10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby SlyReaper » Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:18 am UTC

Well, I was going to tear into this article and rant about how stupid it is, but you guys have already beaten me to it (and unlike me, read beyond the first page). I will say that I am actually LEAST attracted to blonde women out of the superset of all women. I suppose my line is doomed to extinction.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

i
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:31 pm UTC

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby i » Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:53 am UTC

MartianInvader wrote:
i wrote:All the bolded titles are true, so says Google, but the explanations appear to be completely speculative.

That's a great way to put it. They take some facts that are true, today, statistically. Then they claim they're universal truths FOR EVER, and offer some really pathetic explanations.

The "most suicide bombers are Muslim" thing really irked me. Yes, that's true today, because various Islamic groups are the most prevalent military organizations that use this tactic. But sixty-odd years ago, most suicide bombers were Japanese WWII soldiers. It has much more to do with the times and much less to do with the nature of Islam.


"The times" is a non-entity. Muslims are able to recruit suicide bombers due to the nature of Islam. Japanese leaders were able to suicide bombers due to the nature of Bushido. ALF is unable to recruit suicide bombers due to the nature of---cause they're F-ing rats, dammit.

User avatar
Thadlerian
Posts: 336
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:58 pm UTC
Location: Norway

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby Thadlerian » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:11 am UTC

I really do hate it when people put "politically incorrect" in their titles and whatnot. It makes it (or is supposed to make it) sound like this is some kind of oppressed truth that's struggling to get out to us against an enormous conformist pressure. When it is in fact a defense of status quo and all manner of mainstream popcultural messages.

Seriously, "Basically Decent/incorrect" is one of the most overused phrases of our time. People apply it east and west, when all it essentially signifies is "stuff that I don't like" and "stuff that I like", respectively.

It has long since become the standard approach for conducting political debate here in Norway. It's supposed to make you feel sympathy and pity for the speaker, rather than evaluating their message.

I do feel pity for the writers of this drivel, though.

User avatar
Bluggo
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:12 pm UTC

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby Bluggo » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:30 am UTC

Apart from the fact that, as others said, the claims of the article are preposterous and the research methodology is inexistent, it always irks me when someone attempts to justify some undesirable trait saying "it's human nature".

Human nature can go screw itself: according to it, I should run around naked in the middle of winter, bash the heads of anyone who is not a close relative of mine and has something that I want and not bother to clean my arse after taking a dump.

Even if there was an evolutionary explanation for some kind of dickish behaviour, it would not justify it: as a species, we already demonstrated again and again that we can ignore our baser instincts when we believe it convenient.
Mary Ellen Rudin wrote:Let X be a set. Call it Y.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30448
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby Belial » Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:15 am UTC

harpyblues wrote:Or maybe the trend is that large tits = a very visible source of fat besides at the waist, which is a big indicator that while suitable mate A is very fit and physically able, she's not too thin. Breasts are pretty much fat sacks, besides having lactating equipment, anyway.


The explanation I always heard was that the sight of raised buttocks was always a signal for mating when we were more hunched-over apes, so once we got to standing upright, we needed something that looked like that, but closer to eye-level, to serve the same purpose.

Which is as unsupported a claim as any other, really. Just another just-so story for the pile.

i wrote:"The times" is a non-entity. Muslims are able to recruit suicide bombers due to the nature of Islam. Japanese leaders were able to suicide bombers due to the nature of Bushido. ALF is unable to recruit suicide bombers due to the nature of---cause they're F-ing rats, dammit.


If you think the ideas themselves were capable of urging people to violent deaths, then we'd be flying planes into aircraft carriers or blowing ourselves up in cafes just because we read about the ideas in books and caught the meme.

"The times" is shorthand for a political and social atmosphere in which such an idea could take hold, and be drummed into the minds of impressionable people who would be willing to undertake such a venture. In the case of suicide bombers, often because their lives are so shitty otherwise that it's not such a stretch. Take away that atmosphere and those events, and the idea is just so many words.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:57 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
4=5 wrote:
Vaniver wrote:As well, they ignore that there's variation in desires as well as variation in traits. People who prefer sagging breasts probably underreproduce compared to those that prefer firm ones, but that doesn't mean they've disappeared!

What is wrong with sagging breasts??
I'm under the impression that it's a proxy for lower reproductive success.

