View Full Version : Women: The Thread
You geezers have nothing to teach me from what I see. My goal is not to become a middle-aged trick wasting money on strippers.
safado
12-08-2007, 12:11 PM
You geezers have nothing to teach me from what I see. My goal is not to become a middle-aged trick wasting money on strippers.
I just read here for the entertainment. I like the stories about the guys who are willing to pay hundreds of dollars per hour for a good teasing.
safado
12-08-2007, 12:16 PM
I have noticed that alot of women will say that they want a nice guy but in reality that is not the kind of guy they actually go for. What they say they want and what they go for are two different kinds of guys.
Richard_Head
12-08-2007, 12:23 PM
You geezers have nothing to teach me from what I see. My goal is not to become a middle-aged trick wasting money on strippers.What is your goal again??
Bellona
12-08-2007, 12:55 PM
( I'm tired of geezers who trick trying to pretend they have something to teach my generation)
lol, so true.
Lunarobverse
12-08-2007, 01:03 PM
You geezers have nothing to teach me from what I see. My goal is not to become a middle-aged trick wasting money on strippers.
Well, don't look now, Sh0t, but it looks like you've already got the "bitter loner" part down. If you survive to middle-age, you're going to end up everything you hoped not to be.
:)
Sitri
12-08-2007, 02:38 PM
Well, don't look now, Sh0t, but it looks like you've already got the "bitter loner" part down. If you survive to middle-age, you're going to end up everything you hoped not to be.
:)
Actually as an over-achiever you can achieve this goal before middle age; you can be a young-man trick wasting money on strippers...::)
I'm not bitter or a loner. I'm a happy-go-lucky type of person, like Ariel from the little mermaid.
being a young trick is bad too
Be mack-minded, not trick-minded
When I daydream about being a knight in shining armor rescuing a princess, she was never over 130 lb
miabella
12-08-2007, 04:11 PM
not even if she was six feet tall?
Especially not then
I have molested my floor
Tyra banks is odd. Usually now she looks kinda busted, but when she wants to, she can still break out the record setting sexiness. I should marry her.
A classic
xdamage
12-08-2007, 06:32 PM
I have noticed that alot of women will say that they want a nice guy but in reality that is not the kind of guy they actually go for. What they say they want and what they go for are two different kinds of guys.
True, but it is not all that surprising to me anymore. Social training teaches women what they think they want. Evolution and genetic molding transcends that though by many hundreds of millions of years and is often what they really want. Still it is not rocket science.
Way too many guys think women want "nice" men, aka weak, meek, overly sensitive, woman-like, etc. Genetically, evolutionarily, she has herself and other women to be that type. Men were useful because they are not that guy. Because they are protectors, hunters, willing to fight to protect their children and female, even aggressive if needed to expand the wealth of the family.
If you strip away our modern society, remove the laws that protect people's rights, strip away technology, you get a better picture of the reality people's genes were shaped in. And in that picture, the last thing any woman needs is an overly nice, supplicating boy.
Casual Observer
12-09-2007, 12:16 PM
^ There you go again with that unadulterated misogyny, X.
Can't we all just work toward the complete emasculation of all men?
What they say they want and what they go for are two different kinds of guys.
That's the result of a socialized response versus an instinctual response.
Katrine
12-09-2007, 11:05 PM
From Sh0t's linky:
The 49% of men who live outside of the secret society don't understand the mental model of attraction of people who are in the secret society.
Men view attraction in their MALE MENTAL MODELS. They believe that attraction is "sexual aggression". They understand attraction as having a physical urge to have sex, and then mentally deciding that you will go after it.
They try to seduce women by touching and grabbing them, and getting them very horny. They try to seduce them in the SAME WAY that a woman would do well seducing THEM. They try to seduce them as if they were seducing a GUY. This sometimes works, and the propaganda is spread - "this is how to get chicks"
So true.
Mastridonicus
12-12-2007, 07:53 AM
I'm not bitter or a loner. I'm a happy-go-lucky type of person, like Ariel from the little mermaid.
No other way to be. Life's a lot easier when you're always looking for the upshot.
If you strip away our modern society, remove the laws that protect people's rights, strip away technology, you get a better picture of the reality people's genes were shaped in. And in that picture, the last thing any woman needs is an overly nice, supplicating boy.
Outside of the bedroom we're all kind and polite and socially oriented, but between the sheets we're grunting, moaning and cumming just like every other mammal.
