Warriors and Worriers - Chapter 5:

My assessment of this chapter is that its most valuable contribution lies in the observation that women are, on average, more polite and smile more frequently than men. From an evolutionary perspective, these behaviors function primarily to reduce social tension and to avoid physical or open confrontation. The sections on politeness and smiling are particularly insightful and worth close reading.

------

Summary:

The chapter argues that women face fundamentally different evolutionary challenges than men because they bear and raise children. As a result, women have been selected to prioritize survival, health maintenance, and vigilance, not only for themselves but also for their offspring. This evolutionary pressure fosters heightened worry, self-monitoring, and sensitivity to potential threats. While such constant vigilance may appear maladaptive, it is framed as an adaptive strategy aimed at preventing irreversible harm.

Benenson contrasts this with men’s evolutionary conditions, suggesting that male reproductive success historically required less continuous self-preservation, allowing greater risk-taking. For women, however, poor health, dangerous social situations, or ill-chosen relationships could permanently compromise reproductive success, creating strong incentives to avoid risky or “trapping” situations.

The chapter further describes how these pressures shape women’s social behavior. Women are portrayed as especially attentive to nonverbal cues, particularly eye contact, which helps them assess others’ intentions and detect potential danger. Female friendships are characterized by extensive information gathering, mutual disclosure of vulnerabilities, and co-rumination. While these practices help build trust and reduce competitive threats, they can also amplify anxiety and depressive symptoms.

A central claim is that smiling and politeness are key female conflict-management tools. Women smile more than men across cultures and life stages, especially during their reproductive years. Smiling and polite behavior serve to smooth social interactions, signal non-threat, and reduce the likelihood of confrontation. These behaviors appear early in childhood and are argued to have a biological basis.

The chapter concludes by transitioning to female intrasexual competition, emphasizing that although women often avoid overt conflict, they still compete intensely with one another, primarily through indirect, socially strategic means rather than direct aggression.

-----

Quotes:

"[Women] must solve different problems than men. Women bear children. They must find some way to keep themselves and their children alive. They must ensure that their children live to reproduce. They must carefully select others who will provide critically important assistance. Even if a woman never has a child, she still sees the world through a different lens than a man."

Women must ensure their own survival and that of their children:

"I suggest that women’s genes have programmed them to keep themselves, their children, and their closest relatives alive and healthy. Men love risks. Women avoid them whenever possible."

Attention is therefore directed toward the maintenance of health:

"Staying alive and healthy therefore is absolutely critical. Women must keep this problem, and its solutions, in their sights at all times throughout their lives, until they become very old. One mistake, and their health, and the health of all of their living and future children, is compromised."

Benenson argues that the conditions differ for men:

"Boys and men needn’t worry on a second-by-second basis. If a man manages to impregnate one or more women who will carefully take care of the resulting children, his genes will survive—even if he doesn’t. He’s free to fight, to go exploring, or take whatever risks might lead to finding more women to have sex with."

Women must avoid becoming trapped in bad situations:

"if she gives birth when she didn’t want to, has a child with many problems, or finds herself in a difficult situation that’s not conducive to having children, she cannot just walk away and hit the restart button. She’s stuck, for life."

Certain characteristics are critical for successfully nurturing children:

"Women who did not worry about their health and survival produced fewer children. A woman could not have sex with an attractive man, go off to help conquer a kingdom or build a corporation, and return to see her child for the first time, well taken care of by her attentive mate. Her genes simply would not be passed on. No one else is available to gestate, breastfeed, and raise a woman’s children. Thus, women who produced and successfully cared for children were those who were intuitively very careful about their own health and survival and maintaining proximity to their children. These basic intuitions influence a woman’s thoughts and behaviors. With few exceptions, even those women who choose not to have children nonetheless have genes that prepare them to have children."

The emphasis on vigilance and worry is encapsulated in the book’s title, Warriors and Worriers:

"I believe, however, that women are guided by genes to worry, even when there is nothing serious to worry about. It does not feel comfortable to admit that everything is okay, unless a major disaster has just been averted. The push to worry is strong and persistent. Anxiety is part of being a woman."

What, then, are the specific worries of women?

"Women think about themselves on a second-by-second basis: “Why do my eyes look funny today?” “How come I don’t feel well?” “Am I sick?” “Why did I cancel my doctor’s appointment?” “Why am I always last?” “Why am I always so tired?” “How come she smiled at me in such a crooked way?” “Who does she think she is, doing that without asking me first?” “Why does he look at me like I’m an idiot?” A woman appears to keep a running dialogue with herself about her own state. Men don’t seem to do this. Many researchers believe that the self-focus of women can have dire consequences, accentuating or even causing mood disorders such as depression or anxiety . While this running dialogue may appear to be counterproductive, it likely reflects a woman’s basic biological interest in keeping herself alive and healthy. It is likely that anxiety precedes as well as follows these thoughts."

