From a sociological standpoint: Because you're doing bad social science. When you're talking about values/cultures, those things are inherently rooted in a culture. Saying "all men X" is almost entirely useless because there's almost always going to be a culture or subculture that makes it "most men" instead.
This specific article was based off a study conducted in Austria with mean ages of men/women involved in their 20s. IDK what this says about world cultures as a whole, or even the culture of Austria as a whole. I would assume that the possibility of people late stages of life might have different feelings on the matter exists and they don't mention it as a variable they accounted for. Never mind all the other variables that one could suggest might affect this matter that aren't specifically mentioned in the abstract. And, in fact, they mention that this paper they're presenting is the first to really delve into the subject of ex-partner feelings, so their results might be completely disproved as more people look into the matter.
Thanks for explaining in more detail. This is not my area of expertise at all. Would it not be possible to draw strong conclusions about “men’s” behavior broadly in the same way we do for male Chimpanzees for example?
Dear burner troll: What? There's nothing about my points that this study is not done independent of cultural influences that implies a blank slate or lack there of. It's entirely tangential at best. Cultures exist. We know this. They're observable and have observable differences. To say "men" implies "all men regardless of cultural and age factors which we didn't control for in any way in our experimentation".
There can be both: inherent differences in biology that influence behavior AND cultural difference that influence behavior, and pointing out that a study doesn't control for one or the other doesn't imply the belief or non-belief in it.
