I recall when some of the studies they're citing made news. They're almost all controversial, so citing them as agreed-upon fact is disingenuous at best.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Their "truths" seemed a little light on references. I know that this isn't exactly a scholarly paper, but to not include anything just sets off my bs detector.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
That's the most sexist pile of unscientific garbage I've ever heard! Not only is it all wild hypothesis, it's wild hypothesis with an obvious misogynist slant.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Based on the sketchy facts about the Middle Ages, I'm not inclined to trust the article as a whole.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
wow That article was kind of stupid...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh? I don't necessarily agree with all the conclusions, and evolutionary psychology is a bit of a minefield for the layman, but why this instant unreasoning hostility?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
# 10 was particularly confusing. "Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist" "Men harass women precisely because they are not discriminating between men and women."
No. The hostile environment would not be created if there wasn't underlying sexism. Sure men show each other porn on their computers. Viewing porn is, in my opinion, sexist. A man who doesn't realize a woman is farily likely to find that offensive can't be very bright, in addition to the whole problem of viewing porn at work. Technically, a man could lodge a complaint about being shown porn at work. I know my husband would. Though it would probably be booked as an ethics report rather than harassment, or possibly religious harassment.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think he's saying that men harass all their coworkers, men and women alike, without regard to gender. I must say I find that to be a bit unconvincing; at an absolute minimum, the tactics of harassment are bound to change, simply because what works on a man and what works on a woman are likely to be different, and of course the sex dynamic opens up a whole range of new options anyway.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
"instant unreasoning hostility"?
Hmm. That's not what I got from people's remarks above, even though they may not have stated all their reasoning. I thought everyone was responding to the same thing I did when I read the article--the conclusions are stated as fact when the logic used to reach those conclusions has plenty of holes in it.
KoM, I agree with your take on the harassment thing; if the underlying assumption about universal harassment is true, then the entry of women into the workforce gives harassers a whole new and very specific set of tools to use on women. I think it also refocuses the target of the harassment.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If sexual harassment was not sexist then men would sexually harass other men just as much as they do women.
I do believe that physical forces -- hormones, biological drives, etc -- guide and direct interpersonal relationships perhaps more than most people are comfortable with, but far too many of the conclusions of this article are presented as fact rather than conjecture.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
These are the "Truths" that those who like the power sexual harassment gives them, use to excuse their behavior.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I cannot find any evidence to back up that belief. If it were true we should be able to easily find qutoes from people who used this as an excuse.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I think the reason people are taking offense at these claims is that they really are offensive.
This does not have any bearing on whether they are true or not.
I think the problem is that the sources of these are taking the game-theory economics of sex biology and treating it as the only truth. But there are two flaws. One is that there is more to life than game theory.
Another is that the game theory is flawed. For example the comments about polygamy speak only about who provides for whom. But there is such a thing as being in love. Why? If polygamy is best for women, why don't they usually fall for married men who tell them, there is no way I will ever leave my wife but you could be #2? (How romantic!) Why is it that a man can be in love with at most 1 (and some might claim 2) women, rather than as many as he can afford? Humans are not naturally polygamous, if naturally means their preferences or behaviors (and what else could it mean?).
Most suicide bombers I have heard of are in Palestine or UK. Polygamy is illegal in the UK. If polygamy caused suicide bombing it would be primarily in countries that practice it.
The claim that men who sexually harrass do it because they are not sexist is just a provocative way of dressing up the content of the claim, which is that such men are jerks and treat everyone badly to get what they want. Note that the authors did not say sex harrassment was not sexual, but that it is not sexist.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think it's yet another one of those things that makes stupid excuses for bad behavior, especially amoung men. A man who sexually harasses a woman isn't treating a woman like an equal, he's treating her with disrespect, and maybe all that ribbing and disrespectful behaviour isn't a good and acceptable thing. You just can't assume that every man and every woman in the whole world acts exactly alike, especially that assumption that all men like blondes with blue eyes when there's so few in the world. I just hate it when people take stuff like that and consider it truth when it's based on assumptions and stereotypes and doesn't take into consideration people's differences and variations.
