Feminism and Anti-Science

An excellent blog post at Restructure ("Science is not the Oppressor," 2008) expressed concern about a culture meme (see comments) of anti-science propagating in feminist communities. Specifically, the post takes to task anti-scientific comments made at Feministing and Shameless. The nameless author of Restructure comments: "it is good that scientifically-illiterate statements are being criticized within anti-oppressive blog communities, but the general anti-science and anti-intellectual memes needs to stop." Non-feminists also suggest that feminism is anti-scientific. Opinion letters in Ohio University's Post (2008) and Bangor, Maine's Daily News (2008) accuse feminists of ignoring scientific evidence of psychological sex differences.

Gender does not appear to influence trust of science. Two Australian studies, Critchley and Turney (2004) and Yates and Chandler (2000) found that anti-scientific and anti-intellectual beliefs were unrelated to gender.

---

"scientific practise is a social activity, subject to the biases and prejudices of the scientists. In contrast, the scientific methods of gathering empirical data to refute hypotheses, and using statistical methods to determine statistical significance, are perfectly sound." -- Restructure

As discussed Thursday, claims that the scientific community is sexist are not baseless. However, my feeling is that, as Cordelia Fine suggests, the problem is not with science, but with the ways the science is presented.

Women and social networking

According to yesterday's Solutions Research Group press release (2008), women "lead the social networking crowd" with 42% of online women visiting a social networking site vs 41% of men. In fairness, the previous year's survey had found only 30% of online women using social networking sites.

Blogger M.G. Seigler (ParisLemon, 2007) quoted statistics from "reputation search engine" Rapleaf last November, which seem to aggregate gender from several social networking sites - and business site LinkedIn seems to be the only one dominated by men.

---

I have such a hard time turning surveys like this into "real" numbers. Percentage of "online women" and percentage of "LinkedIn users" doesn't tell me much about how many people in the real world are thinking about their social networking websites on a regular basis. Basically, I think that consumer data specialists have been predicting women's adoption of social networking for so long that they jump at any trend that indicates their own prescience. It's just people-versus-objects all over again.

Now, Pew/Internet (2007) on "Teens and Social Media" gives numbers that : 21% of all teens (ages 12-17) reported using social networking messaging every day, compared to just 14% using email daily.

Researcher Profile: Cordelia Fine

Cordelia Fine (2007)¹ examines the "genre of Neurosexism": "recent popular and influential books arguing for fundamental and ‘hard-wired’ differences in male and female psychology." Fine explains the popularity of these titles with the "palliative system justification motive, 'whereby people justify and rationalise the way things are, so that existing social arrangements are perceived as fair and legitimate, perhaps even natural and inevitable.'²"

Fine is an author and a biotechnology ethicist. Fine also writes psychology articles for the Australian press. Of particular interest is "Boys cut adrift by dud science" (2007), which takes single-sex-education proponent Leonard Sax to task for suggesting boys can not be taught to be emotionally intelligent.

---

I'm almost salivating hoping Fine decides to write about the new Susan Pinker book. The flood of "hard-wired sex difference" books shows no sign of stopping, but at least it gives me something to talk about. Fine writes like I wish I could write. Normally, I shy away from philosophy and ethics, but Fine's approach is pragmatic enough to appeal to me. It occurs to me that I should probably do some self-reflection on why I have such a knee-jerk reaction against philosophy, but introspection sucks.

1. Credit is due to the Neuroanthropology blog for pointing out the first link.
2. Fine cites Jost and Hunyady (2003) for the "palliative system justification motive".

Protein needs in older adults

Smith et al (2008) report today that there are differences in the need for protein between older men and older women. Their study, focusing on the 65-80 age group, examined muscle protein synthesis (MPS: the body's ability to turn protein into muscle). Women had a higher basal rate of MPS, while men's bodies were more reactive to increased dietary protein. In a University of Nottingham press release (2008), co-author Michael Rennie states: "older people should focus on eating a higher proportion of protein in their everyday diet." The difference is thought to be related to hormonal changes with aging: testosterone aids in MPS, while estrogen inhibits it.

