quote:The issue is not, I think, one of education but one of reward; out in the real world, we do not always value what we say we value. And so some of the behaviors that we as a society say we expect from our people are in fact punished, and I believe that children (and their parents) pick up on this and react accordingly. And I don't think education can fill this gap, as the problem is not with the schools but with the world outside the school.
I agree almost everything you said. I also believe that it is the task of education to clarify this gap, and good intentions to fill it.
posted
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was trained in the humanities as a historian, yet he takes the opposite view from you, Irami--that we need more science and math training, not less. So do many other congresspeople (hopefully, Wolf-Ehlers -Warner bill will pass) and the bipartisan Hart-Rudman Commission.
But you should call them up, Irami, surely with a little creative hand-waving and -wringing you could convince them all of the brillance of your thesis.
Gingrich, in yesterday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution, link:
quote: Gingrich pushes sciences By JEFFREY McMURRAY Associated Press Published on: 04/13/05 WASHINGTON — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich majored in history and made his mark in politics, yet his message Tuesday was that the country could use fewer historians and political scientists and more mathematicians and engineers.
The Georgia Republican waded into a rare congressional policy debate since leaving the U.S. House, endorsing a measure by two Virginia lawmakers that would waive interest on student loans for college students who major in math, science or engineering. "Science and math are absolutely at the center of our national survival," Gingrich said. "If we do not step up to the plate this time, if we don't recognize the scale of the Chinese, the Indian, the Japanese and the European challenges, we're in desperate trouble."
The issue has concerned Gingrich for several years. During the Clinton administration, he was involved in the bipartisan Hart-Rudman Commission, which projected that the greatest threat to America by 2025 is the detonation of a weapon of mass destruction.
Less noticed, Gingrich said, was what the commission concluded was the second-greatest threat: failure to remain competitive in math and science.
Reps. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) and Vern Ehlers (R-Mich.) introduced the student loan measure in the House, and Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) pledged to do the same in the Senate. The proposal, inspired by a suggestion in Gingrich's book "Winning the Future," would forgive up to $10,000 over the life of an undergraduate loan for math, science and engineering majors who agree to work at least five years in the field after graduation.
On a more practical note, do you realize how hard it is to find a non-teaching job with only an English BA? Without at least some technical savvy and education, many people are doomed to un- or under-employment, or working outside of their field of study.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I wanted to teach, I spent a lot of time looking over the requirements, and of course, since I'm paying for this myself, I checked out what financial incentives were offered for people who wanted to go into teaching.
For people like me, there were essentially zero. See, I wanted to teach English Language Arts. If I wanted to teach math, or any of the sciences, I had a large number of resources available that would help pay for my education.
As for finding a job as an English major who doesn't want to teach - yeah, I understand. My mother was an English major, she went into human resources. She got where she is today mostly by on-the-job training and building her resume with experience.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I'm not entirely sure what your point was here
quote: For people like me, there were essentially zero. See, I wanted to teach English Language Arts. If I wanted to teach math, or any of the sciences, I had a large number of resources available that would help pay for my education.
Are you saying that you think there should be equal resources available for potential humanities teachers?
Because there is a reason that there are not. While overall we do not have enough teachers, the only fields where we come close are the humanities. In math and the sciences there is a serious lack of qualified teachers, especially at the high school level. Therefore, there are incentive programs, and it's easier for me to find a job (although not actually easy, at least in the current economic climate) than for a history teacher I know.
Until recently, she had stayed at the same school for several years, despite her strong unhappiness with the administration there -- because she knew of nowhere else in the area that would hire her. And she was an excellent teacher, with quite a few years' experience.
Now she's gotten out of teaching altogether, which I think is a shame for her potential students, but seems to be working well for her. (Mind, if I were able to find a job that paid more than my current one and didn't require several years of training, I'd likely be getting out of teaching as well.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Belle's point was that science and math are not overemphasized. The difference is so striking that there is no need to encourage people to focus on humanities; people already do.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, sorry I should have been more clear. I was posting that just to reiterate what Morbo said about the government being concerned about our direction in math and science - encouraging teachers to go into those fields is more evidence of that.
