PDA

View Full Version : Politically Incorrect Truth about Human Nature



maestrowork
09-20-2007, 07:40 PM
Interesting read:

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


Discuss? :)

oswann
09-20-2007, 07:45 PM
Most suicide bombers are Muslim

Oh, here we go again.

Os.

Salem
09-20-2007, 07:54 PM
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
09-20-2007, 07:55 PM
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
09-20-2007, 08:00 PM
The part about the president made me think of Chris Rock. "Men are only as faithful as their options".

Christine N.
09-20-2007, 08:03 PM
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
09-20-2007, 08:07 PM
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.
09-20-2007, 08:19 PM
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
09-20-2007, 08:22 PM
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
09-20-2007, 08:30 PM
Oh, ghod! More science!

Wherezza gin?

JoNightshade
09-20-2007, 08:34 PM
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
09-20-2007, 09:08 PM
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
09-20-2007, 09:10 PM
So everything in life can be traced to our mating instincts? Pfffft.

Azraelsbane
09-20-2007, 09:12 PM
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
09-20-2007, 09:13 PM
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.
09-20-2007, 09:13 PM
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
09-20-2007, 09:17 PM
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
09-20-2007, 09:18 PM
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. :D

Higgins
09-20-2007, 09:18 PM
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
09-20-2007, 09:22 PM
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
09-20-2007, 09:38 PM
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
09-20-2007, 09:38 PM
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
09-20-2007, 09:39 PM
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
09-20-2007, 09:43 PM
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
09-20-2007, 10:22 PM
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)...

donroc
09-20-2007, 10:29 PM
Is it specified in the Koran if the 72 virgins are female? I like to think there is a hell where suicide bombers go as virgins to ..... fill in your best eternal damnation for them.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

JLCwrites
09-20-2007, 10:31 PM
I just hope people don't see this article as providing an excuse for their actions. Reason should outweigh instincts. (should!)

I also agree with Christine. I think they were just stretching that theory pretty thin.

Luckily humans have the ability to think critically for themselves and NOT believe everything they read. (Unfortunately, few use it.) This article is interesting, but it doesn't provide the black and white answers it was hoping to do.

Jacob
09-20-2007, 10:33 PM
Huh? Was that article supposed to be serious?

Azraelsbane
09-20-2007, 10:41 PM
Huh? Was that article supposed to be serious?

That was my reaction after reading a few paragraphs. ;)

And personally, I know a ton more guys who are interested in Hispanic and/or Japanese women rather than blonde bombshells, and I hang out with predominantly Caucasian male crowd. Blonde is a trend, like Crocs. ;)

BenPanced
09-20-2007, 10:44 PM
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)...
And two in the car. Just in case.

maestrowork
09-20-2007, 10:48 PM
I know some of this do sound silly and generalizing, etc. We are thinking, intelligent beings and much of our brain functions go beyond our instincts. Still, there are still plenty of reptilian makeup in our psyche and biology. America is probably not a good place to prove or disprove these theories because people are generally educated and well informed and culturally conditioned to think for themselves. However, if you look at other countries, especially in the past, you may notice that psychological/biological programmed behaviors are not uncommon. Polygyny, for example, was the norm in China up until mid-20th century, and most common with wealthy men (my grandfather--a relatively rich man--for example, had three wives).

A few years ago I read a book on the psychology of sex and it was a fascinating read. While I don't know how much is true, at least on the unconscious level, I can't really dispute everything. There are scientific studies behind these theories and observations.

I don't think we are saying ALL men prefers blondes, or ALL people are polygamous, or ALL Muslims are suicide bombers/ALL suicide bombers are Muslims, or ALL men who harass women are fine, non-sexist gents. But when we try to find some correlations between these sayings and reality, it's astonishing, sometimes, to find how much primal psychology and cultural makeup play a key role in shaping these behaviors, often at the subconscious level, and sometimes catch us off guard.

JLCwrites
09-20-2007, 10:50 PM
That was my reaction after reading a few paragraphs. ;)

And personally, I know a ton more guys who are interested in Hispanic and/or Japanese women rather than blonde bombshells, and I hang out with predominantly Caucasian male crowd. Blonde is a trend, like Crocs. ;)

Oh pleaze! When is the Croc phase over? Uugh!

jodiodi
09-20-2007, 10:52 PM
This article reminds me of the underrated Idiocracy. The well-educated kept putting off having kids until they couldn't have them while the intellectually challenged were able to spread their seed far and wide. Great movie.

JLCwrites
09-20-2007, 11:00 PM
This article reminds me of the underrated Idiocracy. The well-educated kept putting off having kids until they couldn't have them while the intellectually challenged were able to spread their seed far and wide. Great movie.

I've made that observation. I used to live in an area where the cost of living is very high, so most people were/are having children in their early-mid thirties. (Waiting until they were out of college, could afford a house, and established themselves in the job market)

Now I live in an area where the cost of living is less, and was surprised to see how many young (teen-28) moms there are.

It's just interesting to see how much economics plays a role in our reproductive decisions.

donroc
09-20-2007, 11:17 PM
Born in 1932 and raised in San Francisco, nearly all my friends and the girls we dated in high school were only children -- depression babies -- because our parents could not afford more. Once we triple dated, all only children, and we joked if we got into an accident the hopes of six families would be destroyed.

maestrowork
09-20-2007, 11:45 PM
This article reminds me of the underrated Idiocracy. The well-educated kept putting off having kids until they couldn't have them while the intellectually challenged were able to spread their seed far and wide. Great movie.

As funny and silly that movie is, there's some underlying sharp observations.

Simply looking at two generations ago: my paternal grandfather had three wives, 9 children. While he was rich, he wasn't very well educated. They favored the sons, and the daughters were considered "giveaways." Now look at my maternal grandfather -- he was highly educated and also rich, but he only had one wife and six children (considered a low number back then in that part of the world), and the girls were treasured. Big differences between my grandparents' families, and social-economical status probably played a role, since culturally they were very similar.

Higgins
09-20-2007, 11:52 PM
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)...

This reminds me...though I'm not sure why...many years ago, I was at big dance up in the mountains and everybody was just a whoopin' and a hollerin' and basically all-but mutually grinding all their parts off on the dance floor. I was extremely drunk and not really quite able to even so much as walk...I was teleporting around and I had a seat to get my bearings and a beautiful girl appeared next to me and I said, "I'll dance with you if you can hold me up while I (slightly obscene suggestion omitted)." and she said, "My husband is sitting right next to me." Then he appeared and he was not as miraculous as his wife. Indeed he had a serious look on his face and so I apologized to them both and thought no more of it and then two years later at a barbeque the girl turned up with a baby and the same husband and the three of them added me to their social unit as if it were the most natural thing that had ever happened. I think only an expert in primate behavior can explain that one.

robeiae
09-21-2007, 01:25 AM
Or someone from West Virginia...

Carole?



;)