Women are far more concerned about their bodies than men:

"For example, when more than 10,000 Finnish women and men of all ages were asked how satisfied they were with their bodies, the results were striking: Women were much less satisfied than men with every single aspect of their bodies. Women of course worry about their bodies for more than one reason.One is health; another is attractiveness to men. No one questions that women use their bodies to compete for men, and the resources that come along with a man. Many men are more than willing to share their resources with a physically beautiful woman. Thus, women are very attentive to their body’s attractiveness to men. They use chemicals to make their skin and hair look better; they wear jewelry and costly clothes; they are willing to use surgery to look better. A woman’s desire to be attractive to men, however, relates to her health: A man’s wealth can improve a woman’s health. How she protects her health is what’s most important. A woman’s best friend is fear."

Keep Your Eye on Others

Women are more attuned to detecting others’ intentions through nonverbal cues:

"Women keep an eye on others more than men do. They figure out faster and more accurately what others’ intentions are. They do so even without language. One of the first times that you notice this is when women meet. Put two women together, and they spend a lot of time looking into one another’s eyes. Put two males together, and they often will assume parallel positions, as if riding side by side in a car. They often completely avoid eye contact.

A woman learns a lot about another person’s emotions or intentions from gazing into her, or his, eyes. As Confucius proclaimed, “Look into a person’s pupils, he cannot hide himself ” (Grumet, 1983, p. 119). Not only that, but when two people gaze into each other’s eyes, it increases the intensity of the interaction. This can accentuate both negative and positive messages. A woman can figure out whether the person directly in front of her harbors any harmful intentions. Further, when mutual eye contact is accompanied by pleasant facial expressions, the person conveys interest, caring, affection, and honesty. A woman can be reassured that no imminent danger lurks."

Gather Personal Information Before Forming a Friendship

"One of these entails collecting a lot of information about another person. Words can also be valuable tools in this case, as they allow a woman to obtain concrete information about many areas of a potential friend’s life. This ensures that the friend is trustworthy and won’t inflict harm. There are two primary types of information that a woman must collect before she becomes friends with another woman: (1) basic demographic information (name, rank, age) and (2) information about personal vulnerabilities and relationships. The first type of information is the same type any concerned mother would collect about a friend if her child wanted to sleep over at the friend’s house: the name of the friend, where she resides (rank), her age, the names of her family members, the names of her closest relationships, and any significant major life events and vulnerabilities that she has. From early childhood into adulthood, girls and women are very efficient in gathering this type of personal information . This kind of information is not important to a man. A man does not care particularly where another man comes from, what his name is, or what his intentions are, as long as he has the skills that are required for the task at hand. The second type of information concerns emotional details about the personal problems and significant relationships of the potential friend.

Intimate, graphic, emotionally laden details are necessary to convey honestly the vulnerabilities and the strength of the relationships with others who can deal with these vulnerabilities. Because each friend is assessing the other, both individuals are required to divulge this information equally. This type of information does not interest boys or men.

As examples, women discuss in great detail the problematic aspects of their relationships, both with other women, and with romantic partners and children. They share their problems. They display their vulnerabilities and through doing so demonstrate their unconditional emotional support for one another. Critically, what is not shared helps define what it is that girls and women are sharing. Girls and women do not share common activities, which is what men share with their friends. They do not share solutions to real-world problems, feelings of accomplishment and successes, or descriptions of positive relationships with third parties, such as other females or male partners. They also do not address conflicts with one another. Boys and men, in contrast, are more likely to share these things because they share common work and leisure activities. The single largest difference between the same-sex friendships of women versus men is that women verbally discuss vulnerabilities in themselves and their relationship partners, whereas men focus more on shared activities. This sex difference is present early in childhood, and it becomes enormous in adolescence and adulthood. This basic difference has been found around the world in places such as the Netherlands, Turkey, Morocco, southern Europe, and Asia. The need for intimacy between human females thus appears to have an innate basis. It seems that collecting this information is mandatory for the formation of a friendship between females.

I believe that by mutually sharing one another’s problems and relationship difficulties, as well as basic demographic information, female friends build trust. Who but a true friend would disclose vulnerabilities? Who but a true friend would tell you who else they trust and who they distrust? Certainly, two enemies would not divulge their weakest positions to one another. Furthermore, should a conflict erupt between two female friends, each has powerful information that can be used against the other. Each knows where the other’s family lives and their names. Each knows which girlfriends the other likes and dislikes. Each knows the weaknesses of the other’s relationship with her boyfriend or husband. This information serves as a major deterrent to mutual destruction. ...

How many professional women have I met who have been highly successful, but still manage to devote most of their time with one another to disclosing their personal vulnerabilities, such as a flaw in their appearance, a conflict with a third party, a mishap at work, or a long-ago romantic disappointment? Should a woman truly be a failure or major negative events actually have transpired, well then women have a lot to say. Talking from such a position of weakness provides no threat whatsoever.

Some women even specialize in accumulating friends with vulnerabilities. It might seem terribly bad fortune that these women have a close friend dying of cancer, another friend whose husband has just left her, a third friend whose child suffers from neurological damage, and a fourth friend who cannot afford to pay her bills. Upon closer inspection, however, it is apparent that these women are selectively choosing others who are particularly vulnerable. Someone who is vulnerable will not go after what you have because she is too weak. Avoiding a potential competitor who could attempt to interfere with your success is serious business for a woman.

