Had co-workers say they would never marry someone making more than them. Shit is so weird.

It would be interesting to see if it's really because of how they are as individuals or more about the response to social status thing. Like if they did an experiment where high performers were deceived into thinking they were actually performing poorly, and vice-versa, would the attitudes towards women be reversed or not? The conclusions in OP seem to imply the researchers think they would be.

The issue with this is it’s too simplistic.

What it’s actually saying is “it’s easy to not be misogynistic as long as you’re significantly better than all the women”.

It does not imply that you won’t be misogynistic as soon as you are threatened.

Ie when status quo is maintained (patriarchy is intact for you) it’s easy to support women.

The reverse is not true unfortunately. Skilled men are often mysoginistic assholes too.

This is in my top ten favorite quotes.

Except dev. 😞

It’s weird with devs. Most of us are fine but there’s definitely a sizable number of “tech bros” that absolutely are misogynistic. And it’s probably worse than I realize not being the target of it.

Low elo men confirmed biddable and breedable

Direct link to paper

And…

As a result of our analysis we find that the authors’ conclusions are not supported by the data. The data do support the conclusion that high-skill players make more positive and fewer negative comments, perhaps consistent with good team-building behaviour.

Talk about being the change you want to see in the world. Thanks for the link, I appreciate it

Hasn't evolutionary psychology been heavily debunked at this point?

It's not without a good heap of criticism, that's for damn sure.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology

I tend to think the social angle is more credible Because the behavior of being a dick to female-sounding voices in games is not a universal behavior. Those who aren't misogynists don't act that way. How strange.

The entire field of evolutionary psychology debunked? Do you mean the idea that our brains are subject to evolutionary forces like every other part of our anatomy? No, not debunked.

This is conflating specific methodological problems with theoretical claims. Yes, many have criticized the game theoretical methodology typical of evolutionary psychology. There are a lot of highly speculative junk claims out there. It’s also true that some (not all or even most!) cognitive scientists think that we cannot take the perspective that psychology evolved at all. But it is certainly untrue that there is some consensus that evolutionary psychology has been “debunked”.

This criticism is also a bit ironic given the highly speculative nature of the claims you put forward. Your guess sounds plausible I suppose, but I see no reason to think it’s any more methodologically rigorous.

Yeah, the problem is it slips too easily into essentialism. "Oh we evolved this way, nothing we can do about it I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

Especially for questions like this, which could pretty easily be explained by cultural influences, no need to bring evolution into it.

Hasn’t evolutionary psychology been heavily debunked at this point?

No. On the most basic level it shouldn't really be terribly contentious that evolution has an impact on psychology, on a more detailed level, well, they have their hits and misses just as every other field.

Patriarchal conditioning makes way more sense than

...case in point "everything is socially constructed" is just as bonkers a position as "everything is biologically predetermined". Why do people have to universalise their specialised area of investigation and “caveman brain HATE competing with woman!” is a rather cartoonish take on evolutionary psychology. If anything it'd be "young male annoyed he can't hunt for shit while female age-peer can because he wouldn't be able to provide for her while heavily pregnant". Note that not being annoyed in that case doesn't require better hunting skills, only sufficient ones, and "annoyed" can lead to "will work harder on his skills" or "is going to lash out" or "becomes depressive and walks into the desert" or "is going to look around, see all those capable hunters, and focus on hut building instead". There's a fuckton of behavioural flexibility left there.

Bad social conditioning then comes into that and shapes tendencies into caricatures of themselves, or good social conditioning comes in and, well, does good things. It's not an either/or thing, pretty much everything is both nature and nurture.

I was about to point this out - evopsych is an essentialist pseudoscience. Human interactions are governed by culture at least as much as they are by biology.

Not saying I agree or disagree with the author. However you being his wife did not result in "female-initiated disruption of a male hierarchy" (their words) so it's not really an argument against their hypothesis.

(Of course your husband being nice and not a dickhead probably also plays a role)

TLDR: correlation != causattion