Perkiness or saggyness of breasts is entirely due to the strength of one's ligaments.
Entirely.
Not even related to the size of the breasts, really. Weak ligaments in small breasts=tiny saggy boobs.

I'm pretty sure it has zero to do with reproductive success, but if you've got some studies to cite then throw them this way.
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby GhostWolfe » Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:33 pm UTC

harpyblues wrote:Not every Muslim is sexually frustrated and tries to impress chicks by blowing themselves up (which doesn't even work right).
That one confused the hell out of me (then, my mobile broadband crashed, and I blessedly wasn't able to read any further).
So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates. By doing so, they have little to lose and much to gain compared with men who already have wives.
Of course, being dead tends to reduce one's ability to marry to 0.

/angell
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby Vaniver » Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:02 pm UTC

Meaux_Pas wrote:I'm pretty sure it has zero to do with reproductive success, but if you've got some studies to cite then throw them this way.
As I am entirely uninterested in breasts, I will defer to your superior knowledge.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby The Reaper » Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:07 pm UTC

Meaux_Pas wrote:I'm pretty sure it has zero to do with reproductive success, but if you've got some studies to cite then throw them this way.

It may have to do with reproductive success because in choosing partners with better bewbies, those partners reproduce. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30448
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby Belial » Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:25 pm UTC

ie, the way peacock tails are correlated with reproductive success. Which is to say "mostly arbitrarily".
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Jebobek
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:19 pm UTC
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Geohash graticule

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby Jebobek » Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:37 pm UTC

Yea, there's only a small % of that sexual selection that involves the "Hey, look at me, I'm not diseased and I find food good enough to grow large, colorful feathers." aspect.

Same thing goes for saggy breasts. Breast elastin damage due to a connective tissue disease transmittable to the offspring is not something you see often, especially in the modern world. Size and shape is mostly genetic.
Image

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:38 pm UTC

I think the article was trying to say that because breasts sag over time, large breasts can be a good indicator of whether or not your intended mating partner is closer to 20 or closer to 50. While breast size does not affect reproductive success rates, old age does, so men might pick young, large-breasted women because they have a pretty good indicator that they are not old.

Unfortunately for the author, there are a variety of more reliable indicators of age such as hair, skin, wrinkles, etc. Personally, I prefer the "mostly arbitrary" argument.

User avatar
Freakish
Posts: 909
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:47 am UTC
Location: Northern Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby Freakish » Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:31 pm UTC

GhostWolfe wrote:
harpyblues wrote:Not every Muslim is sexually frustrated and tries to impress chicks by blowing themselves up (which doesn't even work right).
That one confused the hell out of me (then, my mobile broadband crashed, and I blessedly wasn't able to read any further).
So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates. By doing so, they have little to lose and much to gain compared with men who already have wives.
Of course, being [b]dead tends to reduce one's ability to marry to 0.[/b]


My understanding is that this is where the 72 virgins come into play.
Freakish Inc. We completely understand the public’s concern about futuristic robots feeding on the human population

Mega D
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:41 pm UTC

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby Mega D » Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:52 pm UTC

I have a feeling that much of this article is nothing more than the author's attempt to talk his wife into a threesome with a cute, young blonde he has is eye on.

"C'mon, honey! We can't fight millions of years of evolution. Pleeeeease?"

i
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:31 pm UTC

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby i » Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:28 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
i wrote:"The times" is a non-entity. Muslims are able to recruit suicide bombers due to the nature of Islam. Japanese leaders were able to suicide bombers due to the nature of Bushido. ALF is unable to recruit suicide bombers due to the nature of---cause they're F-ing rats, dammit.


If you think the ideas themselves were capable of urging people to violent deaths, then we'd be flying planes into aircraft carriers or blowing ourselves up in cafes just because we read about the ideas in books and caught the meme.

"The times" is shorthand for a political and social atmosphere in which such an idea could take hold, and be drummed into the minds of impressionable people who would be willing to undertake such a venture. In the case of suicide bombers, often because their lives are so shitty otherwise that it's not such a stretch. Take away that atmosphere and those events, and the idea is just so many words.


Many places in the world are fucked up. South Africa is fucked up. India is fucked up. New Jersey is fucked up. However as of this moment, only Muslim cult leaders have the capability and willingness to convince kids to strap bombs to themselves.