In fact, women of all ages are well aware that their friends will not be happy should they advertise, or even mention, their personal successes. To show this, my students and I asked girls and women how they thought their friends would feel if the girls and women suddenly became successful. Unlike boys and men, girls and women replied that they thought their closest friends any threats to one another, girls and women focus on mutual vulnerabilities. Clinicians call this co-rumination, and it is a specialty of girls and women. Boys and men don’t do this. Unfortunately, co-rumination can lead both partners to become increasingly anxious, stressed, and depressed. Nonetheless, most females engage in this process regularly. Forget any positive events; do not mention that almost everything is going right at the moment; find that one event that has a negative undertone and play it for all it’s worth. This forms the glue of females’ relationships. It takes two highly confident women to avoid this kind of mutually supportive and ultimately destructive interaction. I believe it happens so often because it serves to reassure each participant that the other one does not wish to compete and is not powerful enough to inflict harm. ..."

Thus, to reduce any threats any threats to one another, girls and women focus on mutual vulnerabilities. Clinicians call this co-rumination, and it is a specialty of girls and women. Boys and men don’t do this. Unfortunately, co-rumination can lead both partners to become increasingly anxious, stressed, and depressed. Nonetheless, most females engage in this process regularly. Forget any positive events; do not mention that almost everything is going right at the moment; find that one event that has a negative undertone and play it for all it’s worth. This forms the glue of females’ relationships. It takes two highly confident women to avoid this kind of mutually supportive and ultimately destructive interaction. I believe it happens so often because it serves to reassure each participant that the other one does not wish to compete and is not powerful enough to inflict harm. ..."

"Unlike males, girls and women rarely express negative feelings directly. Instead, they have two basic tools to deflect current or potential conflict: smiling and politeness[:]"

Smile No Matter What

"When two familiar women pass in the street, they must smile. If not, the one not smiled at begins to ruminate. “Why didn’t she smile at me?” “Did I do something wrong?” “Is my dress on backward?” “Who does she think she is, anyway?” “I remember another time she did something unpleasant.” “My other friend, Jane, thinks she’s not very nice, and after all maybe she’s right. This proves it.” And so it goes. I have heard this refrain many times over the years. When I ask a man what he thinks if someone he knows passes by and doesn’t smile at him, the man tells me he doesn’t think anything. It never enters his mind. The first rule of conflict management for a female, whether she is friends with another female or just simply knows her, is to smile. When a possible conflict is brewing—smile even harder. Across diverse cultures, girls and women smile more than boys and men. Importantly, females are even more likely than males to smile when there is a conflict with the other person. They are also much more likely than males to smile when meeting a stranger. Most critically, women smile most of all during their reproductive years. After that, by middle adulthood, women no longer smile so much more than men. The sex difference diminishes and is smallest in old age. After a woman has produced her children, and they have grown, she can relax—without having to smile so much.

Although researchers argue about the meaning of smiling, one function on which everyone agrees is that it reduces social tension. For example, in a clever study, researchers surreptitiously recorded the smiling behavior of people at bowling alleys. They wondered whether people would be more likely to smile after they had scored a spare or strike (which would indicate happiness presumably), or when they interacted with others (which would indicate smoothing social interactions). In fact, bowlers smiled more often when interacting with others than after getting a high score. Thus, it appears that the primary function of smiles is to communicate friendliness to others. Smiling smooths interactions between individuals, just as it does in other primates.

Smiling constitutes such an important tool for reducing social conflict that not being allowed to smile makes women terribly anxious. To demonstrate this, Marianne LaFrance asked undergraduate students in Boston to read a story in which the following occurred: First, a person approached and recounted a recent accomplishment: “I’m so happy! After years of trying, I was finally able to complete the Boston Marathon.” Second, students were asked to imagine that they had said “Congratulations!” Half of the students then were told to imagine that they smiled when congratulating the runner. The other half were told to imagine that they did not smile but maintained a neutral expression. Finally, the students were asked how they felt. Everyone reported feeling more uncomfortable when they did not smile. They also felt that the runner would think that they were less friendly and less caring. The women, however, felt much worse than the men.

The smile is such a powerful tool that even imagining being without it provokes great anxiety in women. How unpleasant for a woman to be confronted by a perfect stranger who brags about her accomplishments. How useful a social smile would be to defuse the negative emotions arising in herself and to pretend that she cared about this stranger’s competitive behavior.

Girls smile more than boys from birth onward. Girls and women smile more than boys and men across the most diverse cultures. Because even newborn girls smile more than boys, it is likely that genes have prepared females to smile more. This should help females to reduce conflicts whomever they should meet. Even after a conflict has broken out, a smile most likely helps, automatically, to douse the flames, to decrease the chances of danger. Likewise, even when the other person is a perfect stranger, a smile conveys an ardent desire to avoid conflict." 

Always Be Polite

"Politeness operates similarly to smiling. When conflict arises or an unknown social partner arrives, politeness is another important tool. Politeness etiquette exists for many contexts that include just about every conceivable meeting between humans. It is not just women who behave politely when tension rises."

