Why are there no female Audiophiles?

[PHD]

There are, but they're usually half-naked. standing next to large loudspeakers...

Now seriously, my wife listens to music on her phone w/o even connecting headphones and can watch an entire movie even after accidentally switching the AVR mode to multichannel stereo. I guess that it's because their mind is set differently than ours.

 

[Pearljam5000]

There are, but they're usually half-naked. standing next to large loudspeakers...

Now seriously, my wife listens to music on her phone w/o even connecting headphones and can watch an entire movie even after accidentally switching the AVR mode to multichannel stereo. I guess that it's because their mind is set differently than ours.

No please don't say that lol
Their minds can't be different it's all social reasons , not biological , it's taboo to claim genetics or evolution is responsible for anything
It's not politically correct

 

[Axo1989]

"in general we tend to overestimate biological determinism and underestimate social factors."

It's the exact opposite in the BS politically correct world we live in.
It's frowned upon to say that men and women are different Becaue everyone has to be "equal "
Well it's total BS.
Millions of years of genetics and evolution plays a big part .
How much ? I don't know
I *assume * at least 50% I have no proof
It's my intuition.
Secondly English is not my native tongue so obviously it's harder for me to explain exactly what I mean, so it may seem as changing opinions to you which it isn't .
Bottom line, culture or no culture
Women are into other stuff than men and it's been like that for millions of years .

Can I assume your putative "BS politically correct world" expresses a contrary desire for return to the more binary/less epicine construct of gender, ie before feminism and Foucault? I don't think that re-hashing gender conventions will answer questions of biology vs culture (that would be begging the question in the true sense) but I expect gender conventions are the basis for the strong over-representation (statistically speaking) of males in hi-fi and audiophile culture.

 

[Axo1989]

There are, but they're usually half-naked. standing next to large loudspeakers...

Now seriously, my wife listens to music on her phone w/o even connecting headphones and can watch an entire movie even after accidentally switching the AVR mode to multichannel stereo. I guess that it's because their mind is set differently than ours.

My business partner listens to music on their phone without even connecting to headphones and can spend an entire evening socialising without feeling the need/desire to connect said music to a proper loudspeaker. I'd also say my friend's mind is set differently from mine. What is my friend's sex?

For that matter what is it that "sets" a mind?

 

[Pearljam5000]

Can I assume your putative "BS politically correct world" expresses a contrary desire for return to the more binary/less epicine construct of gender, ie before feminism and Foucault? I don't think that re-hashing gender conventions will answer questions of biology vs culture (that would be begging the question in the true sense) but I expect gender conventions are the basis for the strong over-representation (statistically speaking) of males in hi-fi and audiophile culture.

My only desire is the truth
And If it's not politically correct to say that women are different than men also Becaue of genetics even though it's the truth
I'm against that
I'm against masking the truth just for being politically correct .

 

[MattHooper]

My business partner listens to music on their phone without even connecting to headphones and can spend an entire evening socialising without feeling the need/desire to connect said music to a proper loudspeaker. I'd also say my friend's mind is set differently from mine. What is my friend's sex?

That actually describes me, often enough (M). I even started a thread based on my satisfaction listening to music just from my iphone speakers.

 

[MattHooper]

My only desire is the truth
And If it's not politically correct to say that women are different than men also Becaue of genetics even though it's the truth
I'm against that
I'm against masking the truth just for being politically correct .

This being a site that respects a scientific attitude, declarations of "the truth" (about sexes or anything else) will meet skeptical scrutiny, and asked to be justified with good evidence. We certainly observe different trends between males and females. But claims about what is "true" in explaining them is another thing.

 

[tmtomh]

Yes, I know. He said that socialization can explain "almost all" the differences Pearljam mentioned (which were pretty expansive subjects).

So the question remains "can it?" With respect to what Pearljam referenced, can all the things antcollinet believes can be explained by socialization (whatever they are) actually be explained purely by socialization? And how firmly established are these claims?

I don't know. And I was trying to point out some hurdles to assumptions either way. But I'm personally not ready to make such declarations when, as far as I know, much of this isn't settled and antcollinet has already expressed his own intuitions on the nuture/nature balance - 95% nurture/5%nature - which strike me as..well...not justified by any research I'm aware of.