User avatar
3.14chan
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:38 pm UTC
Location: Internet
Contact:

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby 3.14chan » Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:15 am UTC

In "Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist" I think that the idea was that men harass women in work just like they harass men.

I don't think that this explains all but I can't deny that this is true sometimes too...
Image
"What haven't science done?"

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby Indon » Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:17 am UTC

Mega D wrote:I have a feeling that much of this article is nothing more than the author's attempt to talk his wife into a threesome with a cute, young blonde he has is eye on.

"C'mon, honey! We can't fight millions of years of evolution. Pleeeeease?"


Come to think of it, the article makes for an awesome potential pickup line.

"Millions of years of evolution says you should come back with me to my place."
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby GhostWolfe » Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:56 am UTC

Mega D wrote:I have a feeling that much of this article is nothing more than the author's attempt to talk his wife into a threesome with a cute, young blonde he has is eye on.

"C'mon, honey! We can't fight millions of years of evolution. Pleeeeease?"
Nah. I think he's trying to sweet-talk his way out of a very painful divorce settlement after being caught with his trousers down with said cute, young blonde. "It wasn't my fault, your honour, it was millions of years of evolution."

/angell
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

Bassoon
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:58 pm UTC
Location: Wisconsin

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby Bassoon » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:25 am UTC

To me, this reads more like a "random facts" email your annoying, stupid coworker sends you. I got this feeling particularly at "Having Sons Reduce the Likelihood of Divorce" and from then on, my mental voice read the article in a sarcastic tone. At the end, I expected to see "Humans Swallow an Average of 8 Spiders In Their Lifetime."

The tying of the suicide bombing fact with the polygyny section to me smacks of connotative position. Muslim/Islam/Terrorist/Middle East/[Generic Arab Stuff] has been a hot button for the past five decades and by even mentioning it, they condemn polygyny without saying so.

Furthermore, I find it amazing that an article has the ability to offend so many groups. Not saying that they should be offended, but I notice that it plays into so many stereotypes that it might as well just rename the article "We Believe in Stereotypes and So Should You, You Stupid American!" But while it seems to acknowledge and agree with so many typical stereotypes, it also flails at them and says things that are nearly opposite to the stereotype.

Most of the other articles I've read on Psychology Today have been this way - lacking citation, science, and reason.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30448
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby Belial » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:38 am UTC

At the end, I expected to see "Humans Swallow an Average of 8 Spiders In Their Lifetime."


OT: Man, am I the only one who's tempted to really, maliciously skew this average, just to fuck with the arachnophobes?

I figure after eating a bowl of dead spiders every morning for a few years, I could drive the average up to 20 or 30.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Goplat
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:41 pm UTC

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby Goplat » Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:26 am UTC

With a human population of about 6.7 billion, you'd need to eat literally millions per day to make such a big impact on the average. I would guess that the venom would kill you if you tried that.

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby GhostWolfe » Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:42 am UTC

Belial wrote:
At the end, I expected to see "Humans Swallow an Average of 8 Spiders In Their Lifetime."
OT: Man, am I the only one who's tempted to really, maliciously skew this average, just to fuck with the arachnophobes?

I figure after eating a bowl of dead spiders every morning for a few years, I could drive the average up to 20 or 30.
Why is it that I can completely picture you doing something like this??

/angell
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
harpyblues
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:19 am UTC
Location: Chicago

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby harpyblues » Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:35 am UTC

3.14chan wrote:In "Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist" I think that the idea was that men harass women in work just like they harass men.

I don't think that this explains all but I can't deny that this is true sometimes too...


Because males really pinch another male's ass in the workforce to piss them off.
michaelandjimi wrote:But these are zombies of cuteness!

User avatar
3.14chan
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:38 pm UTC
Location: Internet
Contact:

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby 3.14chan » Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:54 am UTC

harpyblues wrote:Because males really pinch another male's ass in the workforce to piss them off.


I already have seem that.
Also have seen kancho and other forms of prank in some workplaces between males.

I haven't said that it is the only cause, just said that SOMETIMES this happens (maybe due to lack of common sense?)
Image
"What haven't science done?"

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby Indon » Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:35 pm UTC

3.14chan wrote:
harpyblues wrote:Because males really pinch another male's ass in the workforce to piss them off.


I already have seem that.
Also have seen kancho and other forms of prank in some workplaces between males.

