@fractalwalrus
What would you say the reason behind the psychological differences in men and women are given there were many years of evolution that happened. Bipeds came into existence around 3 million years ago I think?
I should be more precise here with what I was saying. So, I would not dispute the claim that there is a general variance in how males and females tend to behave as a whole (as this is what the data I have seen confirms). Where I think there is still room for discussion available is in the realm of the magnitude of dimorphism in physical characteristics relative to the magnitude of dimorphism (as you had referred to it) present in the form of behavioral differences. This would largely depend on how one could even go about quantifying these differences in the first place. Interestingly, the study I linked showed this:
View attachment 8352
source:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/
I would expect that there would be selective pressures present to act as a control against certain behaviors, but I do not know that we have accurately identified which behaviors were selected against. Some individuals have a tendency to claim that certain behaviors are "unnatural" because evolution would have selected against them, and yet the behaviors have been observed to persist (albeit in relatively small concentrations when compared to the norm). The distribution of these traits among males and females seems to vary by ethnicity as well. Are these differences hardwired, or are they socialized? As per your linked study about early behaviors:
"Previous research showed that fairness attitudes develop in childhood, but their—possibly gendered, developmental trajectory remains unclear.
"We hypothesised that gender-related fairness attitudes might depend not only on the gender of the Allocator, but also on that of the Recipient. To examine this, we tested 332 three to 8-year-old children in a paired resource allocation task, with both boys and girls acting as Allocators and Recipients.
We indeed found gender-related effects: girls more than boys aimed to reduce advantageous inequity, and Allocators of both genders were more averse against male Recipients being better off.
Notably, older girls exhibited an envy bias, i.e., they tolerated disadvantageous inequity more when the resource allocation was in favour of other girls than when it favoured boys." source:
https://neurosciencenews.com/neurodevelopment-sharing-psychology-27807/
The children surveyed were around 7-8 years old, which is still far enough along in development to have observed a few things about their surrounding society. That being said, my familiarity with the literature suggests that testosterone may make males more competitive (though the type of competition shown is highly context dependent):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9901191/.
But anyways, to clear up confusion, the reason I said that SOME men need to fight is because that was how it was historically, though the percentage of men in a given population that needed to fight has seen an uptick with mass conscription as opposed to the feudal levy. Hunter-gatherer tribes could probably afford to lose a few male individuals, but the tribe would probably be hobbled if it lost too many, as tasks would need to be divided up differently. If you sent too many peasants to die in a war, you're going to lose your agricultural surplus.
