women want more men to initiate the interaction, or want men to initiate more? "Initiate" has a completely different connotation to me than "hit-on."
Sure. "Hit on" always has a negative connotation, in Canadian English anyways, as in unwanted, just as your other commenters has said. However, initiate just is the notion of who is making the first move to interact with someone else. Some one has to make the first move, and in my culture, males are often taught that it is their job to initiate, and they are not always very good or smooth at it, and it can come across has unwelcome, thus the "hit-on" term. Later when you get into the same sex territory that's another story. Not sure what your "receipts" are, if it's from men or women or both, but in this day and age it feels like we should know how to initiate interactions in a kind and gentle way, and if that person is not interested, that we just say, sure, no problem and walk away with a smile.
Your sense that you are currently approaching this topic in a “first principles” and biologically rigorous basis is what I find objectionable so far. With the most flimsy of references throughout (I wrote a very long comment addressing several of these instances but decided it was out of scope for a comment section), you ended the second piece with a “everything we’ve learned today” list that posits your assertions have been demonstrably proven. I WISH this series would accomplish what you have set out to do, and I was excited when I started because I had such respect for you. I strongly believe there are biological and cultural distinctions between males and females that shape our behavior, relationships, social institutions, etc in powerful ways. Sex matters, and the how and why leads to interesting questions, including the ones you have outlined. But I think you need to be much more modest in your conclusions about what we know, and particularly what you have credibly demonstrated.
Your very long comment is very much what I'd love to read! Otherwise, we stick to the high-level, which is not very productive.
You're right that I tend to share my conclusions with a bit more authority than is guaranteed. That's because we do this naturally when we talk, and I write as I talk. Also, because it's demonstrable that caveating copy makes it less understandable and memorable in people's minds. That said, I still try to adjust the authority, and your comment on conclusions is valid. I'll try to be more conscious of those in the future.
"But culture and society can override any instinct." :
I have to disagree with you on this one Tomas. Society and culture can *help* overcome *some* instincts, but not all.
For example, communism was an attempt to overcome the selfishness inherent in human nature to create a fairer, more caring society.
After more of a century of numerous experiments, we can safely conclude that it failed in this task, compared to capitalism, which *redirects* the intrinsic selfishness of human nature to benefit society.
Communism failed because it did not take sufficient account of the importance of human nature.
Capitalism succeeded because, like a judo practitioner, it used the force of human nature to its advantage, to create richer societies that benefit the greatest number.
Communism did override selfishness as much as it could, and did so for nearly a century. And then of course it failed, because it's one of the examples that illustrates the point I made that sometimes, the forces of society and biology push in opposite directions, and that creates friction.
I think the job here is to identify all these points of friction and reduce them as much as possible, in a way that makes the limits the overall friction. Which capitalism does.
I don't agree : Communism *thought* it had got rid of selfishness, but this was an illusion nurtured by blind ideologism.
Selfishness was still there, in the profound inefficiency of people demotivated by the fact that they couldn't enjoy the fruits of their labors, by the social strata, officially gone but still present, by the privileges granted to themselves by Communist Party cadres, by the omnipresent black market, by the growing number of people who disagreed and had to be punished, sent to the Gulag, or killed, and by many other signs.
You'd have to be blind (and blinded) not to see it, and yet ideologues were blinded en masse.
I appreciate trying to come from “first principles”, I would just like to warn against dismissing culture too easily. Not only does biology impact culture, but culture also impacts the way we interpret biology. Or what we deem to be biology. Coming from first principles has to include skepticism about the approach of looking at gender as only male and female. Otherwise a lot of nuance will get lost, I think.
What on earth was wrong with the word "womb"? A nice old Germanic word that means exactly the same thing as "uterus". Those of us who are tired of random words being deemed offensive by some diffuse would-be authority would appreciate you sticking to first principles in the realm of language also-- please don't kowtow to the censors out there! They'll always be back for more if you try to placate them. Try writing poetry and you'll appreciate why we might want to keep synonyms--and different registers of language-- alive :)
Thank you. This is a reasonable reaction. I like using a wide variety of words too.
In this case, I wasn't particularly wedded to the word. I liked the reproductive connotation. But I wasn't aware of other connotations that were less positive. The uterus is a very reasonable replacement, maybe superior, and appears less divisive. If you switch words that have a similar value to represent the same concept, and one has a lower cost than the other, I think that's worth it. I also think from my experience that this is an even more important aspect in US culture, and since the majority of the audience is from there, it makes sense to be sensitive to it.
That said, you're right that this doesn't mean I should change any word I'm asked to change!