I haven't said that it is the only cause, just said that SOMETIMES this happens (maybe due to lack of common sense?)


Would it happen about 10% of the time versus unregulated male-female interaction?

'cause there's a word for sexual activity that about 10% of the population engages in, and it has nothing to do with lack of common sense.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
EnderSword
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:11 pm UTC

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby EnderSword » Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:10 pm UTC

Most of that stuff rings true, though it may be said in stronger language so it gets spread around more.

I'm not surprised people here object, since they tend to object to anything true by coming up with personal self serving counter examples "I R Not attracted 2 Barbie because I R advanced male!" We get it, every guy here is really

It's clearly written from a North American type perspective, I'm sure the same things said about blondes have some equivalent in Asia or whatever you want.
And no males don't ask otherm ales to sleep with them...if you bothred reading the thing that wasn't the claim, claim was the hostile environment part, men do taunt each other sexually. It was drawing a distinction between the 2 types, explaining the 2nd type is done both to males and females.

Sons do statistically result in lower divorce rates, the leap to why this is may be unfounded. Since kids are actual people, they personally probably impact it more, and it may be the personality of a son on average is easier, or bonds the family more. They are correct in saying generally the mother leaves the marriage, not vice versa.

Thw Muslim/suicide bomber thing, yes written intentionally to be provocative, but also is very true and observable in many different cultures where sexual imbalance is an issue. An excess of Men = War, whether that excess is due to polygyny or any other reason. Look out for China.

I find people tend to read these things and somehow misread it all as 'EVERY SINGLE MAN MUST LIKE BLONDES ALWAYS FOREVER!' and if you have 1 counter example, the entire thing is wrong.

People writing that sort of thing don't tend to specify, but when they say something like sons lead to less divorce or attractive families have more daughters, they often mean a variation of 1% from the normal divorce or birth rates.

Men prefer blondes - Duh - Not you? don't care. On average, true.

People aren't totally monogamous - no shit

Women benefit more - Assuming benefit means material benefit, yes of course

Most suicide bombers are muslim - Well, yes they are. provocative title but the explanation then quickly explains the muslim part doesn't matter

Having sons reduces divorce - Yes, it does. Speculation follows as to why, but it does.

beautiful people have more daughters - Also apparently true, why is again debatable, but is apparently demonstrably true.

Why bills gate has something in common with criminals - Again very true, reasoning may not follow totally but we all know this is true. People who achieve tend to do so young and burn out after that.

It's natural for politicians to risk it all for an affair - Again, no shit, why do you think he got that power to begin with? He's not 'risking' it, he's using it. He's exercising the power he has.

Men sexually harrass women because thy are not sexist - worded oddly, but true. Basically reading further its saying the non-mating attempt harrassment is just the same as male on male harrassment whichi s often very sexual. The harrassment intended to lead to sex isn't encompassed in this statement though, so it is a seperate thing. They weren't clear in that distinction.

Midlife crisis is a myth - This is possibly the least defensible of all of them. It assumes one 25 y/o is enough to prevent it, however this ignores the general assessment of someone's life. If your 25 y/o wife is ugly you're probably still gonna have it. And I severely doubt the 25 y/o dating a 45 y/o women will have such a crisis. This one is also pretty immeasurable and takes too narrow a focus.

Shoddy writing on the whole, but the underlying reality of it is pretty basic stuff, except for this last point about the midlife crisis and a narrow view on the harrassment.
WWSD?*
*what would Sheldon do?

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30448
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby Belial » Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:21 pm UTC

It's.... A big pile of evo-psych bullshit designed to lend credence to the status quo, unsupported by anything except an analysis of current cultural trends and a few post-hoc rationalizations. It takes our current cultural norms and tries to dream up reasons why they're somehow ingrained in our genes a million years back, ignoring the fact that other currently existing and previous cultures have had completely different norms much more recently, and likewise ignoring the fact that there's no convincing evidence for a genetic or evolutionary basis for any of these things.

It is basically entirely science-free, but designed to play into your prejudices.

The fact that you look into it and see truth says far more about you than the article itself says about....anything.

Of course, what it might be saying, if I want to be charitable to you, is that you're completely missing the point: you're pointing at these things and saying "but these conclusions are true". And that's true. But the contention of the article is that these things are true due to our evolution (and not, for example, due to our current cultural norms, or some other confounding factor). It's trivial to point out that, for example, people considered traditionally more attractive have more daughters. That's just statistics. That's also not the assertion. The reason why is the assertion, and the reason posited by the article is completely fabricated.

