[HN Gopher] Gender and Age Differences in Love Styles and Attitudes
___________________________________________________________________
Gender and Age Differences in Love Styles and Attitudes
Author : sofard
Score : 89 points
Date : 2022-09-22 15:12 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.dimensional.me)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.dimensional.me)
| mellosouls wrote:
| Apple Users only. Responses are not necessarily indicative of how
| the respondents will actually behave in real life.
| hammock wrote:
| Would you date a non Apple user? Perhaps someone who doesn't
| even have a phone?
| izacus wrote:
| Eww, dating a green bubble is gross.
| jacooper wrote:
| Lol, i hope this is satire.
| hammock wrote:
| Cant speak for OP specifically, but in general, it's
| not..
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Responses are not necessarily indicative of how the
| respondents will actually behave in real life._
|
| That's the case with any response anyone gives under almost all
| life contexts...
| mellosouls wrote:
| Not necessarily, but it is a particular potential flaw in
| surveys regarding private and intimate subjects, or those
| affecting social status or self-perception.
| zionic wrote:
| Honestly I find most studies based solely on self-reported data
| worthless.
|
| What people say they'll do/buy is often only loosely correlated
| with what actually happens.
|
| See:
|
| -YouTube thumbnail controversy, vs what people actually click
| on
|
| -/r/apple and other comment section's obsession with the
| commercially-failed mini lineup of iPhones
|
| -everyone says ads don't work on them, but ads work
|
| I could go on
| guilhas wrote:
| Yes we all know Apple users only care about one thing... the
| next I product /s
| kbennatti wrote:
| My personal experience supports a lot of this. I've become more
| practical and less idealistic with age and that's mostly been a
| great thing for me.
| jxramos wrote:
| that's an interesting take, there is something very
| deflationary and depressing when one realizes ideals were
| inflated and unrealistic. Staying practical as a grounding
| mechanism, fascinating stuff.
| Karawebnetwork wrote:
| Gender stereotypes are social issues. They are not international
| and also differ per age cohorts even in the same region. I would
| be curious to see the same set of results split into different
| demographics and not just gender + age cohort.
| kova12 wrote:
| You might be underappreciating genetic component here.
| Difference between sexes are very likely evolutionary, rather
| than social.
| Karawebnetwork wrote:
| You are mixing gender roles and sex here. Yes, variables like
| the ratio of sex hormones will lead to different results but
| that's not all there is to it.
|
| Matriarchal societies would definitely have different results
| than a country where women have no rights. Even in countries
| that are more average in gender equality, how do you explain
| the difference between countries in the percentage of women
| in leadership positions or in parliament?
|
| "Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in
| developed societies (such as France and the United States)
| compared to less-developed countries (such as Zimbabwe and
| Malaysia)" 1 2
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits_an.
| ..
|
| 1 Funder, David (2010). The Personality Puzzle. NY: WW Norton
| & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-93348-2.
|
| 2 Costa, P.T.; Terracciano, A.; McCrae, R. R. (August 2001).
| "Gender differences in personality traits across cultures:
| Robust and surprising findings". Journal of Personality and
| Social Psychology. 81 (2): 322-331.
| doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322. PMID 11519935.
| seer-zig wrote:
| Serious question, how many matriarchal societies have there
| been in history? There's a reason that practically all of
| them did not survive.
| Georgelemental wrote:
| > Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in
| developed societies (such as France and the United States)
| compared to less-developed countries (such as Zimbabwe and
| Malaysia)
|
| One theory I have heard to explain this is that is wealthy
| societies, men and women are free to follow their own
| differing inclinations, while in poor undeveloped societies
| people choose whatever path offers the best economic and
| survival outcomes.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| I wonder how much the small number of "gift" lovers is because of
| cultural mores, that if you say, "oh yeah mostly what I want is
| my significant other gifting me things" you sound like a shallow
| gold digger.
| azemetre wrote:
| Is there even a consensus that love languages are a valid
| concept? I ask because it's hard to see how falsifiable the idea
| is, reading about love languages seems highly "westernized" when
| love is a universal feeling not bound by culture.
|
| How do love languages apply to women in Saudi Arabia or Papua New
| Guinea? What about subsistence farming communities in Africa?
| What about native tribes in Brazil or Colombia?
|
| IDK, love languages seem like any other pop psychology fad like
| Myers-Briggs or whatever came before it then promptly forgotten.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Human behavior is flavored in the context of culture.
|
| A western interpretation of love and the associated
| descriptions probably doesn't apply to other cultures.