Yes, I get that we all end up avoiding words that have been labelled "divisive". Don't think I don't do it too, though interestingly here in Spain, "inclusive" language is operating differently to English. ie: In Australia you have to call everyone an " actor" now, male or female, because "actress" was deemed to have "less positive" overtones. Meanwhile in Spain we can no longer employ neutral plurals that coincide with the masculine form, so we have to say everything twice: niñas y niños, professores y professoras etc. When adjectives get involved, any text quicky turns into an indigestible word salad... I'm watching with interest to see what will happen when we catch up with the US on all the "non-binary" stuff. Maybe we'll all just have to shut up...
English is my mother tongue, yet I must be unaware of the "other connotations" regarding womb that have popped up when I wasn't looking. Used to be there was a register for medical language and warmer friendlier words for the everyday feeling. Personally "uterus" sounds to me like the word the gynecologist uses when I go for a Pap smear, while "womb" is the thing that is aching when I wake from a dream about something that's threatening my kids... and now, interestingly, also my new granddaughter, where does this ancestral, genetic mind-body connection spring from I wonder?
Cheers in any case, good for you for trying to insert a bit of clear thinking into the increasingly muddy waters of the contemporary sex/gender debates... I hope you come out alive!
As a Spaniard, I hear that many people say that, but you can totally say niños and most ppl won't care.
And knowing Spaniards and Americans, I doubt Spaniards will fully catch up. I think Americans have a strong tendency for introspection and overthinking. Spaniards replace that time with enjoying life!
Yes, outside the world of education, sanity still prevails! Thank goodness :) But the educational community in Spainis firmly esconced in enforced Newspeak...
First time commenter and trying to be rational but honestly it's challenging because you're, perhaps unintentionally, hitting a lot of buttons. Your first article definitely raised my hackles as it clearly comes from a male point of view and I'm not surprised you received so many comments. What is your thesis is exactly what I was wondering the whole way through reading - are you able to elaborate on "I fear that our current culture around the sexes has shortcomings that don’t allow us to be happiest. I want us to identify these inefficiencies and help nudge society in a direction to correct them." What are the shortcomings? What is 'inefficient' about relations between the sexes at the moment?
Some of your newsletter sounds like the aim is how to help men to get a date... there's a murky mixing up of statements about 'us' and 'society' with decision making by individuals.
You're trying to tackle huge complex topics, which people spend their lives researching and writing about, but you're not willing to read one book as you only have the time to skim read journal articles? Perhaps you've bitten off more than you can chew and should slow down and read a bit more before making some of these broad, sweeping statements.
On 'women want more men to hit on them', I agree with other commenters that this doesn't agree with the female experience more broadly in today's society, this is my personal experience and one which is pretty widely documented. Google search "unwanted male attention" for many many results.
For something readily available, short, enjoyable, and a simple (obviously not comprehensive) explanation of a woman's perspective, maybe you could find the time to watch the Barbie movie. It may seem like it but I am really not joking.
Clearly unintentional. As you say, I'm a male, and can't do much about it. I'm hoping by being open and candid about it, I can get corrected by others, which is exactly what's happening here.
I mentioned many inefficiencies already. Maybe changing the format will help. At the top of my head:
- Rape and harassment are not uprooted yet
- Toxic jealousy is not uprooted yet
- Incels
- Older women who feel unseen
- Gaps in sex drive in couples
- More women want men to hit on them
- Both men and women would prefer more sexual partners
- Society disagrees on what is the right level of masculinity, or what is toxic masculinity
- Society disagrees on what are good and reasonable canons of beauty
- Society disagrees on what liberal relationships should be
- There's an extremely high divorce rate, meaning the institution doesn't work for many
- Many people are not having children, some of them because they don't find with whom, in a world where we can basically reach any other human being on Earth through social networks, that seems odd
- Many people have kinks that are socially deemed unacceptable
- Women wish they could have more access to leadership positions, and that would probably be better for the world, but it hasn't fully happen yet
And many more
I'm willing to read books! I read many books. In fact, I'd say 80% of the books I read come from audience recommendations. What I can't do is commit to read any specific book.
I have a different approach to building knowledge than most academics, probably coming from my background building products. Academics spend years looking into a specific thing, read everything there is to read about the topic, think hard about it in their ivory tower, sometimes do some specific research on the topic (usually narrow because of costs), and then publish something, years later. Some people also make products like that, and what happens is the moment they push those products to customers, they fall apart because they overthought the entire thing instead of asking customers what they think.
Instead, I study more intensely than most, publish fast, and course correct, the way an engineer publishes a product to see if it sticks. And then they iterate. This only works when you seek criticism.
The approach has worked across disciplines so far, including COVID and GeoHistory to name a couple. It doesn't mean I will always get it right, quite the opposite. I will get it wrong for sure. But the pace of learning and progress is optimal this way.
Your evidence on women wanting more men to hit on them is perfectly consistent with a minority feeling this way, which is what evidence suggests.
