Men less likely than women to share negative information, says study

Thank you for sharing that negative information.

We also need to be careful trusting headlines that might confirm our existing beliefs. I see a lot of comments here amounting to “well obviously, everyone has known this for centuries”. But none of us have been alive for centuries or across many cultures. The way the culture we live in represents history informs our biases, and may not be accurate. In fact it can serve the status quo to suggest that the way things are now “have always been this way” regardless of the veracity of these claims.

I'd imagine there's an aspect here of what is an event and a non-event.

This happened to me recently. A car traded paint with mine; there was no real damage (scuffs) and I didn't file a report or claim. Then I forgot about it altogether.

It was a non-event to me until my wife found out, months later. I get why she was upset (it's data) but don't (it's noise) at the same time.

Even if we paint women as overreactive, that's kinda their survival mechanism. Men are just as easily painted as dismissive; we only concern ourselves with immediate threats. Someone shooting at you and missing isn't a non-event because they missed, it's eventful because it signals the threat that someone shot at you.

Gender: the uniform of polarized intelligence analysts who divine different insights from the same information.

Analysis: true

The event is the attempt at the promotion. That the outcome was failure doesn't make it a 'non-event', and I think this is what the study is kind of getting at. Men mentally reconfigure these things into ways that protect our ego and/or status, whether we realize we're doing it or not. Maybe they chose that one over yours because getting fired is too difficult to not disclose. Your friends and dependents would certainly notice you've stopped going to work lol

That video is wrong. Men who are actually friends don't tell each other "that's a nice tie", they tell each other "nice tie $SLUR".

The issue with i.e. phrenology is that there's no association between skull shapes and behavior, as far as anyone can tell. There do seem to be a bunch of correlations relating to gender and behavior (although why exactly those correlations exist is certainly actively debated).

How do you figure it's unscientific?

The heirarchy of evidence is within the realm of science, no?

There are fundamental genetic differences between men and women, which determine differences in our brain structure, therefore behaviour. The study is not pseudoscience. Social constructivism is an anti-scientific perspective.

Even if the behavioural differences between men and women were purely socially determined, the study would still be scientific, in that it investigates and measures one of those differences.

If you believe there are zero behavioural differences between men and women on average (whether genetic or socially determined) then you are completely lost.

or people dont want pity

I forgot who said this quote, but paraphrasing from memory: there is nothing in the world that elicits less empathy than a grown man complaining

Finding the right group of people where you can be vulnerable with and be accepted is important. Everyone goes through things, we're all human.

Yes this for the benefit of those who don’t have access to the latest stand-up-comedian research.

Just to clarify your clarification, it means in this particular case the authors performed controlled experiments that attempted to account for other factors that might explain the difference they found.

Of course people have talked about difference between genders since... forever, but women have also experienced a significant amount of very real discrimination and that almost certainly has also had an influence on that narrative.