'Politeness' can even be observed in apes:

"If the dominant ape is eating first, then the more sub-ordinate ape demonstrates exquisite manners. Learning to consciously restrain one’s behavior in order to follow social conventions is something that even apes do sometimes. They just don’t do it all the time, or perhaps possess the conscious knowledge that they will be beaten on the spot if they don’t wait their proper turn. Humans therefore follow more refined and internalized rules of politeness. Of course, it is possible that manners helped prod our prehuman ancestors to override their first impulses and execute greater planning skills, thereby producing the current version of human beings. Politeness, as even subordinate apes know well, reduces social tension and diminishes the chances of being hurt. It is no accident, therefore, that women have greater levels of nonverbal and verbal politeness than men."

Rule-following starts early:

"from very early in life, girls learn to follow the specific social rules for their home and community more strictly than boys. A perfect illustration comes from studies using the “disappointment paradigm”. In these studies, children are asked to help with two tasks. They are told that they will receive a separate gift for helping with each one. Before starting, the children are given 10 toys. Each child then tells the researcher which toys she likes best and which ones she likes least in order. One toy is always broken, and naturally this is liked least by all children. After the children finish the first task, they are given one of their favorite toys. But when they finish the second task, the children are given the broken toy. What happens next? The girls smile much more than the boys. The boys look really unhappy, and sometimes even make snide comments. Importantly, this was not because the girls liked the broken toy. To prove this, in another study, some of the girls were given the broken toy in wrapping paper. They unwrapped it later when they were alone. Videotapes of their expressions show that these girls were not happy: They smiled less and exhibited more negative expressions than girls who unwrapped the broken toy while the experimenter stood there. Girls are simply more polite than boys."

"Politeness involves words too. To be polite when engaged in conversation, you need to follow several rules. First, you must listen carefully to what the other person is saying and wait until they are finished before speaking yourself. Second, you have to affirm and be positive about what the other person is saying. Third, if necessary, you must present possibly contradictory ideas in a soft way. For example, if you think that you have a better idea, you might say, “Maybe this is right.” Or if you want the other person to do something they don’t want to do, you might say, “Shouldn’t we do this?” Fourth, it is helpful to include lots of expressions such as “thank you” and “sorry” to show how much you value the other person’s efforts. Fifth, competitive language must be avoided. It is not polite to issue orders, make threats, boast about how good you are, or criticize the other person."

"I believe that part of what motivates girls and women to be more polite is that politeness helps avert conflict. Whether a conflict already has begun to brew, or a stranger with unknown intentions appears, politeness reduces the chances of danger. It decreases the probability that a woman will find herself at odds with someone who is right in front of her and could potentially do her harm."

"What seems more probable is that women are more sensitive than men to any type of offensive behavior—their own or another’s. Why? I believe any sign of offensive behavior signals potential danger. A woman doesn’t want to instigate a fight, and she surely doesn’t want to be the victim."

The next chapter, chapter 6, addresses female intrasexual competition:

"Femininity aside, a woman has to compete. Because women have been victims and subordinate to men for so long, women’s strategies simply have been overlooked. Men, who typically hold more power, pay less attention to those who are subordinate. Meanwhile, women, who are generally subordinate members of society, keep a low profile so they won’t be hurt by those in power. A woman’s primary competitors are unrelated women, because these are the people who share the same goals. Women must compete against other women."

Female Friends: Smile—Then Eliminate the Competition

Die Spannende Welt:

Für die Zeit des Films betreten wir eine spannende Welt.

Der Abenteuerliche Simplizissimus / The Adventurous Simplicissimus:

Ich habe am Wochenende die vier Teile des Abenteuerlichen Simplizissimus gesehen. Eine Deutsche Produktion aus etwa dem Jahr 1975. Ich hatte als Jugendlicher Auszüge davon gesehen und auf die Darstellung des Helden des Films (es waren Auszüge aus dem Zweiten Teil, in dem er als "Jäger", d.h. in grüner Montur, agierte) angesprochen. Ebenso hatte ich in der Jugend eine gekürzte Fassung des Barockromans  gelesen (diese hatte etwa 270 Seiten). In der Erinnerung stach da der in der Erzählung enthaltene Humor besonders hervor.

Im letzten Jahr habe ich zum ersten Mal bewusst einen guten "Deutschen Actionfilm" gesehen. "Hagen" war das, offenbar verfilmt nach einen Roman von Wolfgang Hohlbein.

Insgesamt mutet es schon recht anders an, Deutsche Filmproduktionen zu sehen, wenn man an Amerikanische Filmproduktionen gewöhnt ist. Vielleicht eben durch das Älterwerden bedingt, man ist inzwischen nicht mehr jugendlich, hat diese Art von Filmen an Reiz gewonnen. Ich kenne das auch von manchen älteren Personen im eigenen Umfeld, die durchaus gerne deutsche Krimis schauen. Zu Weihnachten habe ich zum ersten Mal "Single Bells" gesehen.