(BTW, where you going to explain why you asked, earlier, if I was on the Steve Hoffman forums? I was left to speculate about your point, but I'm not sure if I addressed why you asked).

There are plenty of examples on the Hoffman forums of people saying stupid, often sexist or essentialist sh** about women and gender-related matters.

 

[Pearljam5000]

This being a site that respects a scientific attitude, declarations of "the truth" (about sexes or anything else) will meet skeptical scrutiny, and asked to be justified with good evidence. We certainly observe different trends between males and females. But claims about what is "true" in explaining them is another thing.

Bottom line is *science * says genetics and other biological plays a not so small part in the difference between males and females
So claiming that it's mostly social that's the BS politically correct part of it all.

 

[Axo1989]

Bottom line is *science * says genetics and other biological plays a not so small part in the difference between males and females
So claiming that it's mostly social that's the BS politically correct part of it all.View attachment 310811

For sure, sex differences. That's almost tautological. Now look up gender differences, etc.

 

[Axo1989]

That actually describes me, often enough (M). I even started a thread based on my satisfaction listening to music just from my iphone speakers.

Haha I remember that one. The divide between you phone-speaker listeners and the rest of us is a yawning chasm that dwarfs the differences discussed in this thread,

 

[MattHooper]

There are plenty of examples on the Hoffman forums of people saying stupid, often sexist or essentialist sh** about women and gender-related matters.

Ok. I missed those, then.

Though, as I indicated before, in some cases I'd want to see what someone actually thinks, if their views are pushed. If off-handed remarks, quips and jokes are put in to that "sexist" category, you'll find that virtually anywhere that sex/behavioural differences are being discussed, including when women are discussing men. (E.g. I recently saw a thread with many females discussing "why don't more guys like Billie Eilish?" and remarks about the male ego and "small p*nis" remarks quickly came about...)

The difference between the sexes is a standard source of humour (and some jokes are supposed to be funny precisely because they are obviously "sexist"), so I can imagine many off handed remarks or attempts at humour might be taken as deep seated or strongly held views when they might not be.

(I try to be in the giving-people-the-benefit-of-a-doubt camp, on-line and otherwise)

 

[egellings]

Is it?

Isn't suggesting that socialization can fully account for all these differences begging the question somewhat, as if such things have been settled scientifically or otherwise?
(I don't see that it's been established, research-wise).

I certainly agree that an appeal to biological differences to explain current trends in men and woman's behaviour can be too facile an explanation, and lots of mischief and harm has come of prejudice or ignorance disguised as biological speculation.

On the other hand...seeking to understand what IS the case in terms of biological influence can't be ruled out of hand, for us humans. And there seems to be plenty of evidence of the influence of genetics as well. Which is why many of these questions aren't as yet settled.

Socialization clearly can have huge effects. Yet there can be a chicken-or-the-egg issue when adducing socialization as a hypothesis: What accounts for any particular trend in socialization? Let alone for many of the very large trends seen over time between men and women?

What for instance accounts for the trend we often see cited in far higher harassment for females by males - be it on social media (a female name will bring in far more intrusive, harassing DMs apparently) or just in general? If the answer is "Well, the answer is only in how males are socialized to be that aggressive" then...what explains such a strong socializing trend? What explains how the social milieu of male aggressiveness arose in the first place? Is it going to be "socialization all the way down?" That seems improbable on it's face, given it seems you are going to hit biological differences and hence different imperatives, and hence different motivation imperatives, at some point.

So when it comes even to the obviously different trends we all observe between males and females in regard to technically oriented hobbies like audio, I agree we shouldn't be too facile and assume it's down to biology. But perhaps it's too soon to rule any biological influence out, in terms of trends (not rules!) in what the sexes are inclined toward. Pure blank slatism seems pretty implausible at this point, in regard to human behaviour.

Aggressive, bullying men may simply be suffering from a case of testosterone poisoning. Need to find out where the needle valve is for that hormone, and maybe close it a quarter turn.

 

[Travis]

This is precisely not what it is - it's not "evolution"; there are clear evolutionary/genetic differences between most men and most women, but you can't simply map those onto complex, nuanced activities and pursuits in modern society that combine many kinds of physical and mental attributes. I won't want to sound dramatic, but this kind of simplistic mapping of alleged biological differences onto societal roles and activities has been the foundational error behind all kinds of bad psuedoscience and some quite horrifying ideologies and systems of oppression over the past few hundred years.