I don't have a problem with encouraging more people to become math and science teachers and providing financial incentives.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
OTOH, given the fact that there are NEVER enough good teachers in any subject, I do wish that people like the friend I mentioned above were more able to find jobs that utilize their skills and pay them a decent wage.
Edit: Yup. In fact my cousin wants to become a teacher and she loves math - I've been encouraging her to take advantage of whatever is out there to help her get her teaching certificate in math.
[ April 14, 2005, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich majored in history and made his mark in politics, yet his message Tuesday was that the country could use fewer historians and political scientists and more mathematicians and engineers.
I'm not convinced Mr. Gingrich and I agree about the problems in education. Maybe he is tackling institutional problems leading to the achievement gap, but I don't think so. He is well-ensconced and comfortable.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But he is well-educated in the humanities, which you said would produce like-minded people. Where, exactly, did the plan fail?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who said that it would produce like-minded people? I would never close the door on the possibility of good people disagreeing. Most polytheistic religions had even the Gods disagree.
At best, we can only hope that people are disagreeing at a higher level. So Mr. Gingrich studied history. I imagine that if one compares what he thinks history is and what I understand history to be, you'll get two distinct answers. If you ask ten different people about the task put to a student of history, you'll probably get ten different answers. The same can be said for any of the humanities, currently concieved. Haven't you been appalled at what has been considered the work of some English Graduate students?
It seems to me that Mr. Gingrich is well-grounded in the institution, and it's not surprising to me that a man who is so well-grounded doesn't think that it's a worthy task to re-explore the ground on which he thrives. And tilling that ground is exactly what I prescribe.
posted
What? You've twisted yourself up in your metaphor. Can you even HAVE a straight-forward discussion?
Specifically, Gringrich disagrees with you completely about your proposal to eliminate math and science because it takes people away from the humanities, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Considering this, why do you still think you are right?
quote:Specifically, Gringrich disagrees with you completely about your proposal to eliminate math and science because it takes people away from the humanities, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
I don't know if what I consider the undue influence of math and the sciences takes people away from the humanities, but I think emphasis does corrupt those disciplines.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
However you backpedal and soften on your reccomendation, Gringrich - the well-educated in humanities guy - disagrees with you.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I'm sure that people much brighter and thoughtful than Gingrich disagree with me, too. Good thing it's not a popularity contest.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Gingrich and I have two different sets of priorities. He is talking about the economic challenges that are going to be put to our tech economy in the coming decades. I'm talking about equiping students for the moral challenges that they face every day, that education leaves them wanting.
Look, to the extent that education is the engine for economic growth, maybe Gingrich is right, but that also means that if our kids can figure out a way to make a buck and ditch class, there really isn't any reason for them to go.
My understanding of the work of educational institutions is fundamentally different.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your claim is that an education in humanities would fundamentally change people so they no value things that science and industry give them, but would instead think like you.
Gringrich is an example to the contrary. Why do you think your educational system is preferable to his?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
More importantly, why do you believe they are fundamentally imcompatible to such an extent that you want to eliminate math and science from the curriculum for fear someone would value it?
Added: Sifting through the detrius, it seems that you wish people to consider their moral obligations and value more than just money. You believe that lots of study of moral stories and history would achieve this effect.
What part of that do you want to disavow/add on to?
quote:More importantly, why do you believe they are fundamentally imcompatible to such an extent that you want to eliminate math and science from the curriculum for fear someone would value it?
Eliminate is inadequate, and I don't fear someone would value science. It's obvious that people do value it, and at a level, it should be valued. I also think that's because certain metaphysics give undue credence to the pursuit of science to solve problems that are not so easily sovled. For example, on Dagonee's thread, I wrote on the origin of facts, but I didn't go into the problems that go along with such an origin. One of the problems with facts is that science got it's ground from God dignifying all extant results. What's the problem with that? For starters, God dignifying results lead to God's approval of all that consistantly works, deifying physics, chemistry, and everything else that is seen as a doing, or making of God, that is, a fact. Christianity and science belong together, especially in Locke, whose metaphysics holds so much sway in American institutions. The danger isn't all of the questions science answers well, the danger is the use of scientific priorities to answer those other questions that call for thinking, and not the application of a method to be gauged by results.
quote:Sifting through the detrius, it seems that you wish people to consider their moral obligations and value more than just money. You believe that lots of study of moral stories and history would achieve this effect.