Posted by JMDrocks (Member # 10633) on :
I think Qaz has it right about their basis for conclusions. Competition is probably the prime mover for social interaction, but it occurs in a complex environment and the author's conclusions are pretty weak. By the way, Hello all. I'm new here and this is my first post.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
I didn't read the article as misogynistic at all, nor did I interpret it as an excuse for bad behavior. It is simply an explanation, which may or may not be correct. None of the claims, substantiated or not, are particularly shocking.
-----
Welcome to the 'rack, JMDrocks! Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
What I find interesting are the facts that "beautiful" and "poor" people have more daughters. I wonder if there are several mechanisms at work there, or only one. We do know that vaginal pH affects both pregnancy rate and son's vs. daughters. A lower pH discourages both pregnancy and sons.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
You are welcome, JMDrocks, especially if you agree with me.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
The apparent conclusions of the writers of this article are:
There are good sound biological reasons for everything that men do, think, and say, and so those things should be accepted and not criticized.
Almost everything is the woman's fault.
Oh, and that there is a certain segment of the population (including these authors) which believes that if something is politically incorrect, it must be true.
All of which is ridiculous, as far as I can see.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
One statistician whose blog I read has had some serious problems with this guy's statistical methodologies in the past. The things he thinks are supported are not necessarily so.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I found the article to be fascinating in its conclusions. It was obviously not scholarly, but if they had cited every statement of "fact" it would have made for novel length footnotes. I'm not buying into it wholesale, but I don't think I'm just going to dismiss all their findings.
Even it its exactly right in their conclusions, the way its presented makes it hard to take it seriously.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by littlemissattitude: The apparent conclusions of the writers of this article are:
There are good sound biological reasons for everything that men do, think, and say, and so those things should be accepted and not criticized.
Almost everything is the woman's fault.
Oh, and that there is a certain segment of the population (including these authors) which believes that if something is politically incorrect, it must be true.
All of which is ridiculous, as far as I can see.
That's exactly what every annoying relationship book (The Rules, those stupid Men are from Mars books) says and that's why they annoy me! That attitude doesn't make relationships seem appealing. Also I fail to see how polygamy is best for a woman. Who wants to share a man with several other women? Men would benefit from watching the cat fight complete with clothes being torn off and mud.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I thought the article had some interesting ideas, some with more merit than others, all of which to be taken with liberal amounts of Sodium Chloride.
quote:If sexual harassment was not sexist then men would sexually harass other men just as much as they do women.
My thought when reading that section was the sexual humiliation and degradation that one associates with fraternities, and the sexual humiliation and degradation that some animals, such as wolves, inflict upon their competitors. That said, I agree that if there isn't the same amount of that type of sexual harassment towards men (and there certainly doesn't seem to be), this explanation cannot explain all if it.
quote:The apparent conclusions of the writers of this article are:
There are good sound biological reasons for everything that men do, think, and say, and so those things should be accepted and not criticized.
Almost everything is the woman's fault.
Oh, and that there is a certain segment of the population (including these authors) which believes that if something is politically incorrect, it must be true.
All of which is ridiculous, as far as I can see.
I didn't read it that way. It definitely is saying that there are biological reasons why men behave in certain ways, but I don't see how it's making any judgment about those behaviors being good or bad. Although I don't agree with it, I can see how not criticizing those behaviors could be taken as an implicit approval.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Also I fail to see how polygamy is best for a woman. Who wants to share a man with several other women?
The article's argument wasn't about sharing a man with several other women, but with sharing the man's resources.
It doesn't make much sense in such a safe and prosperous society like the one we live in. But in a situation where it's much more difficult to acquire safety, security, and the bare necessities, and where the consequences of not having them are greater, it makes more and more sense.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Not really, if the man is abusive towards all the women and torments them by not sharing his resources.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I found the article to be fascinating in its conclusions. It was obviously not scholarly, but if they had cited every statement of "fact" it would have made for novel length footnotes. I'm not buying into it wholesale, but I don't think I'm just going to dismiss all their findings.