The Barbie reco is a very actionable one. I might do that. Thank you!
I believe may of the problems in our culture are due to burdening our males with hate. We need to celebrate maleness and encourage that 50% of our population to fully embrace who and what they are.
Thank you for your response. Many of the items in your list are indeed thorny and admirable challenges to take on. Being male is not a problem but does give you a particular perspective and what you can do is make an effort to take in perspectives from women, and gender diverse people, to ensure that your conclusions are not biased by your gender. I take your point on committing to particular books but I do hope you find something insightful. The reader recommendations so far seem to have been pretty good.
Very much disagree about it only being a minority of women who want less men to hit on them. There are actual professional approaches designed around helping women and girls deal with the anxiety many feel regarding unwanted advances from men - this is not a small thing. Perhaps you mean that the (minority) of women who are single and currently looking for a partner want more men to make the first move in a dating situation but if this was the intent I would probably still disagree with your thesis. There have been studies of dating apps which show the reverse.
From reading the links, I have a couple of hypotheses on the miscommunication.
First, there’s sexual harassment. This is always unwanted, and we need to shape society to make it stop.
Then there’s unwanted and wanted sexual attention.
Catcalling and lascivious comments clearly fall in the bucket of unwanted sexual attention and need to stop.
Then there’s the well-intentioned approaches from men, which can fall in the buckets of wanted or unwanted attention. The man by definition doesn’t know whether his approach will be wanted or not (and sometimes neither does the woman until the man opens the mouth).
What this makes it clear is that the details of what is studied matter a lot here. Maybe a hypothesis that we can all get behind is: “Women will seldom appreciate approaches that suggest sexual coercion. Some women don’t want any additional attention whatsoever. A majority would welcome more quantify of respectful approaches from men.”
Yes the language makes a bit of a difference but not as much as you might expect.
No I don’t believe a majority of women would welcome more romantic approaches from men, even when limiting that to only ‘respectful’ approaches. Who gets to decide what is respectful?
You seem to be assuming that women as a category of people are all single and looking for a partner and perhaps you are referring to messaging on dating apps(?). Women who are in relationships generally won’t want any romantic approaches at all, and for various reasons this applies to a good chunk of single women too. And the circumstance matters.
As a woman living in an English-speaking western nation I think women just want to be treated with respect by men full stop. Leave the 'approaches' out of it. Start with respect and then go from there but if you’re trying to provide relationship or dating advice to men I am not the place to come to. Esther Perel has a good approach and provides good advice IMHO.
Perhaps you should reverse your hypothesis. I haven’t seen any comments agreeing with it, only a number of women vehemently disagreeing.
To me as someone with a uterus, reading the first article was at times very uncomfortable but yet so insightful. I think I was so scared that you had a hidden agenda that were too far off my values and core belief. I find your articles too rewarding to be forced to stop reading them. I quickly understood though that there were no such thing.
I think we too seldom go to first principle and truly dissect important topics like you are doing now.
Looking forward to read the rest of the series!!
Alexandra, you truly made my day. I have a big grin right now.
This is exactly what I was hoping.
Sometimes, I forget that you don't know me personally. I'm glad that your curiosity beat your fear, that in the process you got to know me better, and hopefully in the future we can all build something together from a place of trust.
Still patiently waiting for your course on storytelling ♥️
Aaaaah! I have some surprise for you.
I’ve written about 20k words on the game theory of sex this week. The goal is to get it done fast (at least the first batch) because I’ want to give news on that quickly!
Tomas has a great TED talk on storytelling: https://youtu.be/VUT6GQveD0E?feature=shared
It's the intro!
I am finding it funny that people are complaining that you're not touching certain pet subjects when you're clearly saying "hey guys, I am approaching from first principles"
It's abundantly clear that in the 20th article of this series you could approach LGBT or whatever. But it helps very much to understand what differs men and women biologically BEFORE adding the social layer (because obviously the biology came BEFORE culture). And understanding what differs men and women socially BEFORE adding other variations like transsexuality.
Some people in the comments are like these people who want to study quantum physics before understanding cinematics.
Also, we can always decide that something is natural and do the unnatural thing, like wearing shoes. You shouldn't need to explain these things.
Great series, Tom.
There’s a decent argument that at least some culture precedes at least some biology. See, for example, the “self-domestication” theory.
True!
Yes, but then culture becomes biology.
You get me! Thank you :)
I'm not familiar with the broader conversation that's happening throughout the world, but here in my corner of the US, there is a movement towards the nonrecognition of differences between the sexes and classifying any difference as a difference between genders. It's almost heresy to write or say many of the things you've already written. Even your title "What Makes Men and Women Different?" is antithetical. I think this is why you got (and will continue to get) so much push back.