-----

Over the weekend I watched all four parts of The Adventurous Simplicissimus, a German production from around 1975. As a teenager, I had seen excerpts from it and remembered being struck by the portrayal of the film’s hero—those excerpts were from the second part, in which he appeared as a “hunter,” that is, dressed in green. I had also read an abridged version of the Baroque novel in my youth (about 270 pages long). What stood out in my memory was especially the humor woven into the narrative.

Last year, for the first time, I consciously watched a good “German action film.” It was Hagen, apparently adapted from a novel by Wolfgang Hohlbein.

Overall, watching German film productions feels quite different when one is accustomed to American films. Perhaps this is simply due to getting older—this kind of film has gained appeal. I also see this with some older people in my own circle, who genuinely enjoy watching German Krimis. At Christmas, I watched Single Bells for the first time.

Against Frictionless AI:

"But loneliness isn't just an affliction to be cured–it is a biological signal, akin to hunger, thirst, or pain. Viewed this way, loneliness functions as social feedback. Like physical pain alerting us to injury, loneliness tells us that our social connections require attention. This discomfort motivates action. It gets us to reach out to a friend we haven't seen in months, to accept that invitation we'd normally decline, or to finally send that first message on a dating app. It also compels us to invest in the relationships we already have. When we feel lonely, we work harder to manage our emotions around others, we become more willing to navigate difficult conversations, and we find ourselves genuinely curious about the lives of those around us. AI companions may soothe this discomfort, but in doing so, they also silence a signal that would otherwise drive us to cultivate the deeper, more challenging relationships that sustain us over time. Loneliness isn't the only type of friction in social relationships. Real human connection is difficult in ways that AI companionship is not. Friends and romantic companions disagree with us, challenge our views, and sometimes disappoint us. They require us to compromise, to listen when we'd rather talk, to show up when it's inconvenient. Empathizing with another person's needs, moods, and perspectives takes real effort, making human connection and human relationships challenging at times. AI companions, by contrast, are frictionless. They sycophantically agree with nearly everything we say, even when we say and believe dangerous things . This ease is seductive and risks crowding out friendships in the real world. This would be a real loss because real-life friendships and romantic partners span dimensions AI cannot. For example, real-life romantic partners provide physical and sexual intimacy and enable the creation and care of children. Critically, good friends and partners provide the corrective feedback that sycophantic AI companions lack, helping us see the error of our ways. The friction we experience in real-life relationships, though unpleasant in the moment, contributes to making these relationships robust and sustaining. Just as struggle enhances learning in intellectual work, the friction of navigating real human relationships deepens them and creates genuine shared history."

GFP:

Curtis Dunkel et al.:

"It is well established that self-report personality scales, even when designed to measure theoretically orthogonal traits, often yield a positive manifold reflecting the extent to which each trait is socially valued (e.g., Hofstee, 2003). "

Friction:

Shane Parrish:

"In human relationships, friction is the conflict and tension that arises from differing goals, personalities, and beliefs."

The Coddling of the American Mind:

Cal Newport:

"The Coddling of the American Mind ... argued that the alarming rise in mental health issues among American adolescents was being driven, in part, by a culture of “safetyism“ that trained young people to obsess over perceived traumas and to understand life as full of dangers that need to be avoided."

Warriors and Worriers - Chapter 4:

When two tribes of primeval men, living in the same country, came into competition, if the one tribe included (other circumstances being equal) a greater number of courageous, sympathetic, and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would without doubt succeed best and conquer the other. (Darwin, 1871, p. 162)

Aggression is an intensely co-operative process—it is both the product and cause of strong effective ties between men. (Tiger, 1969, p. 247)

"Human males present a paradox: They love to compete against one another—and to cooperate with one another. They do both far more than unrelated women do."

Male Groups

"All-male groups exist in every human culture. Secret societies, college fraternities, entertainment clubs, bars, street gangs, the mafia, sports teams, gambling houses, government, businesses, religion, police forces, and the military classically have been all-male institutions."

Sex differences in food sharing are observed in hunter-gatherer societies:

"Even in the simplest of hunter-gatherer societies, such as the Ache of Paraguay or the Hadza of Tanzania, it often is the unrelated men and older boys of the community who work together to hunt game or search for honey. If one man catches an animal, he shares it with other men, as well as with their families. A woman rarely shares food with unrelated women, channeling most of the plant foods and occasional small game to her own children, husband, and female relatives."

Interestingly, all-female groups composed of unrelated women are relatively rare:

"There are very few all-female institutions that involve genetically unrelated women. Brothels constitute a universal exception. However, in many brothels, either a man is in charge or the women have been coerced. Historically, most all-female institutions were created by men for men. Harems, polygynous households, and women’s jobs during wartime were usually organized by men. Women traditionally have remained closer to their families and dependent children. While women in hunter-gatherer communities often search for fruits and tubers together with older children, they try to take along an adolescent male or older man too. Women are vulnerable to predation or kidnapping by a neighboring community, so they need protection. Social scientists who study human sex differences believe that across cultures, unrelated men engage in group activities more than unrelated women do."

Why do groups of unrelated men form, and why do women rarely form groups with unrelated women?