Given that their logic is tenuous at best, I think I'd demand novel-length footnotes before I gave their conclusions any credence.
quote:Men like blond bombshells (and women want to look like them)
Responding to this first point, I can only speak anecdotally, but I definitely do not find the "blonde bombshell" stereotype to be the most attractive look in a woman (heck, it's not even in my top five). I'll take green or brown eyes over blue any day of the week. I guess I might be an evolutionary dead end, but I suspect it's more likely that it's because I'm, y'know, not white European, and therefore am the product of a very different history of sexual selection- and that's completely ignoring non-biological factors like culture and upbringing.
quote: Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy
I can sort of buy their reasoning regarding women and polygyny, but only insofar as I think that, from a strictly evolutionary standpoint, all humans "should" favor polygyny, simply because males produce a crapload of sperm for every egg that the woman produces. From the perspective of natural selection, if a male can't get a mate, it's too bad for him- he's been selected out! There is, on the other hand, nothing but reproductive benefits for a male who can mate with lots of females. Who cares what happens to the other males?
quote:Most suicide bombers are Muslim
Wow. All I can say, regarding every single point they make in this section, is: Cite, please?
Admittedly, that applies equally well to the rest of the article.
quote: Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist
The type of sexual harassment committed by men against women is fundamentally different from that committed by, as mentioned in this thread, frat boys against pledges. And one reason is actually stated in the article itself:
quote:Feminists often claim that sexual harassment is "not about sex but about power;" Browne contends it is both—men using power to get sex. "To say that it is only about power makes no more sense than saying that bank robbery is only about guns, not about money."
To make the above statement is to acknowledge that sexual desire does play a role in sexual harassment, even if it is secondary to power. This flatly contradicts what the writers claim in the following paragraphs (that [straight] men harass women the same way they harass other men).
Furthermore, saying that "men treat other men with disrespect, ergo men disrespecting women is not sexist" is logically unsound, because it makes the unsupported assumption that the reason men disrespect other men is the same reason that men disrespect women.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The article also discounts every other aspect of humanity besides the purely chemical.
It is in a man's best interest, speaking in an evolutionary manner, to become the strongest and most violent male around, brutally subjugating or killing all potential threats to his leadership and gathering all the young, healthy, fertile women he can reach. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable why a man might have thoughts of domination, of sexual harassment, of violence towards others, etc. But a few thousand years of social development have proven those tendencies to no longer be the optimal ones.
I do think that a great deal of relationship issues stem from the conflict between what your animal brain wants and what society demands, and this article focuses only on the former.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:This flatly contradicts what the writers claim in the following paragraphs (that [straight] men harass women the same way they harass other men).
It doesn't contradict, since they're talking about two different types of sexual harassment which, according to the article, have different purposes and motivations.
quote:I guess I might be an evolutionary dead end, but I suspect it's more likely that it's because I'm, y'know, not white European, and therefore am the product of a very different history of sexual selection- and that's completely ignoring non-biological factors like culture and upbringing.
Good point. Even if their theory has some truth to it, it would really only apply to those fair-haired ancestry.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Apparently writing blatant pseudoscience using half-baked postulates for a 'controversial' filler article for your crappy crappy psychology magazine and making sweeping generalizations from out of them is politically incorrect.
My god, who would have thought.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: The article also discounts every other aspect of humanity besides the purely chemical.
It is in a man's best interest, speaking in an evolutionary manner, to become the strongest and most violent male around, brutally subjugating or killing all potential threats to his leadership and gathering all the young, healthy, fertile women he can reach. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable why a man might have thoughts of domination, of sexual harassment, of violence towards others, etc. But a few thousand years of social development have proven those tendencies to no longer be the optimal ones.
I do think that a great deal of relationship issues stem from the conflict between what your animal brain wants and what society demands, and this article focuses only on the former.
Absolutely true, although my point in the post above was that their conclusions are specious on a "purely chemical" level, as well.
quote:It doesn't contradict, since they're talking about two different types of sexual harassment which, according to the article, have different purposes and motivations.
