Participants were asked to think about their best friend and report how close they felt to that person using a 0 to 10 scale. Participants also provided demographic information such as gender and ethnoracial identity, as well as a proxy for socioeconomic background based on the educational attainment of a participant’s residential guardian. The dataset included information about the friend’s characteristics, such as whether they were the same gender or ethnoracial group, how similar they were in age, and how long the friendship had lasted, allowing the researcher to account for similarities between friends that might influence closeness.

The study also looked at how friends actually interacted. Participants reported how often they communicated with their best friend in a typical month, how often they discussed personal relationships or sought advice, used as a measure of emotional support, and how often they talked about education or career decisions, capturing practical support.

Overall, participants reported high levels of closeness with their best friend, suggesting that these relationships were meaningful and emotionally significant. Initial comparisons showed that women reported feeling closer to their best friend than men, and that closeness also varied across ethnoracial groups.

A closer look at these patterns revealed that the differences were not uniform. Black men and Black women reported similar levels of closeness, while Latino men reported somewhat lower closeness than Latina women. The largest gap appeared among white participants, where white men reported noticeably lower closeness than white women.
When communication patterns were factored in, some of these differences shifted. Among Latino participants, differences in how often men and women had emotionally supportive conversations helped explain the closeness gap; once those interaction patterns were accounted for, the difference between Latino men and women was no longer significant.

The friendship gap between white men and white women, however, held up even after accounting for communication frequency and the kinds of conversations they had, pointing to other factors at play.

Looking across groups, a consistent pattern emerged in which emotional support, especially discussing personal relationships and seeking advice, was strongly associated with greater closeness, regardless of ethnoracial identity. At the same time, other influences varied by group.

For example, socioeconomic background showed a small but meaningful association with closeness among white participants, with those from more advantaged backgrounds reporting slightly less closeness. Additionally, friendship similarities, such as sharing the same gender or racial identity, didn’t consistently predict closeness across all groups, suggesting the factors that shape friendship quality depend heavily on social context.

Of note is that this study focused on young adults aged 18 to 21, which may limit generalizability to older populations or different life stages. The dataset also did not include all racial groups in sufficient numbers for analysis, leading to the exclusion of some smaller ethnoracial categories.

Taken together, these findings suggest that the gender friendship gap is not a universal feature of human relationships but instead reflects the specific experiences of white men, underscoring the importance of considering race and social context in psychological research.

The research “Are White Men Missing Out?: Differences in Friendship Closeness by Gender and Ethnoracial Identity” was authored by Emily C. Fox.

>>1511600
>For years, researchers have claimed that men’s friendships are shallower and less emotionally supportive than women’s, a pattern called the “gender friendship gap.”
And just like that, I'm done reading. Congratulations on the gayest thread in the entire site.

>>1511602
>Of note is that this study focused on young adults aged 18 to 21, which may limit generalizability to older populations or different life stages. The dataset also did not include all racial groups in sufficient numbers for analysis, leading to the exclusion of some smaller ethnoracial categories.
That's some important context for a 12th paragraph.

>>1511600
this isn't new, male friendships almost always when one of them enter a relationship, while women friendships are lasting.

>>1511605
>>1511604
Damage control used to mean something.

>>1511608
>excludes Asians
>excludes everyone not college age americans
Studies have limitations but framing it in this way borders on malicious.

Oh yeah not to mention the dataset was taken in
>2002
So this could not even be helpful for addressing the needs of the current cohort of young white men if that's the goal.

>>1511600
see
>>1401181
>News articles must be recent! Nothing older than 48 hours please.
I think this 2002 study is older than 48 hours old

>>1511628
>>1511611
Why are you incorrectly trying to backseat mod?
The article is from May 2nd, 2026.
With the study being done in March and the findings more recently published.

>>1511636
Yes, this this news article calls on that study from the late '90s to examine the situation today.

I detest janitors and hall monitors that overreach their authority. They need to stick to pushing a broom and cleaning toilets as they have neither the IQ or education to be making editorial decisions.

As to The article, I find that Chinese men have small circles of very close friends.

I believe this is due to the shortage of woman in the late part of the 20th century, and that ChyyNese men at that time had homosexual relationships to compensate for their lack of woman

>>1511677
It's just another case of the right wing trying to censor information that harms their narratives.

>>1511600
homosexuality has been a damaging force to white men. never been harder to have friends, u can't trust anyone anymore, what if they're gay?