"Why do unrelated males form groups? Working together of course can reduce one’s workload and increase efficiency, especially if group members contribute different kinds of expertise. But groups require sharing resources and increase exposure to germs and conflicts between members. Women find these risks worth taking with family members, but they must be more careful with unrelated women."

Benenson provides an explanation for why men form groups:

"I suggest that male groups are formed initially because male peers are so drawn to one another, and away from everyone else. They may fight; they usually compete; they prefer others who are physically and emotionally strong and self-confident, who follow the rules and demonstrate some skill. But simply enjoying one another’s company comes first. Their mutual attraction is there early in life, once again suggesting a biological basis. It grows stronger as men enter adulthood. Adolescent boys, with their powerful sexual desires mostly directed toward girls, and strong competitive instincts, nonetheless spend a lot of time in one another’s company. Even boys with behavioral problems, who cannot follow any adult authority’s directions, group together, through graffiti writing, skateboarding, or gang fights."

Benenson emphasizes the strongly social nature of boys and men:

"After the initial attraction to one another comes the appeal of group life. Despite popular stereotypes about the antisocial, status-striving nature of boys and men, my observations indicate otherwise. I believe that if a boy or man could choose between being the lone superhero with no group or a supreme expert working with others united against a common enemy, most would choose the latter. Even Batman needs to work with the Gotham City police force. Even James Bond needs the British secret service. Current warlords have a large retinue of male supporters, or they wouldn’t be where they are today.

This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Being an alpha male provides prestige, resources, and females, among other perks. If the alpha male’s community gets overrun by another community, however, neither he nor anyone else survives. Better to surrender some individual status and subordinate personal aims to the greater good than to lose everything. Maximizing the probability of belonging to a victorious group requires not putting your own needs ahead of the group’s goals. This basic assumption underlies the rules of competitive team sports, as well as successful businesses, governments, religions, and most any organization. No one wants a teammate who shows off his own prowess at the expense of the team’s success. The skills that benefit the warrior easily transfer to any type of group."

Human success depends not only on individual achievement but also on group survival and performance:

"Being an alpha male provides prestige, resources, and females, among other perks. If the alpha male’s community gets overrun by another community, however, neither he nor anyone else survives. Better to surrender some individual status and subordinate personal aims to the greater good than to lose everything. Maximizing the probability of belonging to a victorious group requires not putting your own needs ahead of the group’s goals. This basic assumption underlies the rules of competitive team sports, as well as successful businesses, governments, religions, and most any organization. No one wants a teammate who shows off his own prowess at the expense of the team’s success. The skills that benefit the warrior easily transfer to any type of group."

Cooperative competition is a distinctive feature of human social behavior:

"The intuitive desire to punish noncooperators, along with the fear of being punished oneself, combine to push humans where no other species has gone—toward cooperative competition."

Benenson further observes that 

"Policing the community for hinderers, noncooperators, and cheaters may be particularly pleasurable for males."

The Development of Males’ Preferences for Groups

Male infants attend more to groups of animals than to single animals.

"When my students and I showed 6-month-old babies pictures of one cute moving animal puppet (a tiger or a leopard) next to three identical moving animal puppets, the male babies looked more at the group of puppets, whereas girls didn’t look more one way or the other."

Similarly, male infants attend more to groups of children than to individual children:

"Baby boys also prefer looking at videos of groups of children playing together more than videos of single individuals; again, baby girls don’t look more one way or the other."

Testosterone may play a role in shaping these preferences:

"Interestingly, testosterone seems to drive boys’ attraction to groups. Three-month-old males with higher levels of testosterone look more at groups than infant males with lower levels of testosterone. This provides additional evidence for the biological origins of boys’ attraction to groups."

Boys’ early attraction to groups translates into a preference for group-based social interaction rather than solitary engagement:

"If groups are so important to males’ social behavior, then young boys should do more than just look at groups; they should want to interact with them as well. To examine this, I paid a professional puppeteer to interact with individual 3- and 4-year-old boys and girls, either using one puppet or using a group of three puppets. Sure enough, boys smiled and looked more at the group of three puppets than at one puppet. One little boy refused even to look at the single puppet. Instead, he untied his shoelace and retied it around his neck, slowly beginning to strangle himself. Fortunately, when the puppeteer brought out the group of puppets, the boy changed his mind and started talking to the puppets with evident enjoyment. Quite a few of the boys barely looked at the single puppet. Girls of course loved interacting with the one puppet, with one girl gazing at the puppet 99% of the time."

Why are boys and men drawn to competitive sports?

"In most cultures, boys’ enjoyment of team competition explodes in middle childhood. Why do boys and men like sports? One reasonable and common explanation is that team sports mimic warfare. Sports have

all the elements that provide pleasure: play fighting, the presence of the enemy, one-on-one competition, and, critically, intergroup battles. Team sports allow players to display their own unique skills and ally with one another to defeat the other team. Boys who might have been competing to best one another easily become teammates when another team materializes. Even boys who dislike each other intensely will cheer each other on when an enemy or opposing team arrives. Boys seem to be spontaneously attracted to team sports. It’s not that society does not facilitate male team  sports—it does. But thousands of years before society poured resources into equipment and fields and coaches, boys and men were playing team sports."