I believe you used to live in CA so I'm sure you're familiar with this cultural change, but I can't recall how long it's been since you moved to Europe and it's possible the conversation is happening differently over there. I am looking forward to this series, and please, don't walk on eggshells. There's enough of that happening all over the place. State your opinion boldly (hopefully backed by research and thoughtfulness) and try not to worry what people will think or say about you. I imagine you will lose readership no matter how you frame your articles and points of view. I will continue to read even if you disagree with me. Good luck.
I lived in the Bay Area for 15y or so until the early 2020s, and was at Stanford in the late 00s. Enough to have a taste of it, but I try not to pay attention to the news about it because everybody has an agenda and poor quality data.
I did want to signal that I wasn’t going to follow narratives (hence the title), but with warmth and consideration. That 2nd part was not as well achieved, hence this article.
I wouldn’t say I walk on eggshells, but rather I am trying to be considerate and listen (otherwise I don’t learn!). Respect is cheap. It’s only expensive if it comes at the cost of truth, but that won’t happen here.
Thank you for your support! Listening and disagreeing is probably the best we can do!
“Why do women want more men to hit on them than they do today?”
What!?! Perhaps I am an exception, but this is exactly opposite of what I would want. I do not want men to view me as something to be scored. Yuck.
I have the receipts!
Sounds like an article you'll want to read :)
But I'm interested in your experience. Tell me more. Why not?
Mostly because it has been unwanted.
When I’ve gone out to have a good time, e.g., dancing. That is what I want to do. I am not looking to hook up, I just want to dance. Or, if I am walking down the street (at night) and some creep in a car starts waving money at me, I feel pissed off, not complimented. Finally, some guy leering at me as he tries to engage me in conversation makes me want to disengage.
I guess the fundamental issue for me is that when someone is “hitting” on me, I am being viewed as an object rather than a person and I don’t want more of that in my life. If I’m the exception, I am surprised. But perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by “hitting on”.
And yes, you’re right, I definitely want to read that article.
Yes that experience makes sense.
Does that mean you don't like it, or the way you've experienced it so far, the quality is so low that it's more a nuisance than a positive experience?
I don’t like the experiences I’ve described (more annoyance than nuisance). Flirting, when there is mutual attraction is fun. Being ‘hit on’, especially when it’s a one-way street, is not desirable.
I have one addition to this. For me flirting/"hitting on me" is only comfortable when the guy (I'm a bi ciswoman, but this only relates to men) comes forward with sensitivity and vulnerability - together with all the classic masculine & high social status moves. So, to get me, they have to be both warm and firm. It wasn't always like that, when I was young I could be more attracted to men with narcissistic tendencies, but the more self-development I've done (now 10 years), the more I cannot stand men who do not attend to me with sensitivity and vulnerability. It's the greatest turnoff, as letting them in (literally!), is so vulnerable, and if it's not mutual, Im harming myself and creating tension and armour in my body.
But I still want them to be cheeky and risk-taking 🤷♀️
This might be a cue https://www.amazon.com/Masculine-Relationship-Blueprint-Inspiring-Devotion/dp/1699443386
"If your partner seems to criticize more, have less interest in sex, or act in ways that feel “crazy” to you, this book can help.
Fighting or defending yourself doesn’t resolve anything. Withdrawing into work or your phone makes it worse. And contorting yourself to avoid conflict just kills her respect for you.
The answer is to develop and live from your Masculine core. This book shows you how in an actionable three-part Masculine Blueprint: Respond vs. React, Provide Structure, and Create Safety. This is not the old model based on control, but rather one based on clarity.
This is not a manual for Alpha Dogs, nor a fuzzy spiritual guide. It is a clear set of principles that help you develop your Masculine leadership."
I've always gotten the sense that the poor understanding and toxicity surrounding this topic is rooted in the people that are so quick to jump down your throat about even broaching it. This has been going on well before the internet, as it's always been a faux pas to reference in conversation outside of your inner circle.
It's as if anyone who reacts this way is immediately assuming bad faith
This chills any discourse on the topic, and the information vacuum left is filled by those who don't care, who typically tend to be the ones spewing bullshit and acting in bad faith. Which perpetuates the toxic nature of this topic, and prevents evolving beyond it.
This leaves us with a bunch of people who know little - and what little they do "know" often is misconceptions - and yet they're too afraid to ask anything to fix that, while those who do are only left with vitriol and bullshit from bad actors, thanks to society generally making the topic taboo.
What I really don't understand though, is how people who subscribe here couldn't catch their knee-jerk reactions before trying to shut down the conversation. It's evident from your past content that you're clearly acting in good faith, and correct yourself when missteps occur. This is the exact kind of person you want to fill the information vacuum.
Comments like that only serve to perpetuate the toxic discourse on this topic, and yet they come from people who clearly wish it wasn't so cancerous.
Just let him cook, and correct things as they come
Thank you Nick.