>>1511600
Imagine getting paid to just make shit up based on your own bias and calling it science and research

>>1511758
But enough about conservatives and science

>>1511761
What is a woman?

>>1511762
What is a man?

>>1511763
A biological male born with a penis and with XY chromosomes. Now answer my question.

>>1511765
This is why you election tourists are no fun.

>>1511765
>anyone born with a penis deformity isn't a man

>>1511767
A variation of the "Durrrrr but whatabout women that can't get pregnant, does that mean they're not women? Durrrrr!"

No it means they're defective.

>>1511769
>I can define a man with a woman
>The exceptions to my description don't count, they're just defective and should be disregarded
for someone who claims gender is a complete dichotomy you sure do love ignoring the exceptions even though the exceptions literally prove it isn't.

>>1511600
makes sense its just a bunch of leftists ready to turn on one another the minute they do something they dislike. leftist retards are just a bunch of purity testers

>>1511771
Still waiting on your definition.

>>1511785
Maybe ask yourself why your definition always has to include exceptions even though you claim this is black and white.

>>1511787
Not that anon, but:
>Man = adult male human
>Woman = adult female human
It is in fact that simple, as all the "exceptions" still fall within those bounds (or are non-literal colloquialisms, like referring to a boy as a "young man"). A man is supposed to have a penis, just as a car should have an engine. Removing either would leave them as defective/incomplete, not a new or separate entity.

Ask yourself why (You) have still failed to provide your own definition after three and a half hours.
In case you can't figure out the answer on your own, it's: because you're retarded.

>>1511792
have you been here for three and a half hours, shill? how many pennies has that netted you?

>>1511787
Maybe answer the question.

>>1511774
Now this is advanced cope

>>1511765
>a biological man is born with a penis and an XY chromosome.

>>1511792
>I'm definitely not here talking to my ignorant ass self. All of the exceptions are colloquialisms, like calling a boy a young man.

You can be xy and female (Swyer syndrome, androgen insensitivity,etc.)

You can be xx and male (Chappelle syndrome, congenital adrenaline hyperplasia, etc.) The last example here highlights how hormones in utero effect how sex develops in was that override chromosomal expectations.

You can have fucking mosaics, where some of your cells are xx and some of your cells are xy.

You are a liar, and an ignorant, trans obsessed faggot. Trusting you on science would be like asking a dyslexic how to spell.

>>1511792
Why do you think having a definition makes something more true? Do you think it's impossible for something that's defined to be wrong? I mean, you just incorrectly defined men and women as xy with a penis and xx with a vagina, ignoring all kinds of chromosomal variations.

Term: Massive faggot.

Definition: You.

By your logic, you are now a massive faggot.

>>1511851
So what is your definition? STILL waiting for the "science" side to give one.

>>1511841
they're right though

>>1511763
A miserable pile of secrets

>>1511862
No they aren't.

>>1511872
you a newfag or just anti-social and terminally online?

>>1511854
No you aren't. It's already been explained to you your definitions are incorrect >>1511851
And in this context definitions are arbitrary.>>1511852

>>1511888
>No you aren't.
Yeah I really am. At least two different people gave you definitions, and you can't even give one. That shows how flawed your "science" is. But please keep wasting my time.

>>1511887
Nice projection.

>>1511891
A man is someone who identifies as male.

>>1511891
Cool. So those definitions are demonstrably wrong, we've been over that. So when someone asks you a question, is it better to give an incorrect answer or not give an answer?

Explain why it's important I define what a man is, and why you having an incorrect definition is better than my refusing to answer your broad, loaded, inane question?

No don't. You're as hyperdocused on weird rhetoric as you are on trans genitals because you can't actually win an argument on substance.

>>1511893
coming from the person who thinks real life friend groups are like a sitcom WE'LL BE FRIENDS FOREVER I"LL BE THERE WITH YOU!!!

>>1511894
So if they identify as something that makes it correct?

>>1511897
>So when someone asks you a question, is it better to give an incorrect answer or not give an answer?
This is interesting? Why would the answer you refuse to give be incorrect? Is it because it's not as "scientific" as you've made it out to be? If it were, it should be logically defensible.

But since you can't answer, it shows how you don't even have faith in your own bullshit.