Good point. I'm not convinced that the underlying motivations for what they call "quid pro quo harassment" versus "hostile-environment harassment" are fundamentally different, though. The writers imply that "overly sexual" behavior is actually a misinterpretation by women of power dominance behavior, which (aside from being rather misogynistic in itself- "women are too dumb to figure out why that guy is harassing them") doesn't ring true to reality to me.
[ July 08, 2007, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Tarrsk ]
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote: Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist
The type of sexual harassment committed by men against women is fundamentally different from that committed by, as mentioned in this thread, frat boys against pledges. And one reason is actually stated in the article itself:
quote:Feminists often claim that sexual harassment is "not about sex but about power;" Browne contends it is both—men using power to get sex. "To say that it is only about power makes no more sense than saying that bank robbery is only about guns, not about money."
To make the above statement is to acknowledge that sexual desire does play a role in sexual harassment, even if it is secondary to power. This flatly contradicts what the writers claim in the following paragraphs (that [straight] men harass women the same way they harass other men).
The authors talk about two types of sexual harassment. One is the explicit "have sex with me or I'll fire you" flavor, and the other is general jerkiness. The former is sexist and the latter is not (they claim). So, no contradiction there.
That said, their argument is rather simplistic and unconvincing.
[Edit: and mph is faster than me, clearly.]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
It also makes the assumption that women must rely on men for their livelihood, something that's totally unwarranted, and only ever has been true in patriarchal societies which treat women as household chattel, and legally strip them of the right to own property, conduct business, be doctors, merchants, accountants, attorneys, scientists, etc. Only a few ways of making a living (or possibly none) are physically too challenging for most women, as our sisters in neolithic societies prove. Look at what Sacagawea did, for instance, leading a band of white guys on what was a strenuous and perilous journey for them, and for her seemed like a stroll in the park. She had a baby along the way and carried him in a sling.
This whole thing is based on a host of unwarranted cultural assumptions that aren't based in science or physiology, but mainly in the cultural preconceptions and biases of the author.
As a scientist, such nonsense fairy tales masquerading as science are particularly offensive to me. I mean, if they weren't offensive enough already just from their offensiveness. The fact that they're pretending to be scientific, and therefore beyond the reach of social judgment or debate is particularly odious.
[ July 08, 2007, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by littlemissattitude: The apparent conclusions of the writers of this article are:
There are good sound biological reasons for everything that men do, think, and say, and so those things should be accepted and not criticized.
Almost everything is the woman's fault.
Ok, I'm not getting that at all from this article. Maybe the first part a bit, but the "Almost everything is the woman's fault" is just something I'm not seeing here.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It also makes the assumption that women must rely on men for their livelihood, something that's totally unwarranted, and only ever has been true in patriarchal societies
The assumption and argument is that our genetic heritage was shaped by such societies in the past. Even if those strategies don't make sense in modern society, they used to, and that shaped the human genotype.
It's not assuming that women rely on men for their livelihood now, but that they used to thousands and thousands of years ago.
It's like how our bodies are programmed to gorge ourselves on sweets and fats, because such things used to be rare and seldom acquired. That survival strategy works against us today where we have more than enough calories and fat to survive.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Porter, women would have been as effective at gathering food, scavenging meat from predator kills, and hunting small game as men. Certainly they are as effective at agriculture. I don't understand the basis for your statement. Are you saying that all human cultures were patriarchal and treated women as property? The evidence would seem to be against you there. The Etruscans, for instance, weren't. The Egyptians had female rulers. Most of the neolithic societies we know about left figurines of what are most likely fertility goddesses. Though we don't have any written records of those, it would seem logical that if your supreme deity is female, your society is likely to be matriarchal or neutral. The Amazons were famously ruled by women. These are just a few examples, but they would seem to rule out an interpretation of human history as monolithically patriarchal.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Of course, if you believe that mankind evolved from less socialized forms, then our genetic heritage was shaped by much more primal forces and the social aspects (i.e. the last four thousand years) are just layered in over the top. Our progenitors likely existed for quite a while before agriculture really caught on.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
My thoughts on all ten of them:
1: Ehh... the idea that guys prefer youthful looking women subconsciously, at least in an evolutionary sense is kinda obvious. However, I prefer brunettes and rather more petite kinds to blonde bombshells. In fact, I'm not particularly attracted to tall blonde women at all.