---

I am not a physiologist, and of all the studies I report, the medical ones are the hardest for me to understand. However, my reading of the article versus the press releases leads me to believe that this is being reported entirely wrong. The study was examining why women lose muscle more slowly in old age than men (discussed exactly a year ago, coincidentally, in Age and Muscle). Note the following differences between the press release and the article:

Press release: "Keeping in good shape in old age is harder for women, study finds"
Excerpt: "in their mid- to late-60s, the female body's response to food and exercise starts to decline. Women are particularly at risk of muscle loss because they tend to have less muscle and more fat than men in early and middle age — so they are nearer to the 'danger' threshold of becoming frail when they reach their 50s and 60s."

Article: "Differences in Muscle Protein Synthesis and Anabolic Signaling in the Postabsorptive State and in Response to Food in 65–80 Year Old Men and Women"
Excerpt: "The differences we observed between older men and women, namely a ~30% greater basal rate of mixed MPS in women than in men and resistance of MPS to feeding a liquid mixed meal (providing a total of ~10 g of protein) in women .... a greater basal rate of MPS, operating over a large portion of the diurnal cycle, may be, at least in part, responsible for the slower loss of muscle in women than in men."

Stereotype threat behind the wheel

Courtney von Hippel, a psychologist at the University of Queensland (AUS), studies "intergroup relations and stereotyping in the workplace." Her most recent paper (Yeung & von Hippel, 2007) tested women in a driving simulator after priming them with gender stereotypes. The women in the experimental group were more than twice as likely to hit a simulated jaywalker. This was equivalent to the impact of a distraction task (a grammatical quiz), leading the researchers to suggest that stereotype threat functions by increasing cognitive load. Previous studies on stereotype threat have focused on pen-and-paper tests.

---

I've mentioned it before, although not in over a year, but I worry a lot about the possibility that Difference Blog contributes to the stereotype threat environment in which most of us operate. I don't know how much more strongly I can stress the point that just because men and women test differently on various skill sets, that doesn't mean there is an innate difference in ability or that it's immutably "the way things are."

Attractiveness and Marriage Satisfaction

McNulty and Neff (2008) propose that absolute attractiveness is not as important to marital success as relative differences in attractiveness. The psychologists found that marriages where the husband was more attractive than the wife were less successful. Specifically, the researchers found that "more attractive husbands behaved less constructively and were less satisfied with their marriages." The study interviewed and rated 82 pairs of newlyweds in their first six months of their first marriage. 54% of the men and 50% of the women were full time students, so the average combined income of these couples was under $20,000.

---

This seems to be part of the "men value attractive mates more" thing, if I'm interpreting it correctly. It could also be about the amount of attention each partner is getting, and how much they need. Alternatively, it could be about the fact that all of the couples are really young. It would seem to me that the important factor would be how each member of the couple perceived their relative attractiveness. I've known plenty of beautiful people who thought they were ugly, and vice versa. With this study, as with most others, if your partner is the same sex as you, you're on your own.

Hunka-hunka burnin' meat

According to a press release from the American Society for Microbiology, there really are differences in what men and women eat. Survey results presented at the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases showed that women were more likely to report eating vegetables while men were more likely to report eating meat - and greater varieties of both. The survey, conducted by the CDC FoodNet, asked 14,000 Americans about the food eaten over the past week. The Washington Post (2008) quotes Yale's David L Katz as speculating that although there may be a biological role "more obvious are cultural influences, which suggest that salads and quiche are dainty; hunks of meat manly."

The differences reported were not huge: 21% of men had eaten ham in the past week compared to 18% of women. The largest difference reported was on carrots, with 35% vs 29% of men. An exception to the trend was that men were more likely to have eaten asparagus or brussel sprouts. Men were also more likely to eat their hamburger rare and their eggs runny.