Boys tend to play in groups, whereas girls more often form dyadic relationships:

"My colleagues and I showed young preschoolers cartoon drawings of a child playing either with one same-sex friend or with three same-sex friends. We then asked them to tell us in which situation the child was happier. The preschoolers uniformly judged that boys would be happier playing with three friends than with one friend. They also judged, though with less certainty, that girls would be happier playing with one friend. By elementary school and continuing through adulthood, children, adolescents, and adults all believe the same thing. In addition, when we asked them whether a boy’s friends were friends with one another too, they responded yes. In contrast, when we asked them whether a girl’s friends were friends with one another too, they said no. In other words, even young children have an intuitive understanding that boys tend to form large groups in which everyone interacts with everyone else."

Groups play a more central role in men’s social cognition and identity than in women’s:

"Groups also are more accessible to the minds of men than women. Male minds store memories about groups in a place where important information resides, and female minds don’t. If men and women read a story about a group, such as a country, university, team, or club, men remember it better and recall it faster than women. Men also report that they are more willing than women to help their group. However, if the word “group” is replaced by the word “individual,” such as a friend, sibling, or teammate, then women remember better than men. No wonder, then, that a man forgets his wife’s and children’s ages and birthdays but remembers the dates of important battles as well as the outcomes of sports games (though statistics about individual team members who led to the group’s victory or defeat also come to mind). Even when women belong to groups they value, such as an academic club or a sports team or a sorority, they do not care about their identity as a group member as much as men do. Instead, it is the friendships with individuals in the group that women care about. Not that men don’t value individual friendships too, but the group itself is more important to the identities of men than it is to women."

Effective male groups rely heavily on hierarchy and specialization:

"Groups that do not delegate the most skilled, experienced, socially astute individuals to those tasks they can best accomplish will lose to a more efficiently organized group. Thus, rank requires continual respect, challenge, and renegotiation. As the context changes, the composition of the group is modified, and individuals’ relative positions must be realigned. Men excel at this, as do little boys. This suggests that boys have an innate desire to demonstrate their leadership abilities. They also are prepared, however, to defer to leaders with the right skills."

Competition serves a central function in enhancing group effectiveness:

"Continual competition across differing contexts requires different skill sets with lots of varying players. This translates into fluid hierarchies that reflect true expertise. Rank must be earned and maintained or it is lost. Constant competition maximizes group superiority as much as it exposes an individual’s strengths and limits. For males, part of the nature of competition is that it is a never-ending process of selecting the most suitable man for the job. Occasionally, of course, tyrants who won’t abdicate their leadership roles can ruin the whole enterprise, or the whole group is up to no good."

Group membership forms an integral part of human identity:

"Boys and men compete and cooperate within their fluid groups. Simply learning that you are a member of one group, and not another, triggers an innate preference for your own group, and often a negative view of the other group. This happens even in 3-year-olds, and it happens across the world. Everyone is both an individual and a member of all kinds of groups. This is true for both men and women."

Conclusion to Part I (Warriors)

"If you belong to a boys’ group, your allies may not remember your birthday, but they know very well if you can run fast, hit well, respect rules, and make good decisions. They may be competitors, but when things get tough, they’re also the ones who will protect you and root for you, and maybe even die for you.

Girls and women don’t demonstrate these traits. Their favorite activities do not include play fighting, targeting the enemy, or competing against one another. They don’t choose friends who are the physically and emotionally toughest and self-confident. Nor do they reify rules or revere expertise."

This leads to the second part of the book, Warriors / Women.

------

This chapter concludes the Warriors part of the book. Three additional chapters on Worriers / Women follow. I should note that I enjoyed the first two chapters of the Warriors section considerably more than this one. While the chapter on groups and men’s mental self-association with groups raises several interesting ideas, many of these could have been developed in greater depth. Nevertheless, some points remained particularly salient to me.

When I was a boy, I often browsed an animal encyclopedia with my father. Images of individual animals rarely held my attention, whereas pictures showing flocks, herds, insect states, or coordinated hunts—such as packs of wild dogs pursuing a gnu—were deeply fascinating. At the time, I assumed this preference was idiosyncratic. In light of the arguments presented here, however, it may reflect a more general tendency shared by many males.

Similarly, as a child I was strongly drawn to the World Almanac, densely filled with numbers and descriptive statistics. I was far less interested in exploring the inner world of a single psyche, which is often the focus of pedagogy. This chapter offers a framework for understanding such preferences by suggesting that male cognition may be more strongly oriented toward groups, group dynamics, and the detection of group-level patterns than female cognition. Benenson further links these tendencies to the capacity of men to form effective fighting forces and coalitions.

That said, I found Benenson’s discussion of core male characteristics in Chapter 3 more compelling than her treatment of these themes in the present chapter. For this reason, I have omitted several sections of this chapter from my review.

My primary interest in reviewing this book stems from the fact that its striking title, Warriors and Worriers, has frequently come up in conversations with colleagues. The phrase tends to linger in my mind, encapsulating the idea that culturally valued male traits are associated with the warrior archetype—such as toughness, strength, and a combative spirit—while culturally valued female traits are associated with the worrier archetype, including heightened sensitivity, concern for infants, and the conscientiousness required to sustain care over long periods, even in the absence of immediate emotional reward.