Secondarily, there's also the fact that the author is trying very strongly to imply causal links in a lot of these cases (sons=less divorce) when all they have is correlations. Chalk that up to bad science.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
EnderSword
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:11 pm UTC

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby EnderSword » Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:31 pm UTC

Yes, I agree the reasons are nonsense. But I found people here were disputing the actual statements.
WWSD?*
*what would Sheldon do?

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30448
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby Belial » Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:45 pm UTC

Well, in the case of the three most commonly cited:

That blondes with blue eyes are most attractive: if that were a survival adaptation, we would basically all have it. The existence of even a large minority who prioritize some other appearance kindof shoots the idea that this norm is for the survival of our species to hell. You know, if the fact that there's basically no evidence for a genetic basis aside from a plausible story the author made up wasn't enough.

In the case of sexism in the workplace: .....that's kindof just dumb. Perhaps they aren't treating women any differently (gods do I fucking doubt that), but that presumes that the entire basis for their sexual taunting isn't sexist, or that it doesn't play into sexist frames when applied to women that are absent when applied to men. It uses, unsurprisingly, only the shallowest possible understanding of sexism to make its point.

The muslim-suicide bomber thing has been beaten to death, but simply put: We only have one culture to look at. The fact that it has both polygyny and suicide bombers doesn't imply that one causes the other. For all we know, suicide bombers cause polygyny. Or living somewhere it's crazy hot and you're not allowed to drink alchohol causes both (watch out for utah).

In fact, there exist or have existed plenty of cultures that have had polygyny but not suicide bombers (Utah), or suicide bombers but no polygyny (Japan), or a gender imbalance but neither of the above (China). And for that matter, as people have already pointed out, most muslim countries only have polygyny in theory: the vast majority of people don't practice it.

Which shoots that to hell.

Aside from those giant failures, there are *some* whose conclusions actually have some basis in statistics, but the reasons why are made up.

Basically, this article is shit.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby SlyReaper » Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:47 pm UTC

When the reasoning is shit, it's easy to end up thinking the original statements are shit too. And in my personal experience, many of them are. For example, is there any actual evidence to support the assertion that blondes are more attractive to men than others? If there is, fair enough.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby Red Hal » Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:58 pm UTC

The Authors' Credentials:

Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/Experts/s.kanazawa@lse.ac.uk

Alan S. Miller served as professor of social psychology in the Department of Behavioral Sciences at Hokkaido University, Japan, before his death in 2003.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby setzer777 » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:03 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:Yes, I agree the reasons are nonsense. But I found people here were disputing the actual statements.


The actual statement that sounded the least plausible was the "men prefer blonds". They may be writing from a North American perspective, but they were clearly arguing that preferring the "blond-bombshell" archetype was genetic and true (on average) across all geographical regions. This I find hard to believe.

The biggest I problem I had with the article was that given the premise of their article (revealing controversial unpleasant truths that we don't want to accept), they didn't really mention any real evidence backing up their claims, or cite a single source.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

Goplat
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:41 pm UTC

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby Goplat » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:05 pm UTC

EnderSword wrote:It's natural for politicians to risk it all for an affair - Again, no shit, why do you think he got that power to begin with? He's not 'risking' it, he's using it. He's exercising the power he has.
Yeah, that's why Ross Perot spent $65.4 million of his own money on his presidential campaign, even though as a third-party candidate he didn't have a very large chance of winning. I'm sure he was thinking only about the possibility of sex when he did that. $65.4 million? No way could one just buy sex directly from a prostitute with that little, right?

i
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:31 pm UTC

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby i » Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:44 pm UTC

harpyblues wrote:
3.14chan wrote:In "Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist" I think that the idea was that men harass women in work just like they harass men.

I don't think that this explains all but I can't deny that this is true sometimes too...


Because males really pinch another male's ass in the workforce to piss them off.


A person has to separate concepts of sexism and sexualism. Otherwise they are just raving lunatics going around claiming sex is rape. The article differentiated between quid pro quo harassment and hostile workplace harassment and explained them one at a time. Quid pro quo (like pinching your sweet tooshie) is driven by sex rather than sexism. For example, sexist gay men do not engage in quid pro quo harassment with female coworkers, no matter how sexist they are.