---

I wonder if men eat their food undercooked as part of their greater risk-taking tendencies, or due to greater impatience waiting for it to be done? *thinks* In the past week I have eaten 2 kinds of mammals, 1 kind of poultry, and 4 kinds of seafood. I've had ham three times, bacon once; the pig is "a wonderful, magical animal"¹. The vegetables I've eaten are a narrower band, I suspect, but it's harder to count them up. I don't think I've eaten any carrots. I generally try to limit myself to meat at one meal per day, and not every day, but this week it looks like I didn't do that. You know, in general, I probably ate more meat when I was a woman. I also made all my attempts at vegetarianism as a woman. Who says there's more variation among men? ;)


see also:
3/30/2007 "Food Preferences: Boys vs. Girls"
3/6/2007 (Dan4th's personal LJ) - Quizno's "Meat" ads
12/15/2006 "Eating Patterns in Same-Sex Groups"

Lifetime Alzheimer's Disease Risk: 1 in 6-10

A Boston University (2008) press release from Tuesday reports that the lifetime risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is one in six for women and one in ten for men. Including all dementias brings the risks to one in five and one in seven, respectively. Overall, Dr. Sudha Seshadri's found that the lifetime risk of stroke or dementia was greater than one in three for both sexes. Seshadri's findings were released this week in the Alzheimer's Association's 2008 Facts and Figures report (PDF). The report clarifies that most of the increased risk for women is explained by women's longer lifespans.

---

Wow, here's an unexpected effect of my activism: I found myself trying to destigmatize and normalize AD. I actually intended to pretend I wasn't scared blind of losing my cognitive capacities. Crap, and now I feel bad about implying there's anything wrong with being blind.

See also:
1/23/08: Hormones and Alzheimer's
9/29/06: Senior Moments

Testosterone and Anxiety

Van Wingen et al (2008) hypothesized that lowering androgen levels (a normal effect of aging) might contribute to the higher levels of mood and anxiety disorders among middle-aged women. fMRI results indicated that a single dose of nasal testosterone "increased amygdala reactivity to a level comparable to the young women." Hermans et al (2007) found that subjective ratings of stress and mood were improved by a sublingual dose of testosterone. However, Hermans' model seems to assume that lowered amygdala activity leads to lower stress, while van Wingen's group seems to feel the increased amygdala activity lowers stress.

---

When I've searched for testosterone's effect on mood before, I've tended to focus on depression, but a comment from M Big Mistake yesterday specifically asked about anxiety, which turned up these two recent studies. They both suggest that androgen levels are linked to the higher rates of anxiety among women (and it's certainly tempting to look for hormonal causes) but their conflicting theoretical models make me very skeptical. After the past year and a half of research, I tend to lean towards the interpretation that women are more depressed because their lives suck more.

Skin tone, Gender, and attractiveness

I always wondered why He-Man was tan,
but She-Ra was pale.

The Independent (UK, 2008) reports on research from the University of Toronto (Baumann, 2008)that suggests that men prefer fairer-skinned women, while women prefer darker skinned men. Sociologist Shyon Baumann analyzed 2,133 advertising photographs and found significant differences in the portrayal of skin tone in men and women. Among white women, darker complexions were more likely to be portrayed "in an advanced state of undress". Baumann concludes that men read a paler complexion as more virginal while women interpret a darker complexion as more virile.

---

Uh, what? I don't even know what to say to this one. It seems to portray advertising as a thermometer for our subconscious desires -- as opposed to the cause of them? Now, I myself dig the pale scrawny guys. That's my thing; I'm a geek. Actually, in my first year of college, I ended up in an argument over whether tan men were attractive while watching 90210 with the girls from my dorm floor. The argument quickly devolved into a discussion of whether or not I was racist. In fairness, at the time, I probably was.

Yes, the details are given specifically for how dated they are. I'm feeling old today.

Online Shopping

The Chicago Tribune* (2008) reports that the results from the 2007 holiday season show more differences between online male and female luxury shoppers. A survey of 1,300 "online luxury shoppers" found that men spent more and returned less when shopping online. Forrester research analyst Sucharita Mulpuru suggests that one of the main differences is that "men tend to value their time more." Mulpuru's report found that men returned less than 10% of online clothing purchases, while women returned more than 20%. Men spent $2,401 over the previous three months compared to $1,527 over three months for women.

---

I'd love to see the original research on this one, but Mulpuru's report is $279, and there's these jeans I've had my eye on... I kid. I try to keep in mind that they're selecting from a pretty specific group here, but the numbers tweak my brain a bit. Over $2,000 on clothing and accessories? In three months? I don't spend that much in three years! Yeesh.

I'm not surprised that the men who can afford to shop at this level value their time a lot: they probably get paid pretty well for it. Hell, even at my income level, I usually find returning clothing to be more trouble than the money is worth. Still, I really want to know about the brick-and-mortar store habits of the people in this survey. Were men spending more because they spent less in traditional stores? How many of the male shoppers were single vs. how many of the women shoppers? What percentage of the purchases were for themselves, and how many were gifts? I looked for more about the original survey, but I haven't found anything.

*Tribune content syndicated from WSJ (subscription), citing Forrester Research (paid content).

Height and Jealousy

Global jealousy relationship with
height, Figure 1 (men, top) and
2 (women, bottom)

Buunk et al's (2008) article has made significant press, starting with the New Scientist, being cited as proof of "short man syndrome." For example, Marie Claire magazine (2008) is polling its readers on whether their man suffers from it. The full article, however, examines the relationship between height and jealousy for both men and women:

"male height was found to be negatively correlated with self-reported global jealousy, whereas female height was curvilinearly related to jealousy, with average-height women reporting the lowest levels of jealousy"

In Study 2, Buunk claims that average-height women's jealousy is piqued by rivals with "masculine" (his quotes) characteristics like physical dominance or high social status, while men's height/jealousy relationship is not much changed by rival characteristics (short men were not as threatened by socially successful or "seductive" rivals). Previous research from Buunk has shown that men in general are threatened by financial success and physical dominance, while women in general tended to be threatened by physically attractive rivals (see DB 7/19/07, 10/25/06)

---

I'd like to point out that this is at least the second "tall men are better" article covered in the New Scientist in 2008 (see DB 1/18/08). I wonder if some editor there is as touchy as I am. ;) Quick! Stop me before I complain about my height again! ;) I know, distract me with a delicious word like "curvilinearly." Yummy. I also wanted to show you a couple of the scatter plots for this relationship (click to enlarge). I find it very hard to believe that Buunk's jealousy instrument is sensitive enough for what he's trying to do with it.

One of my biggest concerns is with using identical scripts with switched pronouns for the rivals in Study 2. I don't think "physical dominance" has the same connotations for a male or female rival. The example items for physical dominance are "is more muscular, is more athletic, has a heavier build." I don't think those are gender-equivalent values (even if I'd like them to be). Nor is "slender", one of the items for "physically attractive." Buunk's theories hang on which tools are more powerful in assortative mating strategies, so the utility of slenderness or muscularity to a man or woman is fairly important. I didn't see any indication in the article that these items were varied by participant gender.

Small changes for Big Problems

Several projects recently have suggested specific actions that could be taken in developing countries to improve the lot of women.

• The Poverty Action Lab's ongoing project "Menstruation and Education in Nepal" is examining whether distributing menstrual cups can help Nepalese women and girls overcome cultural taboos that restrict their mobility and education.
• The European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (2008) have begun a pilot program of low-cost fertility treatments for women in Africa. A woman who does not bear children "might be disinherited, ostracised, accused of witchcraft, abused by local healers, separated from her spouse, or abandoned to a second-class life in a polygamous marriage," according to ESHRE's press release.
• A United Nations three-agency report on gender-based violence in Nairobi (IRIN, 2008, see also Kenyan election crisis) notes that displaced women "had repeatedly expressed fears of sexual violence because of makeshift sleeping arrangements, where men and women were forced to sleep under one tent or out in the open."

---

Feministing.com talked about the Nairobi violence report yesterday, saying "women are not being repeatedly raped and abused because they are sleeping in one tent with men," and that's similar to my initial reaction to all three of these items. Plans like these don't change the devaluation of women that is the underlying problem. That being said, I don't think the UN report was saying that the sleeping conditions caused rape, but rather that the women expressed fear about the sleeping conditions. Another friend mentioned yesterday that the term "male sexual incontinence" was thrown around in the On Point (2008) radio show on prostitution yesterday, but I haven't listened to it, and I can't comment specifically on that. I think the idea that men can't be expected not to rape devalues both men and women, and is a load of crap.

Physician Bias

Borkhoff et al (2008) sent two standardized (scripted) patients to visit 38 family doctors and 29 orthopedic surgeons within a 3 hour drive of Toronto, ON. The patients were scripted to have identical symptoms and circumstances related to osteoarthritis. However, the male patient had arthroplasty recommended 67% of the time, compared to only 33% recommendations for the female patient. Borkhoff concludes that the doctors may be biased, tending to treat women's complaints "less seriously."

This tendency to assume women are exaggerating is consistent with rheumatoid arthritis treatment studies examined last May (5/22/07). It may also explain why other studies find that women are far more incapacitated when they finally do present for surgery (9/26/06).

---

This definitely looks like a down side to the tendency of women to go to the doctor more often. Honestly, I can't tell you whether my medical concerns have been taken more seriously since transition. Doctors and transsexuals can have a very adversarial relationship as it is. I don't think I can say I've ever been treated like a man by a doctor. Hell, I still get called "miss" about half the time in the doctor's office, which I expect is pretty confusing to the other people waiting, what with my beard. I try to be reasonable and cooperative, but educating my doctors gets tiring.

Cognition and Correlation

Burman and Booth (2008) searched for brain activation differences by sex that could explain the persistent performance differences on language tasks between boys and girls. Burman and Booth's fMRI study scanned 62 children (50% male) during rhyming and spelling tasks presented in written or verbal form. They concluded that boys and girls were using different brain areas to process these types of tasks, and "greater activation of language areas in girls." Boys, on the other hand, showed greater activation of the sensory modality in which the stimuli were presented: visual or auditory. In an article about the study in Science (2008), Burman suggests that these results support single-sex education in middle school.

---

I have to say I'm impressed by the size of their sample: 31 subjects per group seems a lot bigger than most of the fMRI studies we've discussed. I am concerned, however, about the group analyses, which cut these groups down into much smaller samples of 5-11 subjects of a particular age and sex, and about the fact that data were excluded for 8-20 subjects for each task. I still have a lot of questions about how much we can deduce from "greater activation." I think that correlations with behavioral results are a step in the right direction. However, in terms of the behavioral results in this study, Burman and Booth report that there was no sex/task correlation on accuracy, only on reaction time. Girls answered more quickly but no more accurately.

One question not addressed in the article is the theory that girls respond more to auditory stimuli while boys are more visual. This theory does not seem to be supported by these results.

Streaming television

Nielsen//Net Ratings (2008, pdf) reported in February that women are more likely to watch network television as streaming video than men: 22% to 12%. Men are more likely to watch "Consumer Generated Media" (CGM): 27% to 12%. The Nielsen report, which was criticized for excluding iTunes ("The Underwire" blog, 2008), pointed out further distinctions -- not between men and women, but between CGM viewers and streaming TV viewers. CGM viewers were more likely to watch overnight on weekends (11pm - 6am), whereas network streams were most viewed during the 12pm-2pm time window. Nielsen hails this spike as a "new primetime" during office worker's lunch hours.

---

I will almost never click on a video link at work. My main issue with video is that it takes time. I can almost see watching network shows at work, if I was officially off the clock. I would be too nervous about tripping over a NSFW link if I was browsing CGM at the office. On the other hand: is there anything on the "networks"? The Nielsen report only looked at Fox, ABC, CBS, and NBC. I watch sports and cartoons, and most of that on cable. I wonder what CBC streams?

Off-topic, I need to be smug for a moment. The Nielsen press release is named 080114.pdf, but was released on February 14. Whoops. The Wired Blog where I first noticed the story linked to the pop-up javascript window for the press release (which clearly wouldn't work from the Wired website). Whoops. I shouldn't be that smug. Google and Technorati have indexed this weekend's post about Pinker with my typo included. At least I fixed mine.

Related: "Internet Video Usage", May 2007

NYT Review: The Sexual Paradox

Follow-up to Friday's post: New York Times review of Susan Pinker's new book.

The Other Pinker

Psychologist and author Steven Pinker isn't the only author in his family. Released this month, his sister Susan Pinker's new book advocates for "women's professional advancement on their own terms." The Sexual Paradox: Men, Women and the Real Gender Gap, released this month, suggests that the "Vanilla Male Model" of success isn't fulfilling or appropriate for most women, due to biological factors such as oxytocin levels and how "male brains are wired". A review of the book in the Financial Post (2008, CAN) suggests that such claims are "heretical" (citing Larry Summers); the publisher's blurb on Amazon notes that Pinker "may draw a great deal of fire for this book."

---

Pinker can hope she'll draw a lot of fire for the book. I can't bring myself to rip it too hard. I haven't read it, and I support the idea that people should define their own version of success. I'm also willing to entertain the idea that not all differences in representation are necessarily indicative of discrimination. I'm not, however, prepared to "forget the patriarchy", as the Financial Post suggests. Hell, I just got here! ;)

This post was written in advance.  Corrections, if needed, will be made when I get back to the computer.

Mental Rotation: a new spin

Alexander and Evardone (2008) found that sex differences in performance on a mental rotation task (MRT) could be cut in half by using human figures instead of the traditional block figures. Both men's and women's performance on the MRT was improved by using a human figure, but the improvement to women's performance showed a much stronger effect. The sex of the human figure also seemed to play a role - men's performance with rotated female figures was similar to their performance with blocks, while women showed improvement on both male and female human figure stimuli.

Men still showed a statistically significant advantage with the human figure stimuli. Finger-length ratios (assumed to be indicators of androgen activity) were associated with total correct rotations in men, and with percentage correct rotations in women. The Pre-School Activities Inventory (PSAI, Golombok & Rust, 1993) (a recollection of gendered types of play engaged in as a child) did not show any associations with success in the MRT, or with finger length ratios. The strongest predictor of performance on the MRT was performance on the Extended Range Vocabulary Test - "a control measure of general cognitive ability that does not show a sex difference."

---

The theoretical framework proposed by Alexander and Evardone is that childhood play affects spatial sense:

"we reasoned that male-typical play may enhance the mental rotation of replicas of inanimate objects such as vehicles and blocks, whereas female-typical toy play, such as dressing dolls, may enhance the mental rotation of animate forms or body parts."

The results from the PSAI do not seem to support this: participation in masculine-specific play didn't seem to correlate with better spatial rotation. The figure-gender difference makes me wonder if the participants were picturing themselves as the figures, and that perhaps the male participants did not picture themselves as the female figures.

Essentialism

Smiler and Gelman: Masculine, feminine, and Neutral concepts

Smiler and Gelman (2008) examined the determinants of psychological essentialism in college students. They define essentialism in this context as the suggestion that "categories are stable, fixed at birth, and based on biological factors." Smiler and Gelman found greater essentialism among men (especially normatively masculine men) and greater essentialism for masculine concepts than feminine ones.

The terms in the table shown were used in the first of two studies, and were rated as masculine or feminine by 12 students unfamiliar with the main study. Study 1 participants were given nine prompts using these terms, along the lines of "Being X is a fixed property of an individual that doesn’t really change from"“…from childhood through adolescence,” “…from adolescence through early adulthood (e.g., 30s),” and “…from early adulthood (e.g., 30s) through old age.” Data from the "neutral" terms were not analyzed. In study 2, adjectives were more carefully matched to nouns (e.g. "a slut"/"promiscuous"; "a homosexual"/"gay"), and no neutral words were used.

---

Okay, I'm looking, but I'm not seeing how they found the "neutral" words, and I don't find them particularly neutral. But that's neither here nor there, and beside the point. This study caught my eye because of a really nice compliment I received a couple of weeks ago that Difference Blog was "rigorously and personally thoughtfully anti-essentialist." It sounded good, but honestly, I had no idea what essentialism was. Based on the definition used by Smiler and Gelman, I'd say my life is a study in anti-essentialism. I think I know this concept under the name "trait theory", and I've mentioned my understandable bias against it before (2/19/08). I consider personality changes to be not only possible, but more common than not. I'd be interested to hear whether any of you identify some of the words in Table 1 as stable, essential traits.

EDIT: More detail, tables, and clarification given in the comments on DBlog-LJ.

Forgiveness

Julia Juola Exline, Associate professor of Psychology at Case Western Reserve University, says she was "aggravated" by the results of her experiments with forgiveness. Men kept turning up as less forgiving and more vengeful than women. "The gender difference is not anything that we predicted... We kept trying to explain it away, but it kept repeating in the experiments", said Exline (EurekAlert, 2008). In an article released March 1st, Exline et al (2008) cover seven of these experiments from 1998-2005. The main conclusion is that people are more forgiving if they see themselves as capable of the offense; and that encouraging empathy was more effective in creating forgiveness in men than in women.

You may remember Exline's co-author, Roy Baumeister, from his "Gender Warriors please go home" speech last summer (2007).

---

In previous work, Exline reported that narcissistic, "entitled" people had a harder time forgiving (EurekAlert, 2005). Now, everyone watch while Dan4th scuttles off to cull previous D-Blogs about "narcissism" and completely fails to find any... Right. Change tactics.

So, see if you can follow me here. This is logically swiss cheese, but I'm enjoying the thought experiment: People who feel more entitled are less likely to forgive. People who can imagine themselves committing the offense are more likely to forgive. So, people who feel more entitled are less able to picture themselves committing an offense? That seems odd to me. I mean, I have an enormous ego, and I've always sort of assumed I'd make a fantastic criminal if I decided to pursue a life of supervillainy. Doesn't everyone?

Social Security and the mortality gap

Financial columnist Sandra Block (2008) discusses the pitfalls of filing for early benefits from Social Security, an issue facing many of the Baby Boomers (who are now 44-62). Block examines two different mortality differences: the gap between men and women (see 9/28/06), and the gap between unmarried and married men (see 1/10/07)). Both of these differences, Block argues, make it a better idea for married men to delay filing for benefits: married men will live longer, and may be more concerned about leaving their wives a higher survivor benefit.

Block cites the American Academy of Actuaries (AAA) for the disturbing figure that 42% of elderly women depend on Social Security for 90% of their income, but only 28% of men are this dependent on it. The same source notes that 20% of single women over 65 live in poverty, compared to 5% of married couples. The AAA's June report on Women and Social Security" (2007, pdf) points out that while Social Security is calculated on a gender-neutral basis, it's calculated off lifetime earnings, which culturally do not tend to be gender-neutral.

---

You know, I don't think I've ever expected to collect on Social Security. I was sort of raised on the rhetoric that it was going to run out before I was eligible. Until recently, I hadn't even considered the possibility that I'd live to see retirement. I figured I'd work until I died. That's not looking as inevitable as it once did, but the idea that I might outlive my retirement savings terrifies me. *scuttles off to increase 401K contributions*