| sofard wrote:
| The term "validity" is thrown around a lot but there's no
| universal measure of psychometric validity. In simple terms,
| something is valid if it's predictive of something else that is
| useful (usually a behavior or another construct). There's
| plenty of studies that investigate the validity of love
| languages around things like marital satisfaction etc. More
| importantly, for the purposes of this study which is just based
| around self-reported preferences (and not psychometric
| properties), validity doesn't really matter. Reliability does,
| and there are is plenty of research around the reliability of
| these scales.
| SnooSux wrote:
| Personally I find it to be a useful model. It's not going to
| perfectly describe every relationship accurately. But I find it
| gives me an opportunity to be introspective about a
| relationship and my contributions to it, including my
| shortcomings.
|
| Not everything needs to be scientifically rigorous to make a
| positive impact. Though I agree it's useful to keep in mind the
| limitations of a given description. MBTI is neat but making it
| part of a job application feels like a step too far.
| yamazakiwi wrote:
| It's generally used as a starting point for discussing
| relationship needs. I put this under the flawed but useful
| category. Although it's really just another way to label
| yourself to others.
|
| I don't see it as harmful but I'm sure we'll see more about it
| in the future as it has grown in popularity. Every woman in
| their 20s/30s I talk to has at one time mentioned it to me
| which was not the case until about 2 years ago.
|
| I'm sure different cultures will have different ways of
| expressing affection thus leading to a different set of "Love
| Languages".
| ravenstine wrote:
| The data is interesting, but I see it as poor quality. People are
| horrendously bad at self assessment on average, and many have
| "main character" syndrome that biases them towards claiming
| favorable traits they may lack in practice.
|
| There's a reason you don't ask a woman for advice on dating
| women, or men on how to date men. Most people, particularly young
| people, don't actually know what they want. Personality tests
| aren't worthless, but you're essentially asking people about
| themselves that way.
|
| A better study should ask one sex their perception of the other.
| This is imperfect, but I believe personal experience is more
| useful than self assessment or personality tests. In the end,
| it's how the sexes _actually_ interact that matters.
| greenonions wrote:
| It's true that people don't have any idea about themselves, but
| I'm very skeptical you would get any better data by asking a
| different sex.
|
| Just as much as people don't know themselves, they often know
| even less about others.
| Melatonic wrote:
| I think a much better way would be to ask the best friends of
| people to anonymously rate their friend and how they date. The
| best friend will be close enough to probably have a good idea.
| Obviously they like the person if they are friends (so there
| are biases here as well) but they might be more likely to
| notice patterns the person is otherwise oblivious to.
| Quanttek wrote:
| No wonder that a website based around personality testing that
| describes the author's INTP score would uncritically engage with
| the ideas of love languages and attitudes - former of which is
| based on the anecdotal observations of a priest and was never
| well-validated by science
| delecti wrote:
| I think love languages are good tool for getting on the same
| page 1:1 with a partner, but they're only marginally more
| useful than horoscopes. Things like "my partner really
| appreciates if I've got my arm around them while watching a
| movie" or "my partner appreciates if I get a pot of coffee
| going while they're in the shower" are good things to
| establish, and love languages are a good lens to establish
| them. But so many people want concise objective measures of who
| people are, and put way more weight on things than they
| deserve.
| compiler-guy wrote:
| Although neither is scientific, as a framework for talking
| about relationships, love languages are far better than
| horoscopes because love languages are purely personal
| preferences and horoscopes are random based on birth date.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| I agree, an INTP would usually be more analytical
| noobermin wrote:
| Does "gender gap" here matter more than what larger fractions
| show? For example, they say "women desire more Affirmation" but
| 49% have it as a top two while 56% have "time" in the top two.
| Men also have 54% for time in the top two. I feel like that's
| more interesting than looking at percentage differences (which
| tbh don't really seem to matter that much for this statistic).
|
| EDIT: a striking example of this, they say "women give more
| gifts" in terms of LL they express, as a finding. But only 32%
| have this as a top two expressed LL, so a good majority of women
| don't even have gifts as a top two expressed LL. So, who cares
| about the percent difference 8%, does it matter? What does it
| even mean? What if 1% of men did X vs 9% of women? Why would the
| interesting takeaway be "wow, women are more likely than men to
| do X!!" vs. "gee, a sheer minority of people do X at all."
|
| Saying the words "women are more likely than men to do X" leaves
| the reader unfortunately with the impression "many women do X,"
| whereas that might not be true.
| SkyBelow wrote:
| >Saying the words "women are more likely than men to do X"
| leaves the reader unfortunately with the impression "many women
| do X," whereas that might not be true.