Social conditioning, societal rules, unconscious bias, and neuroplasticity play huge roles in how people are, and as science and evidence-oriented folks here, we should be very critical of any point of view that lumps all that under the heading of innate biological characteristics.

If one wants to dig into this, have a look at genetics, then epigenetics, then socialising in different settings, then ....

I don't think one scientific disipline will fully explain something like "why do women perform better in a traumatic stressful event" or "why don't women have an interest in or appreciate high quality sound reproduction."

Genetics (and epigenetics) will partially explain why some diseases are more prevalent in one gender than the other. For example, it is well known that several genes involved in immunity are located on the X chromosome (see chart below), as well as many genes involved in neurodevelopment or cancer. For instance, research has found 6 out of 783 X chromosome genes with tumor-suppressive function had loss-of-function mutations in males but not in females..

As far as what genetics can tell us, It would seem to make sense for scientists to simply look at the genes on the Y chromosome, determine their function, and mutation, and it would be simple to lay out what the fundamental differences between humans with two X chromosomes (females( and one X and one Y (males).

Until last year, the Y chromosome was only partially mapped, and there were significant gaps. It is accepted by genetic science to "estimate" the gaps, it's done on the other chromosomes, it was thought the Y chromosome had about 30 million base pairs sequence.

I got my copy of the journal Nature last week which published the study from last year, and it turns out gap estimates had errors and were way off. There are over 64 million pairs of sequences to the reference. Here is the preprint of the full study:

The complete sequence of a human Y chromosome

The human Y chromosome has been notoriously difficult to sequence and assemble because of its complex repeat structure including long palindromes, tandem repeats, and segmental duplications. As a result, more than half of the Y chromosome is missing from the GRCh38 reference sequence and it...

www.biorxiv.org

If you want to have a full understanding of a specific identified gender difference, it's going to be multidisciplinary. Genetics can explain diseases and disorders with gender differences. Human evolutionary biology, combined with neurology can tell you why and the genders process the senses like color, sound, smell, differently. Psychology, sociology, and economics can attempt to explain how child development, culture, economics, education, and other factors play a role.

The fact is, even with disease/disorders associated with pure genetics, the presence, or absence, or a specific gene pair. in nearly every case both epigenetics and environmental factors play some role.

If you want to take a deep dive and know the truth, what science can tell us in the fields of human evolutionary biology, genetics,, psychology and the social sciences, I would recommend (and what they can't tell us)

Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past​

By David Reich

War, Peace, and Human Nature: The Convergence of Evolutionary and Cultural Views​

By Douglas P. Fry

Origin: A Genetic History of the Americas​

By Jennifer Raff, 2022. ISBN: 9781538749715

 

[antcollinet]

Yes, I know. He said that socialization can explain "almost all" the differences Pearljam mentioned (which were pretty expansive subjects).

And then followed it up with post 451.

 

[Travis]

Though, as I indicated before, in some cases I'd want to see what someone actually thinks, if their views are pushed. If off-handed remarks, quips and jokes are put in to that "sexist" category, you'll find that virtually anywhere that sex/behavioural differences are being discussed, including when women are discussing men. (E.g. I recently saw a thread with many females discussing "why don't more guys like Billie Eilish?" and remarks about the male ego and "small p*nis" remarks quickly came about...)

Serious question.

Thread as in a thread on an internet Forum with a typical internet forum structure like this one? Or a "thread" on a social media platform - like Facebook, or a thread on something like Reddit?

Music is tracked in real-time by gender. Who is listening to it/buying it, by gender, age, ethnicity, and a multitude of other things etc.? It's what Nielson/Soundscan and others do. Buying and listening habits on music.

Most performers/bands in the top twenty of the Hot 100 do not have cross-over appeal. In other words, the top ten for men will rarely contain a single top ten for women. The one recent exception to this has been Burno Mars.

 

[antcollinet]

It's frowned upon to say that men and women are different Becaue everyone has to be "equal "

You are really misunderstanding the quest for equality.

It is fundamentally NOT about making everyone the same.

It is about giving everyone equal opportunities in all aspects of life regardless of their differences.

Again - this is fundamental. It is social justice (for want of a better phrase) 101.

 

[tmtomh]

Ok. I missed those, then.