I know what I like. And I'm pretty sure it has something, at least at a subconscious level, to do with, yes, fertility and youth and so forth. But things aren't that simple, as I happen to be able to metacognate, and generally consider things thanks to my sentient nature.
And I have no subconscious desire for a blonde chick, either. Go figure. Then again, I AM of meditterainian descent, mostly.
2.) Humans are often polygamous, yes, but that was at least in large part due to the volatility of society. And it was almost certainly restricted to rich dudes. Meh. Doesn't change that the vast majority of humans have been essentially monogamous, or at worst serially monogamous. Well, nto entirely true. People in general are not entirely faithful, they seem to like doing things on the side many times, as loathesome as I think it.
Their science about height, I dunno. Correlation is not causation.
"Only big and tall males can win mating opportunities."
Heh. I dunno about that. Have these people SEEN some of the rich people from the ancient world?
Anyway, meh. People do it for reasons, but it's not necessarily our natural state.
3.) Oh, dear. Women, in a tribal level, benefit from having a man there to help raise the child, when it comes to dealing with reproduction. Men benefit from having a bunch of kids with a bunch of women, since it costs so little.
However, it's in the best interest of men to connect with one woman in most cases, to both ensure reprodcution at least from one source, and/or to help make certain of the survival of said children from that source.
Then there's the whole thing we humans have about relationships, which muddy the waters with our capacity for love, affection, and loyalty. Kind of makes the above things much less certain. And in modern societies, well, things are far different than the old days of hunter/gatherer societies.
Anyway, polygyny occured in cultures with a lot of male deaths, such as in constant battle, at least that's part of the reason, some of the time. There are a lot of factors and I won't get into it. But it's certainly more complicated and infinitely less clear cut than how they put it.
And in a polygynous society, these guys are wrong that most guys wouldn't have wives. That's just not how it worked...
4.) Oi. Focusing on polygyny again, stupidly, on why muslims are suicide bombers. Dumb. So very dumb.
The reasons many suicide bombers are Muslim has to do with the current situation. Further, how is it any differnet than, say, the kamikazes of Japan? There wasn't all that much polygyny THERE!
Terrorism is due to the whole political thing. Muslims in general aren't just more prone to blowing themselves up. That's just infantile.
5: Meh. I don't have any information on this, but I figure there's much more going on, as with the rest. I'm not too impressed by their reasnoing here.
6: Not very much knowledge on the subject. Can't say. Meh.
7: Meh. "Men have built (and destroyed) civilization in order to impress women, so that they might say yes. "
BS.
8.) Oh dear God. Mid-life crisis has nothing to do with the age of your wife. It has to do, from what I've seen, with looking back at your life and realizing, hey, my life wasn't all that good, and now I'm no longer young, and... oh my God!
A natural human reaction to the lack of a point to existence. A wife who happens to be a bitch can help lead to depression, though, sure.
Why do they have to connect EVERYTHING with sex? Not everything is based on sex!
9.) Oh dear Lord.
Why do I doubt that politicians have any more affairs than any other subgroup of men with the same amount of potential to have an affair has?
Oh, and "Men strive to attain political power, consciously or unconsciously, in order to have reproductive access to a larger number of women."
...
...
...
Yet again, BS.
10.) "...is the increasing number of sexual harassment cases" clearly somebody doesn't know much about history!
Our culture focuses on it more ,cares now. It's not more common, in the least. It's only reported more.
You know, I'm not even gonna bother even to finish reading this stupid thing...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: If sexual harassment was not sexist then men would sexually harass other men just as much as they do women.
That-does-not-follow, because there is a self-consistent theory which explains sexual harassment without requiring sexism as the cause. Whether that theory is correct I don't know, but that's a separate question. Theory goes thus: Men harass all coworkers, impartially. With women, the most effective form of harassment is sexual, so that's the form used. (Except, presumably, in those cases where women have retaliated useing their most effective weapon, to wit, litigation.) This doesn't require any sexism on the part of males, just a desire to harass and a recognition of effective means.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There are good sound biological reasons for everything that men do, think, and say, and so those things should be accepted and not criticized.
I see the parts not emphasized pretty easily. I'm not sure if you meant good as in "this is a good reason to behave this way" or "this reason is scientifically documented in a good manner." If the former, I don't see where he said that.
I also don't see where he said those things should be accepted and not criticized.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
[ July 09, 2007, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: The reasons many suicide bombers are Muslim has to do with the current situation. Further, how is it any differnet than, say, the kamikazes of Japan? There wasn't all that much polygyny THERE!
At first I thought, "Oh hey good point." But then I realized we are talking about Japan. I'm afraid polygyny was QUITE common in feudal Japan and much more so in China. Even today it is QUITE common for a Chinese or Japanese man to have a wife, as the concept of the family is VERY important. But MANY of them also keep mistresses which is simply a modernized version of the concubine. The concubine of course being a VERY ancient tradition in both cultures.
edit: Also suggesting that polygyny creates suicide bombers does not mean it is the ONLY way they are made.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I liked the article. It made me think.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: I'm afraid polygyny was QUITE common in feudal Japan and much more so in China.
Which has what, exactly, to do with Japan during WWII?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote: I'm afraid polygyny was QUITE common in feudal Japan and much more so in China.
Which has what, exactly, to do with Japan during WWII?
Did you miss the extension into modern days with "mistresses" being the equivalent of "concubines?"
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
While I'm willing to grant him SOME amount of credence in some of the things he says about sexual relations between men and women, Polygymy and stuff, I really don't fall for alot of it. It's the same old thing, you can make statistics say anything you really want them to as long as you're creative enough gathering your data, interpreting it, or leaving a huge margin of error.
As a side note, I'd really like to know what he thinks about the cultures where one woman marries MANY men... I think those are kinda cool.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I liked the article. It made me think.
That is high praise. We should give the article credit, even if we disagree with all of it. It made me think, too.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
My husband brought this up to me, after reading elsewhere. He found it troubling for several reasons. Mostly because he is not a breast man, has a strong preference for brunettes and (like me) has never been tempted by the lure of adultery. So he couldn't identify with most of the basic 'truths' applied to men in the article.
The thing he found most troubling was the assertion that men tend to accomplish their most notable achievements before a certain age. Though I find this to somewhat true in certain creative fields, such things are far from universal.
As beautiful people with no daughters, I suppose we buck the trends. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"...why this instant unreasoning hostility?"
Not unreasoning. The dude is trying to rationalize (to devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for) his sociopathic impulses through use of credentials when his points are demonstrably false.
And because he tried to portray his position, himself as bleeding edge "politically incorrect": once again misusing the phrase to describe the politically correct (ie pandering to the powerful).
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
The dude is unreasoning, but so are some of his critics here. Which is a shame, since there are reasoned ways to say he is full of, ah, inaccuracy, as you point out.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The dude is trying to rationalize... his sociopathic impulses
Do you have any evidence for this assertion?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate where in the article he states that behavior that was selected for by evolution is behavior that we should encourage, find acceptable, or believe to be justified.
I recommend Diamond's response in "The Third Chimpanzee" to the criticism that recognizing evolutionary roots of behavior is somehow morally excusing that behavior.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've been meaning to read that book for a while.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: And because he tried to portray his position, himself as bleeding edge "politically incorrect": once again misusing the phrase to describe the politically correct (ie pandering to the powerful).
This seems to be the first post of about three that I need to gently correct. There are actually two authors, not one.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Steven Pinker also wrote about this in The Blank Slate. He is right: saying that a behavior occurs in nature does not imply that the behavior is morally acceptable. Unless we want to accept eating your mate's head like a praying mantis.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: Steven Pinker also wrote about this in The Blank Slate. He is right: saying that a behavior occurs in nature does not imply that the behavior is morally acceptable. Unless we want to accept eating your mate's head like a praying mantis.
Why do you think husbands of pregnant women are willing to get up at any hour in the night to fetch them pickles or icecream when they crave it? They know if they don't, bits of their head or possibly the whole thing could disappear while they sleep.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: If sexual harassment was not sexist then men would sexually harass other men just as much as they do women.
Chris, I don't know what your experience was as an adolescent, but I was sexually harassed quite a bit in Highschool- and it was an all boys Catholic school.
If we define sexual harassment as degredation, humiliation and intimidation of a sexualized nature or with highly sexual overtones, then I experienced quite a bit of this from other males (and sometimes still do, although not as much). Some of this experience was traumatic, and I imagine if a female had had to experience it, she would have believed that they would never have treated a male the same way.
I do not believe my experience was special- I think boys (especially in an all male environment) treat each other this was quite a bit. It isn't called sexual harassment even though with a female it would be.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I can't imagine any other explanation.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: Steven Pinker also wrote about this in The Blank Slate. He is right: saying that a behavior occurs in nature does not imply that the behavior is morally acceptable. Unless we want to accept eating your mate's head like a praying mantis.
But the politically correct would have us believe that it is within or nature to be politically correct. Each of the points stated in the article resonated with a part of me, probably because it is at least an attempt to cut through the fog that necessarily surrounds every one of these issues. There is unfortunately a confusing and ever shifting difference between what people are told they should feel and believe, and what we actually do or are ready to accept.
There have been a thousand instances where one of these points has occurred to me as just a simple alternative to the aphorisms bandied about in society- that sexual harassment is "about power" not sex, or that rape is a "violent crime," and not a sexual one.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: If sexual harassment was not sexist then men would sexually harass other men just as much as they do women.
Chris, I don't know what your experience was as an adolescent, but I was sexually harassed quite a bit in Highschool- and it was an all boys Catholic school.
If we define sexual harassment as degredation, humiliation and intimidation of a sexualized nature or with highly sexual overtones, then I experienced quite a bit of this from other males (and sometimes still do, although not as much). Some of this experience was traumatic, and I imagine if a female had had to experience it, she would have believed that they would never have treated a male the same way.
I do not believe my experience was special- I think boys (especially in an all male environment) treat each other this was quite a bit. It isn't called sexual harassment even though with a female it would be.
I'm now having flashbacks to junior high gym. Yup, I've experienced that as well.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: Steven Pinker also wrote about this in The Blank Slate. He is right: saying that a behavior occurs in nature does not imply that the behavior is morally acceptable. Unless we want to accept eating your mate's head like a praying mantis.
Why do you think husbands of pregnant women are willing to get up at any hour in the night to fetch them pickles or icecream when they crave it? They know if they don't, bits of their head or possibly the whole thing could disappear while they sleep.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I'm just relieved nobody has said, "So what's wrong with eating your mate's head?" Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
So what's wrong with eating your mate's head?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
<---refraining from inappropriate comment.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: <---refraining from inappropriate comment.
You know until you said that I noticed nothing potentially dirty about the comment.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I have no idea what you could be talking about.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I have no idea what you could be talking about.
oh...I think you do Trebek!...I think you do indeed!
[ July 11, 2007, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Link for finding out what dkw is talking about -- a very good read.
Posted by the doctor (Member # 6789) on :
I don't have time to read the thread right now, so please forgive this non-sequiter. I just wanted to let everyone know that Psychology Today is not a credible source of information about current scholarly views among practitioners of the SCIENCE of Psychology.
I'd personally put it somewhere between Reader's Digest and Cosmo on the credibility scale, in general. And I'd put it completely off (below) the scale with respect to scientific or scholarly rigor.
It is such that no self-respecting scholar would want their stuff published there (even in excerpt) and they would definitely never put it on a curriculum vida if they did publish something there.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Whatever your opinion might be (edit: or the true quality of psychology today ), Kanazawa is a respected evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, and Miller was a respected social and evolutionary psychologist at Hokkaido University (he died in 2003, apparently). They both publish regularly in top-tier journals.
edit: note that I consider their results suspect due to having used flawed statistical methods to arrive at at least some of their conclusions.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I seriously think evolutionary psychology is pure bunk. Just like Frued, it's as outmoded as the great chain of being, it drives me crazy. Simply because how can we, modern people really, acurately know what life was like back then? Even so, I don't think it matters nearly as much as the individual and their decisions. Perhaps it's because I can't identify with any of these things.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You're misunderstanding evolutionary psychology. What you're talking about seems to be something along the lines of what's sometimes called paleopsychology.
Evolutionary psychology is about understanding psychology through evolutionary explanations -- by understanding what things might cause which psychological adaptations.
Posted by the doctor (Member # 6789) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Whatever your opinion might be (edit: or the true quality of psychology today ), Kanazawa is a respected evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, and Miller was a respected social and evolutionary psychologist at Hokkaido University (he died in 2003, apparently). They both publish regularly in top-tier journals.
edit: note that I consider their results suspect due to having used flawed statistical methods to arrive at at least some of their conclusions.
So, I guess my question is: respected by whom? Other economists? In which case, I rest my case regarding the inappropriate nature of using Psychology Today as a venue for learning about current thinking in the Science of Psychology.
I haven't read their work, but I do have to say that I've been remarkably unimpressed with the contributions that economists have recently tried to make in the fields of Sociology and Psychology. The flaw (as you point to in this case) is often with the analytic methods selected, but I know of at least one case where the data set they used actually does not contain the data they thought it did. They used it anyway, and came to erroneous conclusions as a consequence. (This was the folks who wrote that lame book subtitled something like "A Rogue Economist...")
PS: This is an alt, by the way. I keep forgetting not to log in using this name, but now that I've posted in this thread, I'll just use it any way. It's me...B_S.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It includes Journal of Theoretical Biology, Intelligence, British Journal of Health Psychology, Evolutionary Psychology, Evolutionary Psychology, Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, Managerial and Decision Economics, Cross-Cultural Research, Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, Rationality and Society, Journal of Biosocial Science.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Other economists? They're not economists. The London School of Economics is one of the pre-eminent institutions for social science of many kinds, and is internationally renowned in numerous areas.
edit: he does occasionally publish economics-related papers, but they're hardly his focus, and he's not well known there. His PhD is in sociology, from the University of Arizona, and it seems he's been doing evolutionary psych since his postdoc at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, NZ.
Posted by the doctor (Member # 6789) on :
Thanks for the clarification -- I just saw London School of Economics and assumed he was an economist.
As I said (repeatedly) I haven't read his work. I'm not surprised that Psych Today isn't in the list of publications.
I don't know any scholar who WOULD want it listed -- which was my original point.
I can see people using it as a way to sell books.
He's probably got an agent...
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: Link for finding out what dkw is talking about -- a very good read.
That's an excellent book, and very accessible to non-specialists, like me. Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
What about #7, which is about the "age-genius curve"? It sounds plausible, but might the simpler explanation be (for geniuses) that because nobody's brain is infintely malleable, it becomes harder to be original the more past originality you've created and (for criminals) that after you've committed some crimes or killed some people, you discover that the money you stole or the vengeance you obtained doesn't make you happy?
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
It could also be economic. It makes good sense to produce fewer papers, say, if you are an academic, if you're close to retirement, because you wont' have much time to enjoy the promotions.
It could also be that we're programmed to try more new things at a time when we need to try more new things, that is, early adulthood.
However the author made one big mistake. Bill Gates was never a computer whiz. He was a business whiz, and still is. So actually he turns out to be a counterexample.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), Kanazawa is a respected evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, and Miller was a respected social and evolutionary psychologist at Hokkaido University (he died in 2003, apparently). They both publish regularly in top-tier journals.