|
| I wonder if this is related to "X is better than Y." leading to
| "How dare you say X isn't bad!" I didn't, X can be extremely
| horrible, it can be the second most horrible thing to exist.
| The only qualifier I gave was that Y was at least one rank more
| horrible than X. If instead I had used "Y is worse than X" this
| likely wouldn't have happened.
|
| I'm wondering if many people, when reading a relative
| comparison, imagine it in some absolute setting and then assume
| that was the intended information to convey. If your case they
| imagine a case where more women than men do X, meaning they
| imagine a whole lot of women doing X and very few men doing X,
| even though it could actually have been 2 of every million
| women vs 1 of every million men.
| gotoeleven wrote:
| >>>Saying the words "women are more likely than men to do X"
| leaves the reader unfortunately with the impression "many women
| do X," whereas that might not be true.
|
| Is there an accepted term for the extra caveat-ing and
| qualifying that people do with language these days to avoid the
| non-logical misinterpretations of factual statements by stupid
| people?
| yakubin wrote:
| What is missing here is a study of the desire to be alone.
| coldtea wrote:
| They tried, but those users didn't get back to the
| researchers...
| kgwxd wrote:
| I thought I had that desire most of my life and recently
| figured out that was far more about my major anxiety to be able
| to provide quality "service" (as the article calls it) in all
| relationships, from casual conversation to romantic. Obviously,
| there are still times I want to be alone, but I'm more aware if
| it's due to anxiety and try to deal with that feeling if it is.
| That's just what I figured out for myself, not trying to speak
| for anyone else.
| sofard wrote:
| That's a really powerful self-discovery. Obviously some
| people are more introverted than others, but introversion has
| more to do with how we handle (over)stimulation than it does
| desire for social connection and acceptance. Humans are
| incredibly social creatures by nature. Even the most
| introverted people usually want connection.
| kgwxd wrote:
| I'm extremely fortunate to have a partner that valued what
| we had enough to stick around for a long time but, this
| past year, it was starting to reach a breaking point. That
| lead to big talks, some scary but polite, some loud and
| angry. A lifetimes worth of under-the-surface stuff all
| came out over just a few months.
|
| What I think we figured out is that we have "compatible"
| (co-enabling) anxieties that keep our relationship mostly
| functional. That feels like a drastic over-simplification
| but accurate, I think. All I know is it feels like the most
| emotionally productive year of my life and our relationship
| is way better now. However, I still haven't figured out how
| to tone down the anxiety much :)
| dQw4w9WgXcQ wrote:
| > What I think we figured out is that we have
| "compatible" (co-enabling) anxieties
|
| Good news, you're completely normal. Every couple has
| their unconscious dance both in a positive and negative
| way.
|
| Barring physical ailments, low vitamin D (etc), the
| solution for anxiety is do your healing work. Anxiety is
| often unresolved fear, anger, shame, guilt, etc. Everyone
| has anxieties, and they have to be dealt with daily.
| blt wrote:
| thanks for sharing, it's nice to see personal insight about
| something not related to work here.
| yakubin wrote:
| In my case, I used to want to be in a relationship, but with
| age the prospect lost all appeal, and people ceased being
| interesting to me in that way at all. I never get the
| thoughts "oh, this person is really nice, I wonder whether I
| should ask them out on a date" anymore. I do however value
| normal friends a lot more than I used to. Still I need space
| even from friends. My life wouldn't be as enjoyable without
| the solitary mountain hikes and shooting photos of animals
| for hours alone.
| jrgoff wrote:
| That's a useful realization. I have come to similar
| realization for myself in recent years. In case it is useful
| to others who might see this, I have found it useful to
| explore this dynamic in myself through the framework of
| avoidant attachment styles. There are some helpful resources
| and supportive communities available online for people
| wanting to find happier/healthier ways of navigating their
| attachment style. In particular there are a couple of
| avoidance focused subreddits that I've found supportive and
| they keep a list of links to other resources that many find
| helpful.
| kgwxd wrote:
| Thanks. I never heard that term, just reading the first
| search result it definitely seems to be right in the domain
| of what I'm figuring out.
| jonahx wrote:
| A good thought experiment here would be: If you were
| magically assured that the other people would be thrilled to
| be around you, find all your jokes funny, etc (fill in your
| own fantasies), would you still want to be alone?
|
| That distinguishes between "I truly want to be alone" and "I
| want to be alone because I am not the person I wish I were".