>>1511899
>Self loathing white male perspective spotted

>>1511911
WE'LL be friends FOREVER!,
I'll be there for you!
Unless you say a slur
THEN I"ll wish YOU died NAZI facist MILKSHAKE DUCKY scum

ya leftists logic, that's how it is in leftist circles, they're all super racist and trigger happy purity testers

>>1511950
This, but badmouthing the Epstein class and their leader trump.

>>1511976
Hollywood cunt do you even know what the demographic there is from? democrats are all sex pests masquerading and projecting.
Funny how you go after trump but not Bill gates who tried to drug his wife after getting STDS from a rape victim

>>1511977
>Just ignore the leader is trump and the people running the cover up are all republicans
You're not fooling anyone.

But that's a given since you're from /pol/, a board created by Epstein.

>>1511978
>democrats investigated themselves and found nothing.
I haven't been on pol in months. But its pretty fitting for you to know what goes on over there given you're a sex pest

>>1511908
You gave an incorrect answer (two actually). I didn't give an answer. I asked you which of those is better. Keep up retard.

There is no answer. If I give you a definition of a man, that's my definition, the word is meaningless outside of the associations we give it, which are not all-encompassing. You defining an apple as a red fruit because you've never seen a green apple doesn't mean green apples don't exist.

I've already highlighted how your definition fails in this way. You claim a man is xy and has a penis. That's not a sufficient definition, there are all kinds of examples of people who are men who don't fall into that category.

Your foundational premise of building an argument based on mutable definitions is similar to arguing that God is a maximally perfect being, and an attribute of such a being is existence, so God must exist. If I indulged your stupid fucking argument and did give you an answer, you'd be begging the question. We're skipping that step and your tired ass script.

You are the one claiming things are broadly, vaguely scientific. If you were capable of debunking anything, you would. You would debate specific claims. Instead of trying to vaguely poison the well of science. I haven't even brought up 'science', you're the dipshit that keeps doing that like it's a magic word or something.

>>1511950
>leftists don't use slurs.

I'm not a straw man, and I'm not going to vote against my own interests because some pearl-clutching pussy gets offended.

You're a retarded right wing closeted faggot, shut the fuck up.

Also, that's what you're scared of? People saying mean things to you because you let something racist slip? God damn you're a bitch.

>>1511984
https://x.com/OurOwnNation/status/2022447790723416133
oh right because its fine when you do it, fuck off narcassistic loser

>>1511984
>Also, that's what you're scared of?
Mobs of dysgenic communists showing up to my door and assaulting me because I said that George Floyd shouldn't have resisted arrest. And then being dragged before a white liberal woman judge and being sentenced to twenty years because I was forced into a self-defense situation on my own property.

>>1511984
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/2001013799533600921
you've proven your fine with abusing the elderly too. I genuinely hope you die

>>1511980
>Continues to project as trump and the republicans continue to hid the Epstein list
As expected from a /pol/ pedo

>>1511990
did the democrats release the files? did the democrats even order a probe into the files?
Oh gotta love the hypocrisy you opportunistic cunt.

>>1511991
your talking points are so boring esl shill. it's not even fun making you lose the arguments after a while

you can tell when someone's an incompetent retard when they start using ESL as an argument.
typical ad hominem used by retards.
at least they stopped using whatboutism, wonder if they realize how that basically broadcasted them being hypocrites

you can tell when esl shill is triggered because everyone starts laughing

>>1511994
If not releasing the epstein files is proof Trump is a pedo protector, or a pedo himself, what does Joe Biden not releasing the Epstein Files prove?

>>1512002
if you get roasted every single day when you come here to be a shill, what does that prove

>>1512006
If you talk with other conspiracy theorists about how right you all are, does that turn the conspiracy into the truth?
The Epstein/Trump pedo connection is a conspiracy theory, like Pizzagate or Q Anon

>>1512008
god you're esl

>>1511987
No, it's not okay, that's the point of using bad words, stupid faggot, save your pearl clutching for somebody who cares.

>>1511988
I didn't ask what you were scared of esl shill, but that is pretty close to the paranoid delusional I'd imagine from a weak right wing egomaniac.

>>1511991
But enough about the conservatives and the rest of the Epstein class

>>1512031
What does that mean?
He asked you if Democrats released the files, or if they even ordered a probe into the files and you said "But enough about the conservatives and the rest of the Epstein class"
That doesn't make sense

>>1512035
A law was passed to release the files, but trump is still illegally blocking it.
Mainly because Trump is implicated since he's one of the leaders of the child sex trafficking ring.