What I've decided is that what women who say they want a Nice guy, is just that, a Nice guy. Unfortunately I think it's the MALE who is more misleading with this than the female, since he turns that into the white knight and mentally frames the woman into a position of needing saving.
When she asserts that she doesn't, things go awry.
Since the male, too often, wants the first female he sets his sights on, he explodes his point of view for what she wants. Next thing you know he's paying for everything, driving her places, not arguing when she disappears for long unaccountable periods, and becomes the butt of her negative emotions when she's talking to her friends about how bad of a girlfriend all this makes her. Truth is, she just doesn't respect him because he hasn't DEMANDED it, and it's so wrong to think that's HER fault simply because he walked into the relationship on his knees.
^ There you go again with that unadulterated misogyny, X.
Can't we all just work toward the complete emasculation of all men?
That's the result of a socialized response versus an instinctual response.
That's a little bit much, don't you think? I often find myself believing the problem begins when we make decisions, subconscious or otherwise, without sufficient proof.
The supplicating male is supplicating because Hallmark, Hollywood, The Oxygen Channel, Pop Culture, and his father show it to him daily. Women see this in other relationships and covet it for all the same reasons and fail to see why the woman who has it isn't as happy as she could be. Both genders are victims of enforced social acceptance.
Equality isn't so hard to achieve.
xdamage
12-12-2007, 08:11 AM
What I've decided is that what women who say they want a Nice guy, is just that, a Nice guy. Unfortunately I think it's the MALE who is more misleading with this than the female, since he turns that into the white knight and mentally frames the woman into a position of needing saving. ... [more clipped]
Actually I agree. Women do often know what they want when they say "nice guy", or at least have better comprehension of it then the guys. I'm not so sure people are always entirely conscious of their underlying animal instincts, but that aside, I agree that it is the males who have mis-understood what "nice guy" means.
Mastridonicus
12-12-2007, 08:37 AM
<Typical Male> I've given you everything!
<Female> But you don't make me feel like a Woman! I'm not a little girl!
<Typical Male> What more could you possibly want!
etc etc ad nausea.
Nicolina
12-12-2007, 09:31 AM
True, but it is not all that surprising to me anymore. Social training teaches women what they think they want. Evolution and genetic molding transcends that though by many hundreds of millions of years and is often what they really want. Still it is not rocket science.
Way too many guys think women want "nice" men, aka weak, meek, overly sensitive, woman-like, etc. Genetically, evolutionarily, she has herself and other women to be that type. Men were useful because they are not that guy. Because they are protectors, hunters, willing to fight to protect their children and female, even aggressive if needed to expand the wealth of the family.
If you strip away our modern society, remove the laws that protect people's rights, strip away technology, you get a better picture of the reality people's genes were shaped in. And in that picture, the last thing any woman needs is an overly nice, supplicating boy.
hey, x. If you want to make arguments from evolutionary psychology....Would you do me a favor and actually read something about evolutionary psychology? Google David Buss, would you? And buy some of his books. And read them. Please.
The qualities women seek in a short-term mate and the qualities they seek in a long-term mate are completely different. Same goes for men: What they want in a short-term mate is almost the exact opposite of what they want in a long-term mate.
That simple fact explains a lot of apparent contradictions in mate choice.
And that's all I have time to say right now.
Have you ever read the Marc perkel site mast?
This article in particular under "his story":
I'm not sure when i first read it, but I end up coming back to it every year or so.
I agree with your brief expositon on the "nice guy".
As that great emo song said:"She's already got one pussy, she doesn't need another one."
One way i look at it is that when women say they want a nice guy, they have brad pitt or somebody in their mind's eye and are imaging how they would want HIM to treat her, not poindexter. They are probably envisioning guys they are intimdated by and their ideal scenario with them. Not "regular" guys" If you get what i mean.
Basically the ending of most romance novels when the former bad boy turns into the guy who worships her.
Oddly enough, I believe i have one of the greatest gifts to give women because I give them the chance and opportunity to settle down and domesticate a truly committed womanizer. Reforming a player is probably one of the greatest female fantasies.
Often times when i'm sitting at home playing dota, the girls I know will message me and ask me "which other bitch are you with right now?".