| cobertos wrote:
| Only 2 genders listed though? Why does ever app/service like this
| make this assumption
| sofard wrote:
| The app measures more than 2 genders but there's not enough
| sample to draw any conclusions.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| All data is data, if you want more go find or acquire.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| The OP says, under "Methodology notes":
|
| > Non-binary and "other" genders are excluded from this study
| due to lack of sample size.
| ravenstine wrote:
| Because performing math on Infinity is really hard.
| [deleted]
| young_unixer wrote:
| Probably because intersexuality is so rare that there's not
| enough data.
| Quanttek wrote:
| intersexuality concerns sex, not gender, where non-binary,
| genderqueer, etc. individuals exist. The social construct of
| gender is what is being studied here
| joebob42 wrote:
| They haven't made this assumption, they've explicitly stated
| there was not sufficient data but acknowledged that other
| people not covered by the survey exist.
| SoftAnnaLee wrote:
| While far from a good study, nor a good analysis of the data, it
| does introduce some aspects to think about in terms of what one
| wants in a relationship. For example, the PopSci phenomenon of
| Love Languages is not exactly the most scientifically valid
| measure; but it still has utility in making people in a
| relationship become more aware in how to listen and more
| effectively communicate with a partner. [1]
|
| While the study does present the love languages. The section
| about "love attitudes" seems like it could have similar utility
| for understanding what one wants in a relationship. Providing
| some ideas to introspect with about one aims to feel and/or
| express in a relationship. I'm wondering if anybody here has any
| good resources on the topic? Since the site and study seems to
| keep mum on that topic.
|
| [1] https://www.mic.com/life/do-love-languages-actually-
| matter-p...
| greenonions wrote:
| My wife and I read the book on love languages just prior to
| getting married. I don't think it's a scientific fact or
| anything, more like a well thought out linguistic tool for
| discussing feelings.
|
| It simplified the process of learning each other's needs and
| communicating, and through time we've gotten better. I'd
| recommend it to anyone.
| bush-bby wrote:
| All things considered, I was expecting there to be much higher
| gap between genders and ages. At only one point is there more
| than a 10% difference. In my experience men and women claim
| entirely different wants and needs.
| coldtea wrote:
| It's a meta-study based on already "summed-up" attributes, so
| at least two levels of information loss. And it's hardly
| qualitative. It can easily say, "both want X", but not touch at
| all "how" they express this want, or how they perceive X.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > or how they perceive X.
|
| Yes, giving identical labels to very different phenomena is a
| big problem in this kind of survey-based approach.
|
| On Maggie McNeill's blog, one post touched on the idea that
| women want sex to last longer. She pointed out that women do
| frequently _say_ this, but what they mean is that they want
| foreplay to last longer.
| sofard wrote:
| The differences between men and women are usually not as
| dramatic as standup comedy and television make them out to be.
| The differences aren't dramatic, but they are statistically
| significant.
| 1auralynn wrote:
| Right the point is that overall they are more the same than
| they are different.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Or any other social institution for that matter: religion,
| newspapers, families, schools, sports, &c. Social
| institutions are fundamental or at the very least complicit
| in the legitimization of the social mechanisms of
| typification. That is to say, licensing the idea and practice
| that individual behavior can be simplified to types.
|
| We all know the dangers of using oversimplified models in
| other contexts, but the same applies here and happens to be
| one of the largest generators of present conflict. It's a
| classic map-territory problem applied to people themselves
| and - whether the map makers know this or not - those who
| control the maps can sometimes also control the territory.
| jl2718 wrote:
| There is. Massively so. https://www.reddit.com/r/TinderData/
|
| Basically this just tells me that people lie on personality
| tests, or they interpret questions differently. Behaviorism is
| the only science in psychology. Question answering should be
| considered a behavior, and not a reflection of internal
| characteristics. In that light, you essentially have, among men
| mostly, a behavior, direct presentation of mating intentions,
| which has been consistently punished, and the opposite
| behavior, reflection of female mating desires, which has been
| inconsistently rewarded. The result is either duplicity or
| avoidance. It seems that the reverse phenomenon may occur for
| expectations later in the relationship, as evidenced by females
| initiating 90% of divorces among college-educated women.
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| I don't think Tinder is any more an accurate way to evaluate
| how people love than this study.
| golemiprague wrote:
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| In my experience men and women's emotional levels aren't very
| different but how they respond to those emotions can be
| different because cultural context must also be navigated. In
| America it isn't manly to express a deep craving for cuddles,
| but every heterosexual woman I've met have been surprised by
| how touch-needy men end up being.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-22 23:02 UTC)