Responses from Dr. Brown

My responses to community member questions are written below. Responses are dated with the most recent ones listed first.

February 17, 2026

QUESTION (edited for length and clarity):
I came across an article of yours "Why Are 90% of All Murderers Men?" and wanted to reach out. I've been philosophizing on this for a while now. I try to talk to friends about it and often hit a dead end. I have been asking the following set of questions:
1. Are men and women currently equal?
2. How do you define equality between men and women, given that they are not the same (biological differences)? What metric do you use to determine equality?
3. Should the metric we use be Value? Will men and women be equals when we see them as equally valuable to humankind?

I seem to be of the lone opinion in my circle of friends that biology plays a very important role in our behavior and therefore our culture. Everyone wants to focus on Nurture, on culture. Your article did as well. You only focused on the nurture aspect. Isn't it well known that Nurture is, in the end, part of Nature? Culture isn’t some higher construct detached from our biology; it’s an extension of it, a sophisticated manifestation of our evolved instincts that enables large groups of humans to cooperate, survive, and reproduce more effectively. What we call morality and social norms are, at their core, adaptive behavioral strategies, patterns that have proven beneficial for collective survival. Our ethics, customs, and institutions are not transcendent ideals standing above nature, but pragmatic adaptations shaped and refined over countless generations through trial, error, and the evolutionary pressures of social living.

If we can agree to that, then why doesn't anyone want to acknowledge biology as a factor as to what makes men behave certain ways (and makes women behave certain ways)? Perhaps over the cultural shifts of thousands of years, we still have the same dilemma: men and women are not equal. If we started to look at it from both angles (nature and nurture), maybe we could create better tools to tackle male aggression and inequality as a whole?

I'd like to hear your thoughts. Cheers!
—”Chris”

RESPONSE:
Dear Chris,

Thank you for reading my article and for reaching out to me. 

(1) Your first question about whether men and women are currently equal is a tough question to answer because context is needed. For example, in the United States, men and women ARE equal under the law...meaning men and women are legislated equally. (They are afforded the same exact rights as citizens.) However, that type of equality exists only under the context of U.S. law. If you were to ask a biologist if men and women are equal, that biologist may say we are almost equal, but not quite. But your question is important TO YOU, so I would ask YOU what do YOU mean by equal? Equal in what way? Are men and women equal physiologically? That answer is no. Are men and women equal in terms of being autonomous creatures with free will? That answer is yes. 

(2) Your second question asked how I define equality between men and women. My answer is that men and women are not entirely equal; however, they are alike in more ways than they are different. Physiologically and biologically, we all share 90% or so of the same makeup--one heart, two lungs, ten fingers, ten toes, two eyes, two kidneys, a central nervous system, shoulder blades, an appendix, ear lobes, etc etc etc etc. That physiological list goes on and on. Biologically, men and women differ in reproductive systems and endocrine systems, and also size and muscle mass, and a few items in bone structure. But there is a mind-body connection. Because men and women have differing reproductive systems, this later affects other aspects of life such as innate senses of safety, the "push and pull" of mating dynamics, sexual interactions, etc. This later affects other relational factors such as parenting, interpersonal communications, etc. You also asked what metric I use to determine equality. My answer to that has more to do with my own personal tendencies toward social justice. I'm always thinking in terms of power, privilege, oppression, exploitation, safety, access, and opportunity. 

(3) You asked whether the metric we use should be "value", and you also wrote that men and women will be equals based on them being equally valuable to humankind. My answer is absolutely not. Value is too subjective to quantify. It's like asking which is more valuable: food or water. My answer is why waste time wondering about equal value? Why does it matter if men are more valuable or women are more valuable or they are valuable in equal amounts? It's a futile question because we need men AND we need women because they are valuable in their own different ways. 

Your follow up writing seems to argue that, when it comes to men's propensity for violence, you believe "nature" should be considered a significant factor (either in place of "nurture" or at the very least, alongside "nurture"). I would argue against that. The common argument about testosterone does not hold up to research. Take a look at the growing research on testosterone. Testosterone has no link to violence (however, testosterone is connected to drive). 

You wrote "isn't it well known that nurture is in the end part of nature?" I'm not sure if that is well known...I don't even believe that is true (at least not true based on what we mean be nurture.) A woman who gives birth to a child will begin to nurture that child right away, and so YES that is natural. But that is not the definition of "nurture" that people mean when they debate violent tendencies in men. (Remember that there are different meanings to the idea of nurture.) 

Is nurturing a child an extension of a mother's nature? Yes, sure. Is nurturing violence an extension of human being's nature? No, not at all.

I'm a composition and critical thinking professor, so I pay close attention to the use of words and our layperson colloquial language. When we engage in the "nature vs nurture" debate, what is really happening is a conversation about biological instinct vs. societal learned behavior. Violence is most definitely a societal learned behavior.

You also wrote that culture is an extension of our biology, and culture is a sophisticated manifestation of evolved instincts. You might be right on the first part, but I'm not quite sure about the second part of your sentence. Culture is an amalgamation of language, customs, foods, clothing, trends, and a host of normative factors. Your sentence equating morality and social norms to adaptive behavioral strategies is not quite correct. If that were the case, then anthropologists and sociologists would see a whole lot LESS moral differentiation.

I agree with you that our ethics, customs, and institutions are not transcendent ideals, but then you wrote that they are pragmatic adaptations shaped by the evolutionary pressures of social living. I believe you are close. Our ethics, customs, and institutions are adaptations shaped by the CULTURAL pressures of social living. When you use the term "evolutionary", you imply that there is something biological pressuring us into certain directions. But research shows that is not the case. 

You questioned why people do not want to acknowledge biology as a factor as to what makes men and women behave in certain ways. I would REALLY TRULY beg you to objectively read scientific research on all of this. (Not your common internet articles. Most of the articles we see on the internet are written by people who INTERPRET research....that is called secondhand or third-hand research.)

There is also confirmation bias to be cautious of. If you already believe that men and women's behavior patterns are more biological than cultural, then you will be more likely to find internet "articles" that favor your predisposed perspective. But it's common. I used to do the same thing. I had an idea of what I believed about the topic, but then I started researching with an open mind, and I humbly admit that I had to change my perspective. 

I'm going to quote a passage from the textbook "The Psychology of Human Sexuality" (third edition). Read this carefully from page 117 of the textbook: 

"With respect to aggression, there has been a longstanding assumption that men are more aggressive than women in almost all ways, and most early research in social psychology seemed to support this idea. However, recent work has found that there are sex differences in certain types of aggression. Specifically, men are more inclined than women to aggress in ver direct and physical ways, while women are more inclined than men to aggress in more indirect and verbal ways (e.g., spreading rumors or gossip; Hess & Hagen, 2006). In addition, when you take into account contextual factors such as provocation (i.e., when someone incites another person to become aggressive, such as through taunting), sex differences in aggression become much smaller (Bettencourt & Miller, 1996). At least part of the reason that men are more aggressive overall is that they are provoked more often. Together, these findings suggest that men may not be genetically predisposed to be more aggressive than women; rather, it may be that society expects men and women to act out their aggression in very different ways and allows men more opportunities to be more aggressive." 

Forgive me if I wrote too much, but I hope all of this helps!

March 17, 2023

QUESTION:
I do have issues in being lonely as I don’t have as many people around me. Also I get bogged down at work in addition to running a side business. What should I do to calm down and to be at peace? I have tried meditation at times, but it seems to be always interrupted by something. Thank you.
—“Bobby”

RESPONSE:
Dear Bobby,
Thank you for your question. And thank you for being first on the advice page! That shows courage because I know there are others who heard this week’s mission of asking for advice here, but they were hesistant to speak up. So thanks for your vulnerability and strength!
There are three topics in your question that I want to address.
The first part of your question deals with loneliness. You said that you are lonely and don’t have many people around you. Those are sometimes two different things. Sometimes, you can be surrounded by crowds of people and still feel lonely. Other times, you can be at home by yourself and NOT feel lonely. What this means is that being alone and being lonely are two different things. Therapists and counselors define loneliness as feeling unable to connect with others. So if you feel lonely, you have to discover ways of connecting. This could mean finding new likeminded friends. Or it could mean finding new ways to be vulnerable with the friends you already have. There are many ways to connect with others. In fact, keep listening to the podcast because an announcement is coming about the “Joker to King Virtual Men’s Group” launching in June.
The second part of your question has to do with feeling bogged down at work and running your side business. I’ve always been a big believer that there is no such thing as time management. (We can’t manage things that we can’t touch or control.) There is no time management. There is TASK management. The key is NOT to find more time to do all of your tasks. The key is to reduce the number of tasks you have. Instead of doing so many tasks and barely getting them done, I would rather see you do only a few tasks and perform them excellently. We really do way too much sometimes. Identify three or four priorities at your job, and then learn how to delegate the rest. If you can’t delegate tasks to someone else, learn how to delegate tasks to automation. (Contact me if you need help with that.)
The third part of your question deals with calming down and being at peace. If you are not calm or at peace right now, then that means you are probably feeling the opposite of peaceful, which is stressed or anxious or heightened in some kind of way. (I advise you to take another listen to Joker to King Podcast episode 11 right HERE.) Throughout our week, we all ebb and flow between stress and calm, between anxiety and peace. There are things we do each day to regulate our nervous systems, such as taking a walk, deep breathing, talking with friends, laughing at a TV show, or listening to positive music. HOWEVER, if what you are dealing with is a constant and persistent sense of stress or anxiety or heigtened emotion, then some other strategies may be necessary (like meditation or counseling or therapy).
Finally, in your question, you said that you tried meditation but it keeps getting interrupted by something. Are those interruptions external or internal? External interruptions (such as kids knocking on the door, or a phone ringing, or a dog barking) are relatively easy to fix. Simply remove the distractions when it’s time to meditate. Or take five minutes in your job’s parking lot to meditate alone before going inside to work. However, if the interruptions are internal (such as racing thoughts, or worries about your to-do list, or a mixture of feelings and thoughts that you are trying to avoid), then you may need to rethink what meditation means. Meditation is not about controlling the thoughts in your mind. Meditation involves objectively observing the thoughts and feelings that come up and just noticing them…kind of like imagining your thoughts as clouds in the sky. Your mind is the wide open clear sky. Your thoughts are the clouds that float into your line of sight and then float away. You don’t try to control the movement of clouds. You don’t try to push clouds away. You can’t do that. So the key is to simply watch them come, notice what they look like, and then watch them go.
I hope this helps!