Evolutionary psychology doesnt really tell us what men want in long term mates. Men typically want the same thing at all times, just based on evo-psych:
Young, verile, .7 waist:hip ratio, fertile, etc
xdamage
12-12-2007, 09:51 AM
Evolutionary psychology doesnt really tell us what men want in long term mates. Men typically want the same thing at all times, just based on evo-psych:
Young, verile, .7 waist:hip ratio, fertile, etc
True. And it may well be they don't want much of anything long term. Could be they just want to fuck and run.
xdamage
12-12-2007, 09:54 AM
The qualities women seek in a short-term mate and the qualities they seek in a long-term mate are completely different. Same goes for men: What they want in a short-term mate is almost the exact opposite of what they want in a long-term mate.
That simple fact explains a lot of apparent contradictions in mate choice.
And that's all I have time to say right now.
Nic, this is common sense knowledge to me. You are way behind me here if you just now seeing this. Go back and search my posts and you see I have already said this several times in the past (to an audience that mostly didn't understand, but nevertheless this is old news).
However... I also think some people have mis-interpreted human nature in this regard.
Nic, keep in mind though that this luxury of choice is a relatively new thing on the historical scale, and I think some have misunderstood the long term/short term mate choices because they don't factor in that our modern society is a tiny blip on a long historical scale. Go live in lesser developed countries, without these protections, and you get a better sense of human mating behaviors and mate choices.
Take away so many protections you enjoy in a modern society, protections that are very new on an evolutionary scale, and it is clearer that without them, the long term mates needed to be quite masculine/aggressive even to provide protection. The confusion is actually more that women are drawn to that type of man for short term mating vs a nice many for long term. Take away the luxuries and the overly nice man is mostly useless.
Male aggressiveness is a double edge sword, and such men are also capable of turning that aggression on their women and children. Still, if your choices come down to abuse from the father of your children, or abuse from other strange males, one choice is better then the other.
It is mentioned that sometimes the strategy of "stay and raise" is potentially a better tactic for ensuring the kids survive.
the gamble for men is whether to spend time pursuing new women to fertilize or try to stick it out with one to ensure those matings survive. The result is usually a blend of both("monogamy" with cheating)
xdamage
12-12-2007, 09:56 AM
It is mentioned that sometimes the strategy of "stay and raise" is potentially a better tactic for ensuring the kids survive.
the gamble for men is whether to spend time pursuing new women to fertilize or try to stick it out with one to ensure those matings survive. The result is usually a blend of both("monogamy" with cheating)
Agreed 100%
mr_punk
12-12-2007, 10:17 AM
This article in particular under "his story":
http://www.perkel.com/pbl/married/index.htmoy vey, his story is a dime a dozen in divorce court.
Nicolina
12-12-2007, 03:17 PM
Nic, this is common sense knowledge to me. You are way behind me here if you just now seeing this. Go back and search my posts and you see I have already said this several times in the past (to an audience that mostly didn't understand, but nevertheless this is old news).
I don't have the time or the desire to search your posts.
And no, I'm not "just now seeing this."
My point is that evolutionary psychology is an actual discipline, with organizing principles that are backed up by lots of studies and lots of empirical data.
It is not just "common sense knowledge."
You so often make these arguments, but it's clear that you haven't really studied the discipline or the data. I know you've read a lot of popular science and whatnot...so you often get it almost right. But then you also make these jumbled arguments that really misrepresent the discipline, and you do it with an air of authority that suggests to me that you really think you know what you're talking about, and it drives me crazy.
I'm just suggesting that you order a copy of the textbook Evolutionary Psychology by David Buss. I think you will find it very interesting, and it will strengthen your arguments on stripperweb.
Nic, keep in mind though that this luxury of choice is a relatively new thing on the historical scale, and I think some have misunderstood the long term/short term mate choices because they don't factor in that our modern society is a tiny blip on a long historical scale.
I am well aware of this. Yes, it is one premise of evolutionary psychology. Any evolutionary psychologist will consider the data in light of this very basic fact. This is not a brilliant insight on your part. Trust me.
Take away the luxuries and the overly nice man is mostly useless.
Um, no. Not if the gentler guy takes better care of your offspring.
Like you said:
Male aggressiveness is a double edge sword, and such men are also capable of turning that aggression on their women and children.
Exactly. And as you know, all that really matters to evolution is how many of your offspring survive to reproduce. Having an overly aggressive mate might well result in lower reproductive fitness for a female. (compared with a female who has a less-aggressive mate. Even if we do this study in a tribal society.)
Still, if your choices come down to abuse from the father of your children, or abuse from other strange males, one choice is better then the other.
Well. I'd argue that it really doesn't matter where the violence comes from, provided that it lowers your reproductive fitness. Except, it's likely to be habitual from a mate, and a one-time thing in the case of a strange male. (habitual = elevated levels of stress hormones, which can affect fertility and reproduction.)
And the data suggest that your primary mate is far more likely to kill you than is a strange male. (Probably more likely to kill your offspring as well. Especially if he suspects that he may not have fathered them.)
You keep representing primitive human societies as being brutal and violent. I am not sure the data support that contention. We're social creatures who have to get along with each other in close-knit groups in order to survive. I think evolution built an innate "moral" sense into human consciousness because of this.
We are at least as cooperative as we are aggressive. Overly aggressive individuals are sometimes (often?) ostracized in primate societies--including our own. It's not all about being able to beat up the other guy. It can be about outsmarting the other guy, being diplomatic enough to appease the other guy while still getting what you want, being creative enough to woo the hottest chick in the tribe through song or poetry or storytelling....I could go on. Social skills are key.
Super-aggressive does not necessarily equal alpha-male.
I think that if you were to study the qualities of tribal chiefs and respected leaders, the ones who have the greatest number of wives and offspring, you would find that "aggressive" does not top the list.
^^See, look, I just came up with a testable hypothesis. I'm all for dueling hypotheses, but you act as though you have all the answers because you've read a little Steven Pinker. Dude. You don't.
Nicolina
12-12-2007, 03:23 PM
the gamble for men is whether to spend time pursuing new women to fertilize or try to stick it out with one to ensure those matings survive. The result is usually a blend of both("monogamy" with cheating)
This is apparently true for women, as well. Do they stick with the guy who has proven to be a good provider, or do they sneak around and mix it up with a guy who might have better genes to offer?
Again, the compromise is a mix of monogamy and cheating.
Nicolina
12-12-2007, 03:35 PM
Evolutionary psychology doesnt really tell us what men want in long term mates. Men typically want the same thing at all times, just based on evo-psych:
Young, verile, .7 waist:hip ratio, fertile, etc
That isn't true. Guys totally have a different set of priorties for short-term vs. long-term mates. While their physical preferences might remain the same overall, studies show that "physical attractiveness" is more important to guys in a short-term mate.
Also, men don't mind promiscuity and high sex drive in a short-term mate.
They do not desire these qualities in a long-term mate (statistically speaking.)
I think this is why you see so many guys who have really hot sex with most of their girlfriends, but marry the woman who is most boring in bed.
This is just one example.
xdamage
12-12-2007, 04:08 PM
I
My point is that evolutionary psychology is an actual discipline, with organizing principles that are backed up by lots of studies and lots of empirical data.
It is not just "common sense knowledge."
True, however, I am not sure if this will click with you. Maybe yes, maybe no, but...
It is a big wide world Nicolina. I don't haven't desire to be an expert on everything. I have my own areas of expertise. I really don't give a damn if I am 100% right on all of them. All that I care about is general directions, arrows of truth or fallacy. I leave it to history, and others to take care of million details. I don't get anal over every detail because honestly, it doesn't matter to me. All I care about is the general direction of truth, not the specifics. For example, I care that our schools are generally teaching evolution as a theory, but the specifics? Who cares. It will take thousand, tens of thousands of human beings to argue it out. I don't care about any specific author so much as I care about the general truth of it, the truth of it is vs creationism.
I'm sorry the specifics drive you crazy, but in some things, at least for me, I let go of it. On other hand if someone says something like gender is just made up by society, I will fight that as a lie. The specifics don't matter to me. I just don't care, but the arrow of the lie is so far from the truth, I will fight to swing it in the direction of truth, and leave it up to millions of others after me to refine the details once the arrow is on the general course that it should be.
Nicolina
12-12-2007, 04:48 PM
It is a big wide world Nicolina. I don't haven't desire to be an expert on everything. I have my own areas of expertise. I really don't give a damn if I am 100% right on all of them.
Fair enough, x.
But the reason it bugs me so much is that I obviously care about this subject a great deal. I think it's the absolute best approach to understanding human behavior. But it's been much maligned and misunderstood ever since E.O. Wilson published Sociobiology. It's still a young, growing discipline. We're learning so much so fast about molecular biology, genetics, and neuroscience that it's difficult for even the top researchers in the field to keep up with it all.
I just get worried when you mangle an argument from ev. psych because I'm afraid that certain people (*cough*Jenny*cough*) will get turned off to the whole idea and decide that it is an evil tool of the patriarchy and refuse to take it seriously. And if this were to happen, it would make me sad because I think it is such a useful framework. (it's not just Jenny, of course. But she is an example of someone who I think is skeptical about the notion of biological determinism, yet open-minded enough to consider these arguments when they are presented accurately.)
Anyhow, you're right, it's my issue. You can say whatever you want. But I will occasionally get mad and beat up on you.
And really, I mention that David Buss book not so much to be obnoxious, but because I really do think that you would find it very fascinating. If I was your secret santa, I would send it to you! :P
(^and don't correct me on my grammar there, certain people who know who you are! Dammit. i'll be ungrammatical if i damn well please. ;))
Jenny
12-12-2007, 05:01 PM
Nickie
I'm skeptical about some of the uses evolutionary psychology is put to; I obviously believe in evolution, and I obviously believe that some aspects of human behaviour are so determined - I just don't think it is determining who likes math and who works on crab boats and I don't think it is an adequate answer to some socio-legal questions that arise in this industry. And I just think it is silly to assume that because a behaviour exists it must obviously be genetically imprinted - that is I also think OTHER things determine human behaviour.
And of course, as you say - there is not SO much evidence that men in foraging societies or tribal societies are inveterately violent and aggressive among themselves or towards women; so any theory predicated on that notion seems a little laden with Victorian-sociological-science for me.
xdamage
12-12-2007, 05:08 PM
Fair enough, x.
But the reason it bugs me so much is that I obviously care about this subject a great deal. I think it's the absolute best approach to understanding human behavior. But it's been much maligned and misunderstood ever since E.O. Wilson published Sociobiology. It's still a young, growing discipline. We're learning so much so fast about molecular biology, genetics, and neuroscience that it's difficult for even the top researchers in the field to keep up with it all.
I just get worried when you mangle an argument from ev. psych because I'm afraid that certain people (*cough*Jenny*cough*) will get turned off to the whole idea and decide that it is an evil tool of the patriarchy and refuse to take it seriously. And if this were to happen, it would make me sad because I think it is such a useful framework. (it's not just Jenny, of course. But she is an example of someone who I think is skeptical about the notion of biological determinism, yet open-minded enough to consider these arguments when they are presented accurately.)
Anyhow, you're right, it's my issue. You can say whatever you want. But I will occasionally get mad and beat up on you.
And really, I mention that David Buss book not so much to be obnoxious, but because I really do think that you would find it very fascinating. If I was your secret santa, I would send it to you! :P
(^and don't correct me on my grammar there, certain people who know who you are! Dammit. i'll be ungrammatical if i damn well please. ;))
Tell you what. I appreciate your well thought out comments, so I will take your suggestion and order the book(s) you suggest.
I doubt I will contribute much of anything personally to this field. Probably nothing at all, except I can make one small contribution. I can, and have, as you may have noticed, taken a certain amount of heat for speaking about this not-yet-popular think because I believe it is generally correct. Specifics? I don't know. I don't trust much. Any early theories are debatable, but I think the general notion that our brains have been wired to have certain tendencies (not absolutes, just statistical tendencies) is valid, correct, and explains human behavior very well as compared with the purely social theories.
I actually don't know that I believe that specifics sway people like Jenny for the same reason I don't believe religious people are swayed much by scientific arguments. Faith tends to trump facts no matter if the facts are perfectly right, or mostly right. What I think tends to actually have real long term impact is hearing the general message over and over. So if I say it, it means little. But if you say it too, so does Sh0t, so do several others, and so do more in popular reading material, it eventually starts to sink in, hey, maybe there is something to this. One has to crack through blind faith first, and those who have faith in the blank slate theory have a LOT of faith.
I guess my point is this. You can argue with me, but I am really not the enemy. The real enemy is ignorance out there. You'll take heat for speaking up, but if you see people posting things like evo psych is just a bunch of BS or people learning everything through social training, each time is an opportunity to put yourself on the line, take some heat, and maybe just add a little tiny push in the right direction towards a larger long term change. There is no question in my mind that evo psych will eventually become mainstream think, but right now, there is a near religious belief in the notion that everything is put into people's heads from society.
I have all of Buss's stuff to my recollection. he's not the best writer, sadly.
