alt Hacker NewsSaw this earlier today, I think it’s very flawed and ideological, unfortunately other posts mentioning this got flagged.
First there’s the idea that “nurturing” is somehow what kids need and better for them automatically, that whatever a stereotypical man does with kids is bad for them, and we need to be rewired by pheromones or whatever to be more sensitive. And as a corollary the idea that a high-T man somehow is a worse caregiver, and that it needs to be reigned in by some adaptation. The whole thing is definitely framed for a certain world view, it’s definitely not the only interpretation.
Replies
What exactly are you proposing that kids need other than nurturing?
[dead]
[flagged]
It’s probably unnatural for adult men to spend much time with tiny children in the first place. Here and there, sure, and boys close to adult age, definitely, but nothing like what happens today. This is why many men find it difficult, it is contrary to instinct.
Do hunter gatherers split care of tiny children? Whatever they do is what we’re wired for, mostly.
There's some interesting research on the effect of T in mice which has been challenging traditional assumptions of its role in males: https://news.emory.edu/stories/2022/08/esc_testosterone_anim...
It's worth noting though that the actions of the "stereotypical man" are strongly culturally informed, and not neccessarily indicative of whatever evolutionary pressures would've wired males brains whatever way they're wired for fatherhood. I don't think we have much direct evidence of ancient female and male parent roles (apart from being able to infer the obvious, like that females would've breastfed).