It's not so much money, as much as the idea that we can reduce the virtue of everything to fungible units, to be added, subtracted, divided, and multiplied. The extent to which we talk concerning value instead of virtue, I think we've already missed something.
I believe that narratives inform who we are as individuals and as a people, and I think that the careful study of morally involved stories, stories considering the decisions people make and the reasons they make them, can help clarify who we are as individuals and as a people. Lastly, I think that we are missing something with language.
English is a hodgepodge and that's not necessarily bad, but I think that for too long, I learned the sense of words through context, or the dictionary, as opposed to looking to the phenomena that inspired the word, and I think that the seeming interchangability of language clouds thinking and conceals, in a powerful way, the dignity in life. So yes, wrestling with narratives, History, and Language will open the door to more Americans making more careful and thoughtful decisions, it may even ground one America.
I think this is the reason that Americans are not one people. The disconnects in the country are the results of uneven grounding in the American institutions, and some of this is because the institutions are inadequate to their task, and some of this is because the people throw out the good part of the institution out with the bad.
posted
*delighted* Irami, that is an excellent, reasonable, cogent argument. Fabulous!
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More importantly, why do you believe they are fundamentally imcompatible to such an extent that you want to eliminate math and science from the curriculum for fear someone would value it? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate is inadequate, and I don't fear someone would value it. It's obvious that people do value it, and at a level, it should be valued,
Yes.
quote:I also think that's because certain metaphysics give undue credence to the pursuit of science to solve problems that are not so easily sovled.
Okay, I think I agree with this. If I may put it in my own words, you are saying that learning the scientific facts of a situation does not fully answer the question of what to do with those facts. Because an action may be possible or even efficient resourcewise, it does not automatically follow that it is the correct course of action. There are other, non-quantifiable concerns. These concerns are identified in many ways, one of which is through history and through the stories we tell each other. Religion is another source for these non-quantifiable concerns.
Therefore, someone canNOT consider themselves educated if they are lacking in a grounding in the humanities, no matter how well-educated they are sciencewise.
I agree with that.
quote:The problem isn't all of the natural questions science answers well, the problem is the use of scientific priorities to answer those other questions that call for thinking, and not the application of a method and gauged by results.
Hmm...the problem is that you still haven't explained/aknowledged the nature of that thinking. Even when not strictly observing the scientific method and using resource efficiency as the highest value, you still use a paradigm to understand the information, a method by which to evaluate it, and a rubric against which to measure its worth.
Is your problem more with the priorities of a purely scientific point-of-view, or with the method? No matter which it is, if you want to eliminate it, you need to explain what you would replace it with. It isn't enough to eliminate the underdesirable; you have to replace it with something, or else it could be replaced with anything. You could eliminate the efficiency value only for it to be replaced with the picks-up-women-well value. You can't just unmake; you need to make. If you are entrusted with the well-being of the public - and designing curricula for schools counts as this - you must take into account their interests and happiness. Otherwise you have betrayed their trust.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sifting through the detrius, it seems that you wish people to consider their moral obligations and value more than just money. You believe that lots of study of moral stories and history would achieve this effect. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not so much money, as much as the idea that we can reduce the virtue of everything to fungible units, to be added, subtracted, divided, and multiplied. The extent to which we talk concerning value instead of virtue, I think we've already missed something.
You know what this reminds me of? The "priceless" MasterCard commercials.
That's fine - they have a point. I like them. I agree with you.
quote:I believe that narratives inform who we are as individuals and as a people, and I think that the careful study of morally involved stories, stories considering the decisions people make and the reasons they make them, can help clarify who we are as individuals and as a people.
So do I. That's why I love English and storytelling of all kinds.
quote:Lastly, I think that we are missing something with language.
English is a hodgepodge and that's not necessarily bad, but I think that for too long, I learned the sense of words through context, or the dictionary, as opposed to looking to the phenomena that inspired the word, and I think that the seeming interchangability of language clouds thinking and conceals, in a powerful way, the dignity in life. So yes, wrestling with narratives, History, and Language will open the door to more Americans making more careful and thoughtful decisions, it may even ground one America.