I hear you, and that's reasonable.
I also think that most people don't know me, and that for many, this is such an important and personal topic that it's very hard to get the emotions out of the way.
I think it's very important to bring these people along the way. Their feelings are legitimate, and represent a big share of the population. Only when we assuage these fears can we have a true conversation about it. I hope we do in the coming weeks!
Helpful to have this outline of where the series is heading.
At the risk of widening your scope - or this might be a suggestion for the next series...
... I feel there is more to life than maximising happiness and rights. These things are important but i think there are other bases to cover. Example: a happy idyllic island society that gets hit by a tsunami, or suffers a massive crop failure, or discovered by a colonising power and overrun, possibly wiped out. The happiness drops dramatically as a result. The society's happiness was not resilient to external threats. It was not even aware of the threats.
So i think there is another category of stuff that matters. Stuff that protects us against bad things. Resilience or antifragility. Main components include:
- awareness of threats
- inclination and capabilities to manage these threats if they arise and or prevent them
- long term growth in skills and capabilities
- means by which these elements can be retained and grown over generations.
Wdyt?
I agree! This is part of happiness mgmt I'd say though, isn't it?
Because maximizing happiness is not about just maximizing present happiness, but the expected value of happiness, which means future happiness is important too, albeit discounted by some factor that we should decide as a society. Even if you discount it a fair amount, the amount of time that we have left in the universe is so big that a bias towards the future is an inherent part of happiness.
This is why for example I have been covering climate change and AI—AI being the single biggest threat to this all, through the singularity.
In other words, I'm pretty effective altruist on all of this, without going to their extremes.
Hi Tomas,
These are enormous questions with even bigger ramifications.
I’ve really enjoyed some unique perspectives on Substack. I love the diversity and rawness of opinions direct to an audience, and the high quality of reasoning but get really concerned about the scientific knowledge and how thorough authors are at finding and referencing high quality existing research.
Super glad that you’re keeping an open mind during this series and making corrections as you go based on reader feedback - bravo for that truly!
Please consider proactively engaging with more expert guest opinions and research first like scientists studying evolutionary biology and psychology, sexual selection, reproduction and genealogy studies, gender study historians, and philosophers as well as female or other gender/sex contributors instead of relying on reader feedback.
Based on how you’re referencing your research in first article, it seems you may be unaware of several existing bodies of research.
Thanks Mimi! Can you point to some specifics that illustrate your point?
I would argue that I interact with plenty of experts! Every paper I quote is a conversation with an expert (me reading their paper and putting in context with the other papers I read). I would want to believe that talking directly with them wouldn’t change substantially their take, since they took years to publish these papers.
I do want to do what you say, more narrowly, but so many people have an agenda here that it’s hard to pick whom. So I prefer to form an independent opinion, and then talk with experts live. Otherwise they’re just going to sway me without an ability on my side to question them.
Is this reasonable?
If you have specific names, I’d gladly look at them though!
Dear Tomas,
First, I am an admirer of a lot of your work and ideas. But...
I am sorry, but I stopped reading pretty early in the first article in this series. Here are my basic criticisms:
- You are in fact going over some hoary old "evolutionary biology explains gender differences" tropes from 20 years ago
- The premise itself is faulty. Evolution is complex, mate selection takes place exclusively within a cultural context and not in a void, and the number of factors is almost certainly much greater than the ones you are considering.
- A lot of behavioral psychology research, particularly the kind that is splashy and shows up in the news, is non-reproducible. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18248
- As a result, any conclusions you make are likely to incomplete at best, harmful at worst, and likely to be misinterpreted and misused.
By comparison, long-term, careful studies of human behavior in cultural context, like the ones done by John Gottman and co-workers, are much more likely to be helpful in helping people understand their relationships and how to manage/improve them.
Thank you. This is a very interesting challenge.
You’re basically saying that evolutionary psychology is unknowable. Here’s why I disagree:
- the replication crisis in psychology touches mostly things like priming and the like, educational psychology like types of learning, clinical psychology, or developmental psychology. Not as much evolutionary psychology
- For each claim, I mention the papers behind it. I look at all the abstracts, and frequently read full papers. I don’t make claims when the support is only in one paper, and if there’s more than one, I compare all the papers I can find on the topic. If they mostly agree, I make the claim. Many times, the papers I read are meta-analyses or reviews, so they already look at all the evidence. As a result, I feel you can challenge specific claims, but challenging them all does not sound reasonable.
- unlike other fields of psychology, ethnographic and zoological studies here are extremely relevant. When you see the same behavior across animals and societies, you know the cultural substrate is controlled for
The conclusions will certainly be incomplete, but I don’t know why they would be hurtful and misinterpreted, when you get the entire community to read tens of thousands of words on the topic, hopefully put in a way that reflects what we know and is nuanced.
