/lit/ - Literature

>>13980475
Mine's into crime/thriller novels, as well as historical books.

>>12497806
I really don't see how evolution is in any sense a tangent when we're discussing the behaviour of any living thing.

>We all have instincts and biological urges that influence or even dictate our behaviour.
Right.

>How we deal with them is on each one of us individually.
I wouldn't entirely place the responsibility unto anyone - of course we can, to some extent, shape our lives through our own concious effort. The extent that we have that power of free(er) will differs among individuals; genetics play a big part, as does the environment we grow up and live in.

We're shaped by the world, and as such can't be individually responsible for what becomes of us.

>So if women are more fearful than men in situations less dangerous to them than to men, this fear is the responsibility of the individual woman.
How statistically 'correct' the behaviour is or isn't in [Current year] is less relevant than how correct it has been historically. The cultural landscape of today might make such behaviours statistically erratic and illogical, but behaviour is deeply inbedded in our brains and doesn't change overnight. Trauma is quite literally inherited.

>Nobody else has an obligation to react to something that's entirely in the head of another person.
I don't see what obligations have to do with it.

>So yeah, if women are fearful, they need to deal with it.
Which is exactly what they're trying to do. Yes, there are 'better' ways to deal with it, but that's an entirely different discussion.

>I suggest reading up on statistics so they can gain some perspective on just how wrong their feelings are.
Our thoughts are too a large extent the rationalizations of our feelings (inherited behaviour schemas shaped by our bloodlines' history). Cognitively "knowing" that something isn't as dangerous as it feels doesn't necessarily make the feelings of perceived danger disappear. If we want to override our fears we use exposure rather than googling numbers that don't really mean anything to our brain.

That's not to say that there aren't also fears caused by internalized thoughts or beliefs, but when we're talking about women as a group these play a much smaller part than how our brains are wired to interpret the world.

>If they don't acknowledge reality, then that's their fault by unwillingnes or inability to react rationally.
Humans are irrational by design

Also, for clarity, I'm not this poster: >>12494653

>>12497806
I really don't see how evolution is in any sense a tangent when we're discussing the behaviour of any living thing.

>We all have instincts and biological urges that influence or even dictate our behaviour.
Right.

>How we deal with them is on each one of us individually.
I wouldn't entirely place the responsibility unto anyone - of course we can, to some extent, shape our lives through our own concious effort. The extent that we have that power of free(er) will differs among individuals; genetics play a big part, as does the environment we grow up and live in.

We're shaped by the world, and as such can't be individually responsible for what becomes of us.

>So if women are more fearful than men in situations less dangerous to them than to men, this fear is the responsibility of the individual woman.
How statistically 'correct' the behaviour is or isn't in [Current year] is less relevant than how correct it has been historically. The cultural landscape of today might make such behaviours statistically erratic and illogical, but behaviour is deeply inbedded in our brains and doesn't change overnight. Trauma is quite literally inherited.

>Nobody else has an obligation to react to something that's entirely in the head of another person.
I don't see what obligations have to do with it.

>So yeah, if women are fearful, they need to deal with it.
Which is exactly what they're trying to do. Yes, there are 'better' ways to deal with it, but that's an entirely different discussion.

>I suggest reading up on statistics so they can gain some perspective on just how wrong their feelings are.
Our thoughts are too a large extent the rationalizations of our feelings (inherited behaviour schemas shaped by our bloodlines' history). Cognitively "knowing" that something isn't as dangerous as it feels doesn't necessarily make the feelings of perceived danger disappear. If we want to override our fears we use exposure rather than googling numbers that don't really mean anything to our brain.

That's not to say that there aren't also fears caused by internalized thoughts or beliefs, but when we're talking about women as a group these play a much smaller part than how our brains are wired to interpret the world.

>If they don't acknowledge reality, then that's their fault by unwillingnes or inability to react rationally.
Humans are not irrational by design

Also, for clarity, I'm not this poster: >>12494653

>>8406041