Degradation, however, the article claims, is driven by competitiveness among males. Language would might be adapted for different situations and individuals, but framing your insults in a sexist manner is different from claiming it was caused by sexism. The article points out his distinction with "to say that it is only about power makes no more sense than saying that bank robbery is only about guns, not about money."

Belial wrote:Well, in the case of the three most commonly cited:

That blondes with blue eyes are most attractive: if that were a survival adaptation, we would basically all have it. The existence of even a large minority who prioritize some other appearance kindof shoots the idea that this norm is for the survival of our species to hell. You know, if the fact that there's basically no evidence for a genetic basis aside from a plausible story the author made up wasn't enough.


Yeah, because different areas don't have different environments. Surely if melanin had any beneficial properties, we'd all be black! [/sarcasm]

Sexual selection and natural selection are two distinct concepts, though they do effect one another to a great degree.

In northern climes, lower levels of melanin is related to higher survival rates. Therefore, fairer children will outsurvive darker as well as inherit their parent's sexual biases.

However, there is more evidence that men may prefer fairer women across all societies. Skin darkens with sun exposure (and age) similarly to how hair darkens with age. For this hypothesis to be valid, younger women need to have greater reproductive success (they do) and applicable to all traits linked to age (it is).

The worst you can say is that the hypothesis is indetermined, but not that it's false or invalid.

The statement that a sexually attractive trait must be exaggerated to ridiculous proportions or shared across the entire population is fallacious and retarded. There are numerous reasons for and examples of this not being so. The size of a peacocks tail is kept in check by it's requirement to move, and that's why they aren't just giant tails with penises attached. Blond hair is controlled by the same gene as skin, which is kept in check by the threat of cancer. Of course, blond hair is not required for vitamin D production but is associated with something that is required.

The more obvious answer though, is that blond hair only originated 10000 years ago, which is a freaking evolutionary explosion. The popular explanation now seems to be that a population bottleneck occurred about the same time as blond hair developed.

Even if all these things were false though, it still leaves the question "if blond mates were not sexually selected for, how did it evolve at all?"

sje46
Posts: 4729
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby sje46 » Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:03 pm UTC

I do believe that the women men are most attracted to (actually, the people people are most attracted to, I should say) on average is the person with the most average face. As in, the more extreme a facial feature is, teh more likely that person will be viewed as unattractive, and if all the facial features are average sized/proportioned, that person will be most likely viewed as attractive.
I always generalized this to skin color and hair color too. Men will prefer average hair and average skin, so I assumed that blonde hair really isn't that popular in America, or at least not without corporations simply telling us they are more attractive.
That is all the evolutionary psychology I know. I'm not really sure how much that can be applied to this discussion.
General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30448
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby Belial » Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:07 pm UTC

A person has to separate concepts of sexism and sexualism. Otherwise they are just raving lunatics going around claiming sex is rape. The article differentiated between quid pro quo harassment and hostile workplace harassment and explained them one at a time. Quid pro quo (like pinching your sweet tooshie) is driven by sex rather than sexism. For example, sexist gay men do not engage in quid pro quo harassment with female coworkers, no matter how sexist they are.

Degradation, however, the article claims, is driven by competitiveness among males. Language would might be adapted for different situations and individuals, but framing your insults in a sexist manner is different from claiming it was caused by sexism. The article points out his distinction with "to say that it is only about power makes no more sense than saying that bank robbery is only about guns, not about money."


Interestingly, whether the actions are sexist is pretty much only tangentially related to whether the behaviour is motivated by misogyny.

Even if all these things were false though, it still leaves the question "if blond mates were not sexually selected for, how did it evolve at all?"


Well, within the last 10,000 years, that's enough time for more esoteric reasons like "they're attractive because they're different/rare" to emerge. Which, while it is certainly a form of sexual selection, is nothing on the level of the animalistic "I will bone them because they will give me better babies and my genes tell me so" answer implied by the article.

Which would explain why tastes vary even within populations under the same selective pressures.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:54 pm UTC

i wrote:However, there is more evidence that men may prefer fairer women across all societies.

Not robust enough. In Malaysia, women use a lot of skin whitening cream. In Malaysia, the Portugese used to kill dark-skinned women for looking them in the eye. European colonialism makes all of this data questionable, especially in Southeast Asia, where many European efforts could be likened to terrorism.