I think this is why you see so many guys who have really hot sex with most of their girlfriends, but marry the woman who is most boring in bed. I think that is due to the fact that a less "wild" woman is probably having kids that are his. Biologically, guys will take their chances with just sex, because they arent planning to stick around. but for a guy to settle down with a woman who cheated on him is probably the worst outcome for him. he will be investing resources into children that are not his.
Women have no such uncertainity as they are sure every baby out of their womb is theirs.
The ideal strategy for women is typically to find a good genetic sperm donor and a good provider. They may not necessarily be the same men(and often are not). One problem women face that we do not is the slight physical handicap being pregnant introduces. not such a big deal today with non-labor jobs so easly had, but we all know where we came from.
Nicolina
12-12-2007, 05:27 PM
Nickie
I'm skeptical about some of the uses evolutionary psychology is put to; I obviously believe in evolution, and I obviously believe that some aspects of human behaviour are so determined - I just don't think it is determining who likes math and who works on crab boats and I don't think it is an adequate answer to some socio-legal questions that arise in this industry. And I just think it is silly to assume that because a behaviour exists it must obviously be genetically imprinted - that is I also think OTHER things determine human behaviour.
Oh, I completely agree. No evolutionary psychologist worth his or her salt would ever say that environment doesn't matter, or that all human behavior is directly determined by genetics. And you should be skeptical. These are powerful ideas that can clearly be misused.
And of course, as you say - there is not SO much evidence that men in foraging societies or tribal societies are inveterately violent and aggressive among themselves or towards women; so any theory predicated on that notion seems a little laden with Victorian-sociological-science for me.
Agreed 100%. That's exactly what set me off.
Here's a cool book that everyone should check out:
http://www.amazon.com/Mating-Mind-Sexual-Choice-Evolution/dp/038549517X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197505230&sr=8-1
oh, and there are some other good books on the list that comes up when you search for it (not those goofy transcendental soul mate books; why are they in there???):
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-8181508-8650525?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=The+Mating+Mind&x=12&y=19
oooh, check out that last one, Jenny:
A Mind of Her Own: The Evolutionary Psychology of Women.
I've never seen that before!
Must. Have.
Sperm wars changed my life.
I reread it almost monthly to make sure i never forget the lessons it contains
I have most of that list.
The you-know-what community is very big on it.
Nicolina
12-12-2007, 05:34 PM
I have all of Buss's stuff to my recollection. he's not the best writer, sadly.
That is true. But I suggested the textbook because it really gets into the nitty-gritty of the discipline: the prevailing wisdom, the emerging hypotheses, and the supporting data for each.
I think that is due to the fact that a less "wild" woman is probably having kids that are his.
Of course. For men, it's all about not being cuckolded. From an evolutionary standpoint, that is the absolute worst thing that could happen to a guy.
Biologically, guys will take their chances with just sex, because they arent planning to stick around. but for a guy to settle down with a woman who cheated on him is probably the worst outcome for him. he will be investing resources into children that are not his.
Women have no such uncertainity as they are sure every baby out of their womb is theirs.
The ideal strategy for women is typically to find a good genetic sperm donor and a good provider. They may not necessarily be the same men(and often are not). One problem women face that we do not is the slight physical handicap being pregnant introduces. not such a big deal today with non-labor jobs so easly had, but we all know where we came from.
yep. A clear and concise statement of the argument.
Nicolina
12-12-2007, 05:38 PM
Sperm wars changed my life.
ooh. I haven't read that one yet. But I want it. Isn't there stuff in there about the possible evolutionary reason for female orgasm?
Also, did you read The Mating Mind? I really like Miller's hypothesis: human intelligence and creativity evolved largely through sexual selection. (i.e. Women like smart dudes. And musicians. ;))
Yup, tons of it.
i have read The Mating Mind.
Indeed, the selection argument for intelligence is very sexy. I was going to mention that in a post, too.
"External" evidence for health as opposed to just obvious physical traits.
xdamage
12-12-2007, 07:22 PM
And I just think it is silly to assume that because a behaviour exists it must obviously be genetically imprinted - that is I also think OTHER things determine human behaviour.
Since nobody is claiming otherwise or ever has that is taken seriously, I am not sure where you got the idea in the first place. Yes it is a silly idea, but it is not coming from the evo psychologists. It may well be coming from people who fear it though and have created a strawman to rally around.
xdamage
12-12-2007, 08:44 PM
You keep representing primitive human societies as being brutal and violent. I am not sure the data support that contention. We're social creatures who have to get along with each other in close-knit groups in order to survive. I think evolution built an innate "moral" sense into human consciousness because of this.