>>1511982
>You gave an incorrect answer (two actually).
I didn't.
>I didn't give an answer.
Because you can't.
>There is no answer.
Yes there is. It's very simple. If you're born with a penis you're a man.
>b-but what about this extra-rare condition that affects one out of a million people
The exception doesn't make the rule, and we don't base society around defects.
>I've already highlighted how your definition fails in this way.
It doesn't.
>there are all kinds of examples of people who are men who don't fall into that category.
Again, defective people are not the standard. A woman who can't give birth is still a woman.
>Your foundational premise of building an argument based on mutable definitions is similar to arguing that God is a maximally perfect being, and an attribute of such a being is existence, so God must exist. If I indulged your stupid fucking argument and did give you an answer, you'd be begging the question. We're skipping that step and your tired ass script.
Cool schizo rant that has fuck-all to do with anything.
>If you were capable of debunking anything, you would.
I did.
>I haven't even brought up 'science', you're the dipshit that keeps doing that like it's a magic word or something.
See >>1511761 retard.

>>1512054
all roads lead to your tranny obsession huh esl shill

Could the files have been released without a law compelling their release?

>>1512051
but did the democrats do anything when they were in power is what people have been fucking asking you or are you this fucking stupid you can't read and can only change the subject.
illiterate loser, i wish you got fucking trafficked and raped to death

>>1512076
esl shill, you're not multiple people just because you pretend to be

>>1512080
answer the question you fucking illiterate human filth is diversion and redirection all you're good for no wonder ur a pathetic braindead leftist

>>1512088
the question? yes, your life is a joke

>>1512092
ahh ic one of those morons who thinks he's the center of the party while everyone's cringing wondering why is this moron sticking with us. no wonder you have no friends

>>1512076
Yet it's trump and the republicans running an illegal cover up.
Curious why you are doing everything to avoid that irrefutable fact.
More than you're a pedo from /pol/, which you never denied, because it's also true.

>>1512104
I don't get why Democrats waited until Trump was president before passing a law compelling the release of the files.
Why didn't they just ask Joe Biden, their president, to release the files?

>>1512120
why are you a shill who loves losing the same argument over and over instead of getting a real job

>>1512121
When Trump doesn't release the files it's an illegal cover up, when Biden doesn't release the files it's whataboutism, a russian tactic

>>1512122
thanks for admitting you're a russia shill

>>1512123
Russians are under the bed, Russians are behind every political opinion I don't like. The only mistake of McCarthy was not going far enough

>>1512124
nah i think mccarthy's mistake was being a lying alcoholic faggot. are you going to drink yourself to death too, miserable esl shill?

>>1512120
Yet you pedos are still giving a pass to trump and the republicans illegally covering up the Epstein list.

>>1512142
We could try comparing the numbers of documents released by each administration.
Do you think there were more epstein documents released while democrats were in charge January 20th 2021 to January 19th 2025, or since Janaury 20th 2025?

>>1512054
>I didn't give a definition.

>My definition doesn't fail.

You're fucking retarded. Your argument is internally inconsistent and self-defeating.

>This is one instance of defective people.

Literally gave you four examples of different ways that could happen, there are loads more. You reduce them down to one fringe execption because you can only argue your position with alternate facts. Your worldview is that fucking loopy is so loopy you claim definitions you claim you didn't give are correct.

>Cool scizo rant.

Yeah, I shouldn't have expected you to be smart enough to follow an analogy from a logic 101 class. Let's dumb it down for retards.

If you make an argument based on the definition of a word.... okay? You follow? And you can change the definition of the word.... you still with me Einstein? Then the argument you made is as weak as the sperm that conceived your water filled head.

The only thing you disproved was that you're not a massive faggot.

That wasn't me retard. Style isn't even close.

>>1512175
Geez, the tranny lover is really upset that exceptions to the rule don't make the rule. It's very simple: If you are born with a penis then you cannot be a woman, no matter how you dress, what pills you take, and how much of yourself you cut off. There are zero - repeat ZERO - examples of born males giving birth, and there never will be.

Sperg all you want. You will never be a woman.

>>1512148
Yet it's trump and the republicans illegally with holding it.

>>1512180
You think it's simpled because you have a simple mind.

You're right, now stop fantasizing about me being a woman, faggot.