Here’s another way to put it: Where else can you read the latest science on the topic, without an agenda, and in a way that can be discussed honestly and openly? Is that not a worthy endeavor?
That’s how I see it.
I like what Gottman has produced.
Once again I am enjoying your writing. I admire your focus on the topic, while responding to inquiries kindly.
One way I like to think about biology is that living things are simply vehicles for their DNA to pursue immortality. What those living things feel or think is utterly unimportant to their DNA.
And so unemotional exploration of scientific fact leads to a better understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe.
Fairness and morality are not necessary for life to exist and haven't been part of the equation for the majority of life's history.
Indeed! This is how I see it. Hopefully we can get everybody on the same page!
Tomas, when you use the term "hit-on," do you mean "initiate?" That women want more men to initiate the interaction, or want men to initiate more? "Initiate" has a completely different connotation to me than "hit-on."
Yes that’s what I mean.
I didn’t know the connotation was different. Please tell me more!
Sure. "Hit on" always has a negative connotation, in Canadian English anyways, as in unwanted, just as your other commenters has said. However, initiate just is the notion of who is making the first move to interact with someone else. Some one has to make the first move, and in my culture, males are often taught that it is their job to initiate, and they are not always very good or smooth at it, and it can come across has unwelcome, thus the "hit-on" term. Later when you get into the same sex territory that's another story. Not sure what your "receipts" are, if it's from men or women or both, but in this day and age it feels like we should know how to initiate interactions in a kind and gentle way, and if that person is not interested, that we just say, sure, no problem and walk away with a smile.
I didn't realize these connotations—maybe because I'm not a native English speaker and have been out of the dating scene for many years.
Well, if it was just a matter of term, then you solved our problem. Thank you!
You're welcome! I'm a speech-language pathologist by training, so words and communication are what I do.
Your sense that you are currently approaching this topic in a “first principles” and biologically rigorous basis is what I find objectionable so far. With the most flimsy of references throughout (I wrote a very long comment addressing several of these instances but decided it was out of scope for a comment section), you ended the second piece with a “everything we’ve learned today” list that posits your assertions have been demonstrably proven. I WISH this series would accomplish what you have set out to do, and I was excited when I started because I had such respect for you. I strongly believe there are biological and cultural distinctions between males and females that shape our behavior, relationships, social institutions, etc in powerful ways. Sex matters, and the how and why leads to interesting questions, including the ones you have outlined. But I think you need to be much more modest in your conclusions about what we know, and particularly what you have credibly demonstrated.
Your very long comment is very much what I'd love to read! Otherwise, we stick to the high-level, which is not very productive.
You're right that I tend to share my conclusions with a bit more authority than is guaranteed. That's because we do this naturally when we talk, and I write as I talk. Also, because it's demonstrable that caveating copy makes it less understandable and memorable in people's minds. That said, I still try to adjust the authority, and your comment on conclusions is valid. I'll try to be more conscious of those in the future.
If you have more precise feedback, please share!
"But culture and society can override any instinct." :
I have to disagree with you on this one Tomas. Society and culture can *help* overcome *some* instincts, but not all.
For example, communism was an attempt to overcome the selfishness inherent in human nature to create a fairer, more caring society.
After more of a century of numerous experiments, we can safely conclude that it failed in this task, compared to capitalism, which *redirects* the intrinsic selfishness of human nature to benefit society.
Communism failed because it did not take sufficient account of the importance of human nature.
Capitalism succeeded because, like a judo practitioner, it used the force of human nature to its advantage, to create richer societies that benefit the greatest number.
I think we're saying the same thing again :)
Communism did override selfishness as much as it could, and did so for nearly a century. And then of course it failed, because it's one of the examples that illustrates the point I made that sometimes, the forces of society and biology push in opposite directions, and that creates friction.
I think the job here is to identify all these points of friction and reduce them as much as possible, in a way that makes the limits the overall friction. Which capitalism does.
I don't agree : Communism *thought* it had got rid of selfishness, but this was an illusion nurtured by blind ideologism.
Selfishness was still there, in the profound inefficiency of people demotivated by the fact that they couldn't enjoy the fruits of their labors, by the social strata, officially gone but still present, by the privileges granted to themselves by Communist Party cadres, by the omnipresent black market, by the growing number of people who disagreed and had to be punished, sent to the Gulag, or killed, and by many other signs.
You'd have to be blind (and blinded) not to see it, and yet ideologues were blinded en masse.
I appreciate trying to come from “first principles”, I would just like to warn against dismissing culture too easily. Not only does biology impact culture, but culture also impacts the way we interpret biology. Or what we deem to be biology. Coming from first principles has to include skepticism about the approach of looking at gender as only male and female. Otherwise a lot of nuance will get lost, I think.