For these reasons, I am very much looking forward to reviewing the next three chapters of the book, which focus on Worriers / Women.

Warmth as a Functional Social Strategy:

"Warmth, like harshness, is not merely a personality trait but a functional mode of social behavior. Individuals raised in environments characterized by emotional availability, responsiveness, and consistent care often internalize warmth as an effective and reliable strategy. In such contexts, kindness is modeled as a means of securing cooperation, trust, and long-term support. Rather than being associated with weakness, warmth becomes linked to safety, predictability, and mutual regulation, making prosocial behavior feel both natural and strategically sound.

In many social environments, warmth also serves as an alternative mechanism for managing power and status. Instead of deterring challenges through intimidation, warm individuals often cultivate influence by fostering loyalty, goodwill, and voluntary cooperation. Displays of empathy, fairness, and respect can signal social competence and confidence, particularly in settings where long-term collaboration matters. Although warmth may appear less immediately forceful than harshness, it often yields more stable and durable social advantages.

Warmth is especially evident under conditions of effective emotional regulation. When individuals are not overwhelmed by stress, shame, or resentment, they retain greater tolerance for ambiguity and disagreement. This allows them to respond with patience, curiosity, and restraint rather than hostility. In such cases, warmth reflects not indulgence but control: the capacity to absorb emotional strain without discharging it onto others.

Warmth can also be used instrumentally, though in a less obvious way. Some individuals learn that kindness, reassurance, and generosity are efficient means of achieving goals—maintaining relationships, resolving conflict, or encouraging cooperation—without coercion. High empathy raises the psychological cost of harming others, but it simultaneously increases sensitivity to social feedback, allowing warm behavior to be deployed flexibly and strategically rather than indiscriminately."

Harshness:

"Individuals raised in environments characterized by criticism, aggression, or emotional neglect may internalize such behavior as normal or effective. In these contexts, kindness may not have been modeled as a viable strategy, while harshness may have been associated with control, predictability, or survival. As a result, treating others poorly can feel justified or even necessary rather than cruel.

In competitive social environments, harshness can further operate as a tool for regulating power and status. Belittling, intimidation, or emotional coldness may discourage challenges and signal superiority. Although such tactics are socially costly in the long run, they can yield short-term advantages by suppressing opposition or securing compliance, particularly in hierarchical or high-pressure settings.

Emotional overload provides another pathway to harsh behavior. Stress, frustration, shame, or chronic resentment impair self-regulation and reduce tolerance for ambiguity or disagreement. Under such conditions, harshness often emerges not as a deliberate strategy but as a failure of emotional control. The individual may later regret the behavior, yet at the moment it serves as an immediate release of internal pressure.

Harshness can be used instrumentally. Some individuals learn that being unkind is an efficient way to achieve specific outcomes—ending relationships, enforcing boundaries, or provoking withdrawal—without engaging in explicit confrontation. Reduced empathy further lowers the psychological cost of such behavior, making it easier to justify harm to others."

Maize:

 @reiver ⊼ (Charles) hat repostet

MoundLore

@MoundLore

·

10. Jan.

Maize doesn’t act like a plant that wants to exist. The kernels don’t scatter. The cob doesn’t break apart. Nothing about it tries to survive on its own. If you don’t intervene, it fails. Its ancestor, teosinte, has the opposite instincts. Hard shells. Seeds that fling themselves away. Minimal yield. No obvious reward for human attention. Nothing about it suggests “future staple.” There’s no clever moment where someone figures maize out. What happens instead is slower and stranger. People keep planting it anyway. Not because it’s efficient. Not because it’s productive. But because someone keeps deciding which seeds matter. Over generations, then centuries, then millennia, selection pushes the plant in a direction nature would never choose. Bigger ears. Softer kernels. A structure that refuses to fall apart. Eventually the plant crosses a biological line. It becomes dependent. Maize cannot reproduce without human hands separating kernels, spacing rows, protecting seed stock. It has no wild future. The earliest physical traces show up in places like the Tehuacán Valley as tiny, uneven cobs. They’re unimpressive. They record patience, not progress. When maize spreads, it doesn’t spread cleanly. It fractures. Short-season varieties for northern latitudes. Drought-tolerant strains. Floodplain strains. Highland strains. Each one is a local solution encoded in seed form. Climate, soil chemistry, frost risk, rainfall timing all remembered biologically. No writing. No diagrams. Just planting and loss when you get it wrong. Every harvest is feedback. Every failure is instructional. That’s why maize reorganizes societies instead of just feeding them. You can’t treat it casually. You have to store it. Protect it. Time it. Coordinate labor. Miss the window and the entire system collapses. Some Indigenous traditions say humans come from maize. That sounds poetic until you realize how literal the relationship is. Forget the knowledge and the plant dies. Keep it alive and it carries you through winters, droughts, population growth. Maize is evidence that people in the Americas accepted a long-term obligation and built their worlds around honoring it.