Though, as I indicated before, in some cases I'd want to see what someone actually thinks, if their views are pushed. If off-handed remarks, quips and jokes are put in to that "sexist" category, you'll find that virtually anywhere that sex/behavioural differences are being discussed, including when women are discussing men. (E.g. I recently saw a thread with many females discussing "why don't more guys like Billie Eilish?" and remarks about the male ego and "small p*nis" remarks quickly came about...)

The difference between the sexes is a standard source of humour (and some jokes are supposed to be funny precisely because they are obviously "sexist"), so I can imagine many off handed remarks or attempts at humour might be taken as deep seated or strongly held views when they might not be.

(I try to be in the giving-people-the-benefit-of-a-doubt camp, on-line and otherwise)

It's not about what you think of the humor, Matt, or about you giving people of the benefit of the doubt - and conversely it's not about your suspicion that I'm lumping offhanded humor and "pushed and non-pushed" views into a lump category. I'm talking about how some women might be likely to perceive such online behavior, regardless of how you or I as men my perceive or experience it.

It's also worth noting that while of course men and women can (and do ) both say and write sexist things and act in sexist ways, there is a fundamental asymmetry in any situation like that, in which one group has historically (and presently) enjoyed more social power than the other. Both genders can be sexist, but it's not exactly the same thing.

 

[tmtomh]

I don't think one scientific disipline will fully explain something like "why do women perform better in a traumatic stressful event" or "why don't women have an interest in or appreciate high quality sound reproduction."

Genetics (and epigenetics) will partially explain why some diseases are more prevalent in one gender than the other. For example, it is well known that several genes involved in immunity are located on the X chromosome (see chart below), as well as many genes involved in neurodevelopment or cancer. For instance, research has found 6 out of 783 X chromosome genes with tumor-suppressive function had loss-of-function mutations in males but not in females..

View attachment 310810

As far as what genetics can tell us, It would seem to make sense for scientists to simply look at the genes on the Y chromosome, determine their function, and mutation, and it would be simple to lay out what the fundamental differences between humans with two X chromosomes (females( and one X and one Y (males).

Until last year, the Y chromosome was only partially mapped, and there were significant gaps. It is accepted by genetic science to "estimate" the gaps, it's done on the other chromosomes, it was thought the Y chromosome had about 30 million base pairs sequence.

I got my copy of the journal Nature last week which published the study from last year, and it turns out gap estimates had errors and were way off. There are over 64 million pairs of sequences to the reference. Here is the preprint of the full study:

The complete sequence of a human Y chromosome

The human Y chromosome has been notoriously difficult to sequence and assemble because of its complex repeat structure including long palindromes, tandem repeats, and segmental duplications. As a result, more than half of the Y chromosome is missing from the GRCh38 reference sequence and it...

www.biorxiv.org

If you want to have a full understanding of a specific identified gender difference, it's going to be multidisciplinary. Genetics can explain diseases and disorders with gender differences. Human evolutionary biology, combined with neurology can tell you why and the genders process the senses like color, sound, smell, differently. Psychology, sociology, and economics can attempt to explain how child development, culture, economics, education, and other factors play a role.

The fact is, even with disease/disorders associated with pure genetics, the presence, or absence, or a specific gene pair. in nearly every case both epigenetics and environmental factors play some role.

If you want to take a deep dive and know the truth, what science can tell us in the fields of human evolutionary biology, genetics,, psychology and the social sciences, I would recommend (and what they can't tell us)

Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past​

By David Reich

War, Peace, and Human Nature: The Convergence of Evolutionary and Cultural Views​

By Douglas P. Fry

Origin: A Genetic History of the Americas​

By Jennifer Raff, 2022. ISBN: 9781538749715

Nice resources - thanks!

It should be noted, though, that it's quite a leap from "why don't women participate in the audiophile hobby" to "what genes are responsible for certain diseases"? Not a leap because of the different subject matter, but rather a qualitative leap - they're two very different scenarios. I mention this only because I don't think the link you make between X and Y chromosome mapping and men's and women's behavior is nearly as direct and simple as your description makes it sound - which is exactly the issue that we started at when this thread took off in this direction.

 

[tmtomh]

And then followed it up with post 451.

What you wrote and meant is less important than giving Matt an opportunity to point out that he's more open-minded than you when it comes to explanations of why "females" behave as they do.