Even outside of the colonial sphere of influence, when cultures finally do encounter white people, they tend to be powerful and/or wealthy. Many times, that means attractive.

i
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:31 pm UTC

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby i » Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:20 am UTC

I am incorrect in my comparisons between hair color and skin color. I assumed since they are both linked to aging it would be a fair to use one as a proxy for the other, but I wuz rong.

Belial wrote:Interestingly, whether the actions are sexist is pretty much only tangentially related to whether the behaviour is motivated by misogyny.


That's nice. Don't care. This is the section heading in the article: "Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist"

Using the analogy tell me which one of these statements is correct
1. The thieves robbed the bank because they are gun enthusiasts.
2. The thieves robbed the bank because they wanted the money, and guns were an effective tool to get it.

Reread the entire thing. The section is all about motivation. If you want a treatise on the features of handguns, find another article.

Even if all these things were false though, it still leaves the question "if blond mates were not sexually selected for, how did it evolve at all?"


Well, within the last 10,000 years, that's enough time for more esoteric reasons like "they're attractive because they're different/rare" to emerge. Which, while it is certainly a form of sexual selection, is nothing on the level of the animalistic "I will bone them because they will give me better babies and my genes tell me so" answer implied by the article.


Don't bother sourcing that claim. Also, go ahead and speculate what can and can't occur over 10,000 years based on your gut feelings.

Also, it turns out it is still the "I will bone them because they will give me better babies and my genes tell me so", despite my prior confession.

Heisenberg wrote:
i wrote:However, there is more evidence that men may prefer fairer women across all societies.

Not robust enough. In Malaysia, women use a lot of skin whitening cream. In Malaysia, the Portugese used to kill dark-skinned women for looking them in the eye. European colonialism makes all of this data questionable, especially in Southeast Asia, where many European efforts could be likened to terrorism.

...which makes them attractive?
Even outside of the colonial sphere of influence, when cultures finally do encounter white people, they tend to be powerful and/or wealthy. Many times, that means attractive.

Are you really going to suggest that anthropologists marching through a village is enough to overthrow a society's sexual preferences because they're "wealthy"?

But it doesn't even matter. You can look at descriptions of beautiful women prior to contact with Europeans.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30448
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby Belial » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:04 am UTC

Reread the entire thing. The section is all about motivation.


That's nice. Don't care. The contention is that men sexually harassing women isn't sexist. That they try to prove this by pondering their motivation is a flaw in their reasoning, and certainly doesn't prove them right. Their claim is incorrect and invalid.

Don't bother sourcing that claim.


I won't. Not like anyone else in this clusterfuck did.

Also, go ahead and speculate what can and can't occur over 10,000 years based on your gut feelings.


Not my gut feelings. 10,000 years is within the scope of time that humans started getting their civilization on. Which means, within that period, we're kindof allowed to consider cognitive and societal reason why something might happen, instead of analyzing it like animal behaviour.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: 10 politically incorrect truthes about human nature

Postby setzer777 » Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:41 pm UTC

i wrote:
Belial wrote:Interestingly, whether the actions are sexist is pretty much only tangentially related to whether the behaviour is motivated by misogyny.


That's nice. Don't care. This is the section heading in the article: "Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist"

Using the analogy tell me which one of these statements is correct
1. The thieves robbed the bank because they are gun enthusiasts.
2. The thieves robbed the bank because they wanted the money, and guns were an effective tool to get it.

Reread the entire thing. The section is all about motivation. If you want a treatise on the features of handguns, find another article.


Using that argument, what they said is still wrong. They should have said: "Men do not sexually harass women because they are sexist, they harass women for competitive reasons". Saying that "Men sexually harass women *because* they are not sexist" is saying that "not being sexist" is the motivation or cause of the harassment, which is not the case, because they can still harass women for competitive reasons even if, unrelated, they also have sexist attitudes.

To illustrate, let's assume that the men are sexist, but the sexism is not the cause of the harassment. Phrasing it the way the author did, we would say:

"The sexist men harass women because they are not sexist" - that is clearly an incorrect (or at least extremely unclear) statement. However, phrasing it my way, we get: "The sexist men harass women not because of their sexism, but for competitive reasons."
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests