Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Relational aggression in girls vs. physical aggression in boys: "The same genes that predict physical aggression in boys predict relational aggression in girls." "Relational aggression where you're destroying someone's reputation or social standing or making them feel isolated is just as painful as physical aggression, if not more so."...

48,885 views • 19 days ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Jacob Tierney discusses the demanding physicality of Connor and Hudson's Heated Rivalry roles. "What I always knew about this show—and what I like in general—is behavior is more interesting to me than dialogue. Especially with characters like [Shane and Ilya] who are almost never talking about the topic. They are talking around things. They are full of bluster. They are bragging or showing off or being defensive. … So it's way more about their behavior. It was so much more physical, what I would tell them to do. Because I was like—this dialogue, this scene is like 2½ pages, and not one thing you're saying matters. I don't care about it. What I care about is what your body is doing up against that wall, and when you decide to approach him, and the way you're going to touch him, and at what point. And when you're going to let him off the hook emotionally or when you're going to hook him emotionally. That stuff is so much more important, and that you pace in around what is written. And that is deeply physical. The best acting to me is always physical and the best platform you can give an actor—as a writer, I think—is physical stuff… I want to see what your body is doing. Your body will tell me more than your words ever will. Your eyes will tell me more. But like, especially with these characters, because they're athletes too. It's like physicality will be everything. And that was also why these roles were so demanding, you know? There's the physicality of the intimacy, and then there's the physicality of the hockey. Everything is physical in this story." Transcription via Heated Rivalry News & Updates Quote via Q&A with Stage 32 on March 24, 2026

Heated Rivalry News & Updates

155,866 views • 4 months ago

Jordan Peterson on why you can't be good without integrating your capacity for aggression: Peterson argues that morality without aggression is hollow. The person who has never developed their capacity for force isn't actually good. They're just harmless. And there's a crucial difference. "No one can be a good person without integrating their capacity for aggression. Because without that capacity for aggression, you cannot say no." He unpacks what a real "no" actually means: "No means, if you really say it, no means there isn't anything that you can do to me that will make me change my mind. Or conversely, it means I will play for higher stakes than you will. And unless you've got your aggression integrated, there isn't a chance you can say that. And if you did, no one would take you seriously, because they'd know it was just a show." This is where Peterson brings in Jung and contrasts him with Freud. For Freud, morality was the super ego clamping down on the id. The aggressive, instinctual parts of you were the enemy, and the moral project was suppression. Jung saw it differently. Peterson explains that Jung was deeply interested in the problem of evil, particularly while trying to make sense of Nazi Germany and the Second World War. The question that preoccupied him: what do you do with the part of you that's aggressive and potentially malevolent? "Do you just crush it? That's the super ego response in some sense. Do you just put it behind you, so to speak? Is that a possibility? Or do you admit to its existence and bring it into the game?" Jung's answer, what Peterson calls "the integration of the shadow" was to invite the bad guys out to play rather than lock them in the basement. The hockey player analogy lands the point: "You're an aggressive hockey player, but it's disciplined aggression that gives you access to a whole source of energy you wouldn't otherwise have." Goodness is the disciplined integration of harm. A person who can't be dangerous can't really be trusted when they say no, can't protect what matters, and is cut off from an enormous reservoir of energy. The moral person is the one who has made peace with theirs and put it to work.

Kevin Tanaka

22,073 views • 3 months ago

Instability appears to have a stronger effect on boys than girls. The psychologist Peter K. Jonason and his colleagues found that, among men but not women, childhood instability was associated with higher scores on the Dark Triad—a constellation of personality traits associated with aggression, short-term thinking, and disregard for others. By contrast, childhood socioeconomic status had no effect on these traits. The effects of instability are especially striking when it comes to gender. Harvard economist Raj Chetty—in a 2016 paper that focused on boys and girls born between 1980 and 1982 in the same, disadvantaged neighborhoods—discovered that, by the time they turned 30, the women had better economic and educational outcomes than the men. Moreover, while the gender gap in college attendance exists across the socioeconomic ladder, it is widest among the poor. In other words, among kids raised in rich families, girls are slightly more likely to attend college. But among children raised in poor families, girls are much more likely to attend college. The employment pattern is reversed for children raised in intact families. Among children raised by poor, married parents, boys are slightly less likely than girls to grow up to be unemployed. In other words: Single parenthood appears to be especially detrimental for boys, while having married parents is particularly advantageous. These findings are consistent with research led by University of Chicago economist Marianne Bertrand, who also found that, while all children suffer in broken families, boys really suffer. Bertrand’s study observed that boys raised by single parents are twice as likely to be suspended from school as a result of disruptive behavior than girls in the same circumstances—and that the gender gap narrowed considerably when kids grow up in intact families. “All other family structures appear detrimental to boys,” the study notes.

Rob Henderson

29,378 views • 1 year ago