That men have a distinct gendered nature that makes them wrongly describe women this way?
Or that women have a distinct gendered nature that makes them engage in such social interaction styles - and men have been noticing it for a long time?
I'm also curious what historical comparisons you're talking about... it's not immediately clear what the 500 BC equivalent of IG social media addiction was.
Gossiping around the water well, as we men would probably describe it. In reality I think it's more likely they're assuring better social cohesion by establishing secondary communication for us more emotionally sensitive masculine types.
If that social cohesion advantage transfers well to Instagram is an important question of course. I would not dismiss it out of hand.
Interesting. You agree, then, that women gossip more than men. But you think gossip - which means talking about people behind their backs - is good for social cohesion?
This really sounds like a complete inversion of reality. Straightforward communication is good; manipulating information, denying information, etc are bad. Lots of girls (and some boys) even commit suicide because of gossip campaigns against them - and nowadays it's frequently mediated by social media.
I've been targeted by a female gossip campaign in my youth. The lies flowed freely and harmed me tremendously, always whispered behind my back so I couldn't correct the record. In contrast, when boys had a problem with me they threatened physically instead. Many have experienced this dichotomy.
It's hard to see how one could come to your conclusion from a purely fact-finding mindset. But I'd be interested in any observations that led you to this conclusion. At this point, I think there's a good chance that you feel you're morally compelled to believe this regardless of evidence, as part of a political/moralistic project to change the world according to some grand narrative.
Anyway it's testable. We can just consider: Do groups composed of all men have better or worse social cohesion than comparable groups composed of all women?
I've heard from people who worked in offices of different gender mixes that there is a difference... and it doesn't support your theory. But there must be some better evidence, somewhere.
I said men would describe it as gossip, I didn't say I would agree to that characterisation. Gossip is "idle talk or rumor", which I think is a bad thing. But talking about people behind their backs is not necessarily a bad thing. Indirect communication (which I think is a nicer way to talk about it than 'gossip') allows people to more directly address problems because it circumvents ego. That is why I feel it might contribute to social cohesion, as long as everyone has pure intentions.
The second aspect is of course the question of pure intentions, obviously often competition or spite causes people to gossip in malicious ways, and this might negatively affect social cohesion, or at least exclude individuals.
I don't think the effects are very testable in modern society, as a society consisting of only men or women can not persist for more than one generation.
I think your dichotomy of women using emotional manipulation, and men using physical manipulation to oppress/compete are analogous in their evolutionary role. Some people think that means the role is to exclude the weak, but I think that's just an unfortunate side effect, and the role is more to ensure the strong exist at all. Unfortunately often nature cruelly ignores that sort of collateral damage.
That men have a distinct gendered nature that makes them wrongly describe women this way?
Or that women have a distinct gendered nature that makes them engage in such social interaction styles - and men have been noticing it for a long time?
I'm also curious what historical comparisons you're talking about... it's not immediately clear what the 500 BC equivalent of IG social media addiction was.