Politically Incorrect Truth about Human Nature

maestrowork · Sep 20, 2007

Interesting read:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml

Discuss?

oswann · Sep 20, 2007

Most suicide bombers are Muslim

Oh, here we go again.

Os.

Salem · Sep 20, 2007

Very interesting but not surprising. The thing about men and midlife crisis makes a lot of sense. So does the part about polygamy. If it weren't so unacceptable in our society I would probably want my husband to have a second wife. I know most women would scoff at that but that's my opinion about my own life so I don't need to hear any critisism, thank you very much. (Did I spell critisism correctly?)

maestrowork · Sep 20, 2007

I knew about polygamy already and the "72 virgins" promise now makes sense. I was a bit surprised by the sexual harassment part.

And I find this particular telling:

What distinguishes Bill Clinton is not that he had extramarital affairs while in office—others have, more will; it would be a Darwinian puzzle if they did not—what distinguishes him is the fact that he got caught.

The_Grand_Duchess · Sep 20, 2007

The part about the president made me think of Chris Rock. "Men are only as faithful as their options".

Christine N. · Sep 20, 2007

What I don't get is HOW two people of low economic status have genes that KNOW to produce more daughters??? How can one possibly affect the other, unless it has to do with nutrition.

It's not like the little zygote gets a news report in there...'oh, your parents are poor, so you have to be a girl'. Their reasoning makes NO sense.

maestrowork · Sep 20, 2007

Christine N. said:
What I don't get is HOW two people of low economic status have genes that KNOW to produce more daughters??? How can one possibly affect the other, unless it has to do with nutrition.

It's not like the little zygote gets a news report in there...'oh, your parents are poor, so you have to be a girl'. Their reasoning makes NO sense.

It's not about biology -- this is about psychology. So in biological term you're right. But in psychology... those people wouldn't be poor to begin with... or some such. We have to look at this from a psychology/evolution point of view and not biological.

Christine N. · Sep 20, 2007

So how is it they have more daughters? I think it's just one of those things that's not correlated but is true - what do they call them? False statistics? Negative correlation?

It may be true that poor people have more girls than boys, but there's no connection, because that's doesn't figure into the biological equation.

Maybe I'm just not getting it.

Monkey · Sep 20, 2007

This curve is not limited to crime. The same age profile characterizes every quantifiable human behavior that is public (i.e., perceived by many potential mates) and costly (i.e., not affordable by all sexual competitors). The relationship between age and productivity among male jazz musicians, male painters, male writers, and male scientists—which might be called the "age-genius curve"—is essentially the same as the age-crime curve. Their productivity—the expressions of their genius—quickly peaks in early adulthood, and then equally quickly declines throughout adulthood. The age-genius curve among their female counterparts is much less pronounced; it does not peak or vary as much as a function of age.

(bolding mine)

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Honestly, though, I think they are taking a bunch of statistics and putting them together in ways that make *some* sense, but aren't necessarily 100% accurate. Correlation does not mean causation.

I could go on, but right now, I have 2 little ones (a boy and a girl, thank you...I must be wealthy and good-looking

) running around like crazy.

BenPanced · Sep 20, 2007

Oh, ghod! More science!

Wherezza gin?

JoNightshade · Sep 20, 2007

I have objections to this type of article because it attempts to quantify all human behavior in terms of biology. "We're all just doing what we're programmed to do!"

Sorry, if that were true, the percentages and the correlation would be much higher. I may have biological impulses, but I also have a brain and free will. I'm not a robot.

maestrowork · Sep 20, 2007

It's not just biology -- but social conditioning and evolutionary instincts as well. Like it or not, we do have certain programming -- call it human nature or whatever that turns men to jello, for example, at the site of breasts, or women at the taste of chocolate...

Soccer Mom · Sep 20, 2007

So everything in life can be traced to our mating instincts? Pfffft.

Azraelsbane · Sep 20, 2007

To tell you the truth, it didn't keep my interest past "Most Suicide Bombers are Muslim." I skimmed the rest, but that was the line that led me to think, "Wow, wasting my time on this." It seems like they're trying to mix biology and psychology and doing a pretty poor job of it. Some of their points are valid, but whatever validity they might have is then nullified by later claims that are grasping at straws to lump everyone together in a big "we are all this way because..." pile.

If there's really a point, there's no reason to start out in a normal educated manner and then use bombshell political/social issues to prove something about the rest of mankind. It has shock value, but that doesn't make it right. Just my opinion.

Edit: And I didn't mean the italicized part at the top that mentions suicide bombers, I meant section 4.

maestrowork · Sep 20, 2007

Soccer Mom said:
So everything in life can be traced to our mating instincts? Pfffft.

It's not to say our intellect and social habits don't affect us -- after all, we're mostly monogamous. We don't strap ourselves to bombs and set it off. I don't usually go for blondes. Etc. etc. But still, there's certain science about human nature, and when we're all reduced to the basis (such as during a crisis), these instincts do play a significant factor in how we behave (have you ever gone to a Wal-Mart on Black Friday?)

I don't think they're trying to lump everyone together... obviously everyone is different. But human nature is not something that should just be brushed away. For example, I do believe that human beings are by nature polygamous, but we abide by our cultures and social mores. But I think it's a mistake to just brush that instinct away as bogus. People use these instincts, evolutionary programming, and "human nature" to control, and often very effectively. That's why you may see one person or a handful of people controlling millions, even billions, of people (China, for example) -- there's definitely psychology in play here.

The more educated and free to do critical thinking for yourself, the more you're able to, at least consciously, defy these instincts. Then again, we've seen highly educated, intelligent and motivated people fall prey to these urges/instincts/primal feelings.