Here is some links, but you can find more.
http://www.troynovant.com/Franson/Keeley/War-Before-Civilization.html
http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/jur/1995/j.m.g.van.der.dennen/OW_C2.pdf
http://www.nocensorship.us/cgi-bin/apf4/amazon_products_feed.cgi?Operation=ItemLookup&myOperation=CustomerReviews&ItemId=0195119126
The evidence I have read suggests that murder and war was the norm.
People do need to get along, but arguably so do animals, yet animals still fight, and kill, including their own kind in some cases. Animals show social behaviors too, but that doesn't mean they don't fight or kill. They are not mutually exclusive. People do have reasons not to kill each other, but I don't attribute that to some morale imperative. I attribute that to cooperation with others, to some degrees, is a better strategy then one in which every creature only fights.
Lunarobverse
12-12-2007, 09:16 PM
xdamage:
I'd like to read the references you've cited, but I have a couple of questions.
Two of your three links are to reviews of the same book.
Are you citing the reviews, or the book? Have you read the book in question? And is the evidence on which you're basing your argument (that pre-civilized humans were more, rather than less, prone to violence and warfare) to be based on that book and people's reactions to it, and the dissertation that constitutes the third link?
I'm not widely read on the topic of pre-civilized humanity, but I have read some as a layman. And my sense is the exact opposite from yours; that violence and warfare were rare, rather than common or widespread.
Nicolina
12-12-2007, 09:26 PM
People do need to get along, but arguably so do animals, yet animals still fight, and kill, including their own kind in some cases. Animals show social behaviors too, but that doesn't mean they don't fight or kill.
Well duh. But really, x, you can't lump all "animals" together as if every species exhibits the same set of behaviors. Humans are a very specific type of animal: long-lived, highly social mammalian primates with big brains and unusually variable mating strategies.
Even among primates & near relatives: chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans each exhibit different social structures, communication systems, stereotyped behavior patterns, mating systems, etc.
Comparing "humans" to "the set of all animals" is like comparing "apples" to "the set of all vascular plants." You're just not going to deduce a whole lot of useful information from the comparison.
People do have reasons not to kill each other, but I don't attribute that to some morale imperative. I attribute that to cooperation with others, to some degrees, is a better strategy then one in which every creature only fights.
I put "moral" in quotes because, imo, what we call "morality" is really just a set of heuristics that we use to get along in social groups.
also, there's a very strong evolutionary imperative for animals to find ways to AVOID fighting. That's why you see so much display behavior where males compete for dominance without ever even touching each other. Physical altercations carry risks for both animals are not in the best interest of either male. For most species, they serve as a last resort when disputes can't be settled by less risky means. This is Animal Behavior 101.
K. Now I need some sleep cuz I haven't gotten any in the last 48 hours or so. Brain just not working anymore.
I'll check out those links when I'm not on the verge of hallucinating due to sleep deprivation....
xdamage
12-12-2007, 09:26 PM
They are the same book. The problem is it is not well studied. It is popular to think people must have lived in peace, but like you said "my sense is the exact opposite from yours; that violence and warfare were rare, rather than common or widespread." but if you really think about it you base that on what?
I was raised to think the very same, and just assumed it is historical fact, except... it is not clearly so. In fact I can't really any historical fact to back the belief. We just all assumed it must be so!. So there isn't a lot of research, but what there is suggests war and modern is old news. Actually quite the contrary, it seems we spent a lot of time studying wars in history.
The other problem is we look around primitive cultures today and we see that they are often very violent. Women in particular are treated poorly. So it is about time we start really asking the question, were primitive people utopian and peaceful? What is the evidence?
xdamage
12-12-2007, 09:33 PM
Well duh. But really, x, you can't lump all "animals" together as if every species exhibits the same set of behaviors. Humans are a very specific type of animal: long-lived, highly social mammalian primates with big brains and unusually variable mating strategies.
I wasn't lumping all animals together, you added that.
Your argument was that we are social, and implied tha being social is a reason why we are not violent towards each other. My point was that the evidence is they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. If animals are capable of being social and violent among themselves, we know that the combination is possible, and so can we discard the argument that humans can't be violent towards each other because they are social creatures. The evidence tells us that being social doesn't mean one can't also be violent, so you've linked two things that aren't directly related to each other.
also, there's a very strong evolutionary imperative for animals to find ways to AVOID fighting. That's why you see so much display behavior where males compete for dominance without ever even touching each other. Physical altercations carry risks for both animals are not in the best interest of either male. For most species, they serve as a last resort when disputes can't be settled by less risky means. This is Animal Behavior 101.
True, and again, not news, but the tells us that there is a cost to escalation, not that there is cost to aggressiveness. Aggressiveness is still a valid strategy.
The animals are still being aggressive to each other, they are just limiting the escalation. The thing is the bigger animal could win just because the smaller animal sees he will lose. The animal that has established his ability to kill and fight could just win future fights without killing.
But going back to the original point then, that is the benefit of having aggressive, big, potentially violent males in the group if not in the family. They don't necessarily even have to use it, but if your neighbor decides to use aggressive tactics you will lose unless you have sufficient resources to fight back. Women often choose men that are bigger, potentially aggressive mates because it makes them feel "safe", even in a supposedly modern, law abiding culture.
Nicolina
12-12-2007, 09:46 PM
^And my point was that if you're going to compare humans to "animals," you have to tell me which animal species you're using for comparison--and choose carefully depending on the hypothesis you're testing.
You did lump all animals together--or did I miss where you mentioned a particular species that you thought offered a particularly useful comparison to humans in attempting to answer questions about aggression in human societies?
Another awesome book for you:
John Alcocks excellent textbook, Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach.
OKAY, I NEED TO GO TO SLEEP NOW!!!!
Lunarobverse
12-12-2007, 09:49 PM
xdamage:
I'm sure I have some assumptions in there somewhere, but the reading I've done on the topic is what suggests that pre-civilized societies were less, rather than more, violent.
I just ran to look at my library to refresh my memory of some of my reading - Stephen Jay Gould (admittedly an evolutionary biologist but still), Joseph Campbell, Sir James Frazier's "The Golden Bough". I think Sagan talked about the topic of pre-civilized humans in several books but I can't find anything right now - perhaps in "Demon-Haunted World"? And more recently, "Guns, Germs and Steel" and "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. Those, and other authors, are where I drew my impression from. Please don't consider these citations, just reminders. As I stated, I'm a layman on the topic.
And studying historical records, which would be largely about war since it's a traumatic event and likely to be recorded, doesn't really tell us much about pre-civilized societies, right? Pre-civilized would be pre-written-word, yes?
If a topic is not well-studied, is that because of taboos? Or because there's nothing there to be studied?
It's an interesting topic, in any case, and I look forward to reading more about it. Thanks for the pointers to writings that challenge my current views.
xdamage
12-12-2007, 10:09 PM
I agree history is more likely to record wars.
I think it may be hard to study. I don't know if there is any taboo at play, but there could well be a human bias at plan. I do think we modern people tend to want to believe primitive people lived in a utopian peace, not because it has been well studied, but because it is makes us feel all "kum-bi-yah" or something. I think it's good that some are finally starting to question the popular belief and study it.
Mastridonicus
12-14-2007, 06:09 PM
Have you ever read the Marc perkel site mast?
http://www.perkel.com/
This article in particular under "his story":
http://www.perkel.com/pbl/married/index.htm
I'm not sure when i first read it, but I end up coming back to it every year or so.
Just sour grapes.
He doesn't say anything that's not already common sense to someone who's been divorced. I just don't harbor any hatred towards my ex, and actually hope she'll be happy.
But nothing in there that's earth shattering... Just your angry jaded male.
One way i look at it is that when women say they want a nice guy, they have brad pitt or somebody in their mind's eye and are imaging how they would want HIM to treat her, not poindexter. They are probably envisioning guys they are intimdated by and their ideal scenario with them. Not "regular" guys" If you get what i mean.
I highly doubt it's someone like Brad Pitt. Generally, people fantasize those people as the boyfriend that they enjoyed the most forgetting all the bad that ended their relationship. Sometimes their father. But really, "Nice" is a comfort level. It's the male mentality that immediately seeks to translate that into a competition. To us, we can't BE nice. We must ACHIEVE it, which is why we overcompensate. IMHO.
Oddly enough, I believe i have one of the greatest gifts to give women because I give them the chance and opportunity to settle down and domesticate a truly committed womanizer. Reforming a player is probably one of the greatest female fantasies.
Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive. William F. Buckley Jr.