Agreed.
I don't dismiss culture.
It's a layer on top of biology that can shape it completely, as I mention in the article
What on earth was wrong with the word "womb"? A nice old Germanic word that means exactly the same thing as "uterus". Those of us who are tired of random words being deemed offensive by some diffuse would-be authority would appreciate you sticking to first principles in the realm of language also-- please don't kowtow to the censors out there! They'll always be back for more if you try to placate them. Try writing poetry and you'll appreciate why we might want to keep synonyms--and different registers of language-- alive :)
Hi Gabrielle,
Thank you. This is a reasonable reaction. I like using a wide variety of words too.
In this case, I wasn't particularly wedded to the word. I liked the reproductive connotation. But I wasn't aware of other connotations that were less positive. The uterus is a very reasonable replacement, maybe superior, and appears less divisive. If you switch words that have a similar value to represent the same concept, and one has a lower cost than the other, I think that's worth it. I also think from my experience that this is an even more important aspect in US culture, and since the majority of the audience is from there, it makes sense to be sensitive to it.
That said, you're right that this doesn't mean I should change any word I'm asked to change!
Yes, I get that we all end up avoiding words that have been labelled "divisive". Don't think I don't do it too, though interestingly here in Spain, "inclusive" language is operating differently to English. ie: In Australia you have to call everyone an " actor" now, male or female, because "actress" was deemed to have "less positive" overtones. Meanwhile in Spain we can no longer employ neutral plurals that coincide with the masculine form, so we have to say everything twice: niñas y niños, professores y professoras etc. When adjectives get involved, any text quicky turns into an indigestible word salad... I'm watching with interest to see what will happen when we catch up with the US on all the "non-binary" stuff. Maybe we'll all just have to shut up...
English is my mother tongue, yet I must be unaware of the "other connotations" regarding womb that have popped up when I wasn't looking. Used to be there was a register for medical language and warmer friendlier words for the everyday feeling. Personally "uterus" sounds to me like the word the gynecologist uses when I go for a Pap smear, while "womb" is the thing that is aching when I wake from a dream about something that's threatening my kids... and now, interestingly, also my new granddaughter, where does this ancestral, genetic mind-body connection spring from I wonder?
Cheers in any case, good for you for trying to insert a bit of clear thinking into the increasingly muddy waters of the contemporary sex/gender debates... I hope you come out alive!
Thank you!
As a Spaniard, I hear that many people say that, but you can totally say niños and most ppl won't care.
And knowing Spaniards and Americans, I doubt Spaniards will fully catch up. I think Americans have a strong tendency for introspection and overthinking. Spaniards replace that time with enjoying life!
Yes, outside the world of education, sanity still prevails! Thank goodness :) But the educational community in Spainis firmly esconced in enforced Newspeak...
The same thing happened in the US, and they trained a generation
First time commenter and trying to be rational but honestly it's challenging because you're, perhaps unintentionally, hitting a lot of buttons. Your first article definitely raised my hackles as it clearly comes from a male point of view and I'm not surprised you received so many comments. What is your thesis is exactly what I was wondering the whole way through reading - are you able to elaborate on "I fear that our current culture around the sexes has shortcomings that don’t allow us to be happiest. I want us to identify these inefficiencies and help nudge society in a direction to correct them." What are the shortcomings? What is 'inefficient' about relations between the sexes at the moment?
Some of your newsletter sounds like the aim is how to help men to get a date... there's a murky mixing up of statements about 'us' and 'society' with decision making by individuals.
You're trying to tackle huge complex topics, which people spend their lives researching and writing about, but you're not willing to read one book as you only have the time to skim read journal articles? Perhaps you've bitten off more than you can chew and should slow down and read a bit more before making some of these broad, sweeping statements.
On 'women want more men to hit on them', I agree with other commenters that this doesn't agree with the female experience more broadly in today's society, this is my personal experience and one which is pretty widely documented. Google search "unwanted male attention" for many many results.
For something readily available, short, enjoyable, and a simple (obviously not comprehensive) explanation of a woman's perspective, maybe you could find the time to watch the Barbie movie. It may seem like it but I am really not joking.
Hi Nicola, welcome!
Clearly unintentional. As you say, I'm a male, and can't do much about it. I'm hoping by being open and candid about it, I can get corrected by others, which is exactly what's happening here.
I mentioned many inefficiencies already. Maybe changing the format will help. At the top of my head:
- Rape and harassment are not uprooted yet
- Toxic jealousy is not uprooted yet
- Incels
- Older women who feel unseen
- Gaps in sex drive in couples
- More women want men to hit on them
- Both men and women would prefer more sexual partners
- Society disagrees on what is the right level of masculinity, or what is toxic masculinity
- Society disagrees on what are good and reasonable canons of beauty
- Society disagrees on what liberal relationships should be
- There's an extremely high divorce rate, meaning the institution doesn't work for many
- Many people are not having children, some of them because they don't find with whom, in a world where we can basically reach any other human being on Earth through social networks, that seems odd
- Many people have kinks that are socially deemed unacceptable
- Women wish they could have more access to leadership positions, and that would probably be better for the world, but it hasn't fully happen yet
And many more
I'm willing to read books! I read many books. In fact, I'd say 80% of the books I read come from audience recommendations. What I can't do is commit to read any specific book.
I have a different approach to building knowledge than most academics, probably coming from my background building products. Academics spend years looking into a specific thing, read everything there is to read about the topic, think hard about it in their ivory tower, sometimes do some specific research on the topic (usually narrow because of costs), and then publish something, years later. Some people also make products like that, and what happens is the moment they push those products to customers, they fall apart because they overthought the entire thing instead of asking customers what they think.
Instead, I study more intensely than most, publish fast, and course correct, the way an engineer publishes a product to see if it sticks. And then they iterate. This only works when you seek criticism.
The approach has worked across disciplines so far, including COVID and GeoHistory to name a couple. It doesn't mean I will always get it right, quite the opposite. I will get it wrong for sure. But the pace of learning and progress is optimal this way.
Your evidence on women wanting more men to hit on them is perfectly consistent with a minority feeling this way, which is what evidence suggests.
The Barbie reco is a very actionable one. I might do that. Thank you!
"Of Boys and Men" by Richard Reeves.
I believe may of the problems in our culture are due to burdening our males with hate. We need to celebrate maleness and encourage that 50% of our population to fully embrace who and what they are.
Tell me more!
I'd be interested in your take on it. I recommend the book for an interesting overview!
Hi Tomas,
Thank you for your response. Many of the items in your list are indeed thorny and admirable challenges to take on. Being male is not a problem but does give you a particular perspective and what you can do is make an effort to take in perspectives from women, and gender diverse people, to ensure that your conclusions are not biased by your gender. I take your point on committing to particular books but I do hope you find something insightful. The reader recommendations so far seem to have been pretty good.
Very much disagree about it only being a minority of women who want less men to hit on them. There are actual professional approaches designed around helping women and girls deal with the anxiety many feel regarding unwanted advances from men - this is not a small thing. Perhaps you mean that the (minority) of women who are single and currently looking for a partner want more men to make the first move in a dating situation but if this was the intent I would probably still disagree with your thesis. There have been studies of dating apps which show the reverse.
Some links below but really I would advise just talking to a woman you know: https://adaa.org/learn-from-us/from-the-experts/blog-posts/professional/women-unwanted-sexual-attention-social
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9554274/
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/news/news-articles/women-over-3-times-more-likely-to-suffer-from-unwanted-sexual-attention-than-men-at-the-workplace
Enjoy Barbie.
From reading the links, I have a couple of hypotheses on the miscommunication.
First, there’s sexual harassment. This is always unwanted, and we need to shape society to make it stop.
Then there’s unwanted and wanted sexual attention.
Catcalling and lascivious comments clearly fall in the bucket of unwanted sexual attention and need to stop.
Then there’s the well-intentioned approaches from men, which can fall in the buckets of wanted or unwanted attention. The man by definition doesn’t know whether his approach will be wanted or not (and sometimes neither does the woman until the man opens the mouth).
What this makes it clear is that the details of what is studied matter a lot here. Maybe a hypothesis that we can all get behind is: “Women will seldom appreciate approaches that suggest sexual coercion. Some women don’t want any additional attention whatsoever. A majority would welcome more quantify of respectful approaches from men.”
Is this accurate?
Yes the language makes a bit of a difference but not as much as you might expect.
No I don’t believe a majority of women would welcome more romantic approaches from men, even when limiting that to only ‘respectful’ approaches. Who gets to decide what is respectful?
You seem to be assuming that women as a category of people are all single and looking for a partner and perhaps you are referring to messaging on dating apps(?). Women who are in relationships generally won’t want any romantic approaches at all, and for various reasons this applies to a good chunk of single women too. And the circumstance matters.
As a woman living in an English-speaking western nation I think women just want to be treated with respect by men full stop. Leave the 'approaches' out of it. Start with respect and then go from there but if you’re trying to provide relationship or dating advice to men I am not the place to come to. Esther Perel has a good approach and provides good advice IMHO.
Perhaps you should reverse your hypothesis. I haven’t seen any comments agreeing with it, only a number of women vehemently disagreeing.
Thanks!
Does your opinion change if instead of “hit on” I used “approach”? Another commented suggested this might be the issue.
Thanks for the opinion and links! Will check them out
Looking forward to the continual journey. Have no expectations, just curiosity.
That's all we should have! Curiosity! Thank you