Hacker News Reader

Comment by The_Colonel | Hacker News Reader

> Apparently, there's a deep-rooted instinct in children that tells them "this one is a father and thus cannot be a bad person".

Not just in children, I'm pretty sure that everybody's "threat detector" perceives "male" and "male with a child" completely differently.

I think you're partially correct about the "bad person wouldn't have a child" stereotype, but it's also about the context. Some bad people will have children, but in their presence are likely to be risk-averse and prioritize peace and safety of their offspring. A father away from their child can OTOH get aggressive.

View on HN

Male with dog walking in the park, not very far from what you're describing here I guess. Extra points if the dog is fluffy.

How about a Starbucks cup? ;)

Depends on the dog, and the male, or both.

Indeed, specifically breed plays a large role, since it reflects what values are important for the owner. A fighting dog is a clear red flag, even a common German Shepherd will make a person look somewhat more threatening.

A Golden Retriever will on the other hand project friendliness. There are small dog breeds like Yorkshire which are rather aggressive, but in my perception they wouldn't increase the threat perception.

These are of course stereotypes, they won't be true every time, but are IMHO useful as a rule of thumb.

I see your male walking with fluffy dog, and raise you a male with a fluffy dog picking up the poop after the dog. I’m tall, dress in black, and have a black beard (so potentially scary), and after such a maneuver it seems I become the first choice to ask for help.

There is a quote from LOTR that has always stuck with me:

“I thought Fangorn was dangerous.

'Dangerous!' cried Gandalf. 'And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord. And Aragorn is dangerous, and Legolas is dangerous. You are beset with dangers, Gimli son of Glóin; for you are dangerous yourself, in your own fashion. Certainly the forest of Fangorn is perilous — not least to those that are too ready with their axes; and Fangorn himself, he is perilous too; yet he is wise and kindly nonetheless.”

The children correctly assess you as "dangerous". They then assess whether you are wise and kindly, and find you so, making a good ally or friend. Merely wise and kindly people do not make as good of an ally or friend.

And there are 2 wolf dog hybrids in our building who have the opposite effect on mostly women and children.

Dog breed matters loads there too. “Man with pit bull” is perceived very differently from “man with Labrador”

Testosterone is lower in fathers, so it makes a lot of sense to presume that fathers are less aggressive.

https://www.science.org/content/article/fatherhood-decreases...

How does this translate to health benefits and downsides? Is there a lower incidence of prostate cancer in fathers compared to childless men?

I'm asking since there's an extreme difference in prostate cancer prevalence tied to race (in the US at least) and some attribute this to testosterone level differences. The differences are however smaller than in your study.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3455741/

Dunno. But there is a lot of research on that.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066425/

https://medicaljournalssweden.se/SJU/article/view/11787

Male with female also seems to have a similar effect.

I'm constantly telling my single male friends that they need one good photo of themselves with unrelated wome(a)n on any dating app/profile. It's subconscious.

Make sure to ask the women for permission when using them this way.

True, although my intuition tells me the effect is somewhat smaller.

Not just being a father, but simply spending a lot of time around children causes men's testosterone levels to drop precipitously, so men with children probably are objectively less aggressive in that sense as well.

The widespread belief that testosterone has a causal link to aggression has been debunked.

Some sources:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208132241.h...

https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2009.1131

Reply on news.ycombinator.com