Christine N. · Sep 20, 2007

That I can believe (the men being attracted to large breasts). I can also believe we're hardwired for polygymy - it's a basic species survival instinct. I can get behind the idea of a visceral reaction from a man to their spouse's menopause, causing the midlife crisis. It's the most basic of all animal instincts - the need to procreate the species. It's pretty much why we like sex, at the most basic level. We like what we like because our bodies want to reproduce.

I still don't get the whole 'more daughters to poor people' thing. That makes no sense because one is psychology/sociology and one is biology that has nothing to do with the five senses. The boob thing is sight, like phermones are smell. The reaction to an outside stimulus created by a certain situation is different than an automatic biological function like choice of sex in a fetus.

Higgins · Sep 20, 2007

maestrowork said:
that turns men to jello, for example, at the site of breasts, or women at the taste of chocolate...

Site will do...but the jello at the site sensation seems misleading.

TrainofThought · Sep 20, 2007

This article isn't proving or showing any new revelations about society since it mostly discusses men, not human nature (all human beings).

most social scientists explain human behavior as if evolution stops at the neck and as if our behavior is a product almost entirely of environment and socialization.

Biology is involved in how we process and react to information, but our environment and socialization has a greater impact on our opinions, judgments, prejudices and/or racism, etc.

In contrast, evolutionary psychologists see human nature as a collection of psychological adaptations that often operate beneath conscious thinking to solve problems of survival and reproduction by predisposing us to think or feel in certain ways.

I don’t agree with a ‘collection of psychological adaptations’ because that would mean I don’t have the free will to think on my own. To like what I like and/or believe in what I believe. I can’t show facts for my argument as to why I believe this is false (blind faith), however accepting evolutionary psychologists ‘view’ is saying I agree with everything in print.

Men in monogamous societies imagine they would be better off under polygyny. What they don't realize is that, for most men who are not extremely desirable, polygyny means no wife at all, or, if they are lucky, a wife who is much less desirable than one they could get under monogamy.

Across all societies, polygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape.

I’ve learned from my environment and socializing with men in particular that men need the ‘security’ of marriage, and implying that this applies to ‘less desirable’ men is absurd. It isn’t based on physical attributes, but on insecurities. This is why I can see a polygyny society being violent because men have competition and little security.

The opinions stated above are my own and not the opinions of this forum.

Higgins · Sep 20, 2007

Christine N. said:
That I can believe (the men being attracted to large breasts). I can also believe we're hardwired for polygymy

Why do most women have TWO breasts then? There's a built in poly-stopping-problem right there.

maestrowork · Sep 20, 2007

Sokal said:
Why do most women have TWO breasts then? There's a built in poly-stopping-problem right there.

Two men still constitute poly... don't you think?

Sassee · Sep 20, 2007

You know, certain situations I've observed in my own life now make much more sense.

I like the thing about sexual harassment. Makes sense to me, in a twisted sort of way.

Bravo · Sep 20, 2007

i saw that article before.

it's one of the worst cases of pseudoscience published in a respected magazine that i've ever seen in my life.

it's just mind boggling bad.

ill pick two things here:

Men like blond bombshells

um, no not everywhere, not across cultures and races.

intuitively it just doesnt make sense, do they have any research whatsover to back this up?

while suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, when religion is involved, it is always Muslim. Why is this?

yes, pray tell, psychology magazine, why did the most suicide bombings up until the iraq war, occur in sri lanka?

why was a sri lankan the first used suicide bomber, and why did hezbollah openly say that they copied their tactics?

and why, oh why, are sri lankan suicide bombers hindu?

what a load of crap.

Roger J Carlson · Sep 20, 2007

Christine N. said:
I still don't get the whole 'more daughters to poor people' thing. That makes no sense because one is psychology/sociology and one is biology that has nothing to do with the five senses. The boob thing is sight, like phermones are smell. The reaction to an outside stimulus created by a certain situation is different than an automatic biological function like choice of sex in a fetus.

The sex of the fetus is determined by the sperm. Isn't it feasible that a man's psychological state could determine how many X sperm (female) vs Y sperm (male) he produces? We know that stress can induce any number of physiological changes in people.

ETA: On the other hand, maybe it's not causation at all, but rather coincident. Maybe the same factors that make a man more agressive also make him tend to produce more Y sperm, and males who are less aggressive produce more X sperm.

Monkey · Sep 20, 2007

My hubby had a vasectomy after we had our latest little bundle of joy. I wonder how/if this would effect the mid-life crisis theory put forth in the article?

The theories in this article just don't ring true to me. I'm sure that many men subconciously seek out fertile mates...and women do, too...but there's more to it than being blonde and big-chested.

I can sit and point out individual instances that run contrary to the article all day (most of my personal experiences do), but of course, that doesn't prove anything when we're talking about statistics and base instincts.

Kate Thornton · Sep 20, 2007

Sokal said:
Why do most women have TWO breasts then? There's a built in poly-stopping-problem right there.

Well, because in humans, the most common multiple birth is only two. Only two feeding stations are generally necessary at any given time.

But I think most men would want even more, if possible - four in front and two in back (for dancing)...

Politically Incorrect Truth about Human Nature

Fear the Death Ray

Grumpy

query-impaired

Fear the Death Ray

I record everything.

haz a shiny new book cover

Fear the Death Ray

haz a shiny new book cover

Is me.

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)

has finally arrived

Fear the Death Ray

Crypto-fascist

Agony is defeat

Fear the Death Ray

haz a shiny new book cover

A flowering bud of bitchiness

Fear the Death Ray

Momma Wolf

Socialitest

Moderator In Name Only

Is me.

Still Happy to be Here. Or Anywhere