Hm...kind of like the way you can be an incredible Scrabble player and have a lousy vocabulary, it is possible to be familiar with the tools of language and not understand where the language we speak comes from, how those meanings arose, and what that tells us about humanity.
quote:I think this is the reason that Americans are not one people. I think the disconnects in the country are the result of uneven grounding in the American institutions, and some of that is because the institutions are inadequate to their task, and some of that is because the people throw out the good part of the institution out with the bad.
Ah. Now we disagree. I think it would be solved by everyone reading more, more of everything. It won't make people perfect people, but they'll act knowledgebly. People will still choose different things, but they'll have acted with as much knowledge as possible of the different choices.
So, how to make a more critically-thinking and literate population. You think schools should be restructured. I don't believe that would work - it would be nice if it did, but it isn't close enough, and schools do still need to teach math and science and health and computer skills in order to keep society running enough to keep everyone fed, and, in no small part, because there is a desire for those subjects to be taught. Education is a public trust, and people's desires matter.
The goal would be better accomplished by turning off the television and more reading to kids at home. In other words, the problem is not with the schools, which are needed to teach the things that parents can't, but instead in the homes, where almost everyone can read to their kids.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Christianity and science belong together, especially in Locke, whose metaphysics holds so much sway in American institutions.
This seems like an inaccurate statement to me. For one thing, Locke was very skeptical of the kind of knowledge we can receive through natural theology and revealed religion. It's true that his notion of God leads to a certain story about human capabilities for empirical learning (it's actually a rather pessimistic story), but an evolutionary version of the same story could easily be constructed.
Also, the philosopher who followed most closely in the Lockean tradition -- Hume -- was almost certainly an atheist.
Anyway, as a student of the humanities myself, I couldn't possibly disagree more. It's very easy to persuade someone of a falsehood with flowery language, as the classical rhetoricians knew very well. In the humanities the connection between convincingness and the truth is more tenuous (not that scientific statistics can't be manipulated). So studying the humanities is risky business -- it can easily lead one to ideology for the wrong reasons. I would say that in order to effectively study the humanities, one needs a solid grasp of math and science as a sort of sanity check.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This seems like an inaccurate statement to me. For one thing, Locke was very skeptical of the kind of knowledge we can receive through natural theology and revealed religion. It's true that his notion of God leads to a certain story about human capabilities for empirical learning (it's actually a rather pessimistic story), but an evolutionary version of the same story could easily be constructed.
Destineer,
Locke couldn't ground the laws of nature in his mechanistic theory, and also couldn't explain how bodies stay together, and how bodies think, he wrote that God annexed powers to those bodies for which the bodies are fitly disposed, thereby grounding science and shunting philosophy to God. As to evolution, I'm a believer. I think evolution got us here, the problem is that I don't think that the careful analysis of chemicals in the brain can tell us what to do once we are here.
From Book 4 Human Understanding:
quote:We have the ideas of matter and thinking, but possibly shall never be able to know, whether any mere material being thinks, or no; it being impossible for us, by the contemplation of our own ideas, without revelation, to discover, whether omnipotency has not given to some systems of matter fitly disposed a power to perceive and think, or else joined and fixed to matter so disposed a thinking immaterial substance...For since we must allow He has annexed effects to motion, which we can no way conceive motion able to produce, what reason have we to conclude, that He could not order them as well to be produced in a subject we cannot conceive capable of them, as well as in a subject we cannot conceive the motion of matter can any way operate upon?
I've never been a fan of Locke's writing style, but I'm confident my interpretation is spot on.
My thought is, since Locke puts natural laws on God to explain how material bodies stay together, I'm not surprised that he needs all sorts of laws to keep people together. It seems to be the result of an atomistic theory that requires laws and doesn't recognize belonging. I'm never surprised when I hear mechanistics, including Bertrand Russell, support the "Free Love" movement.
kat,
quote:The goal would be better accomplished by turning off the television and more reading to kids at home. In other words, the problem is not with the schools, which are needed to teach the things that parents can't, but instead in the homes, where almost everyone can read to their kids.
This dichotomy, moral education at home/technique at school, is controversial. We are entrenched in it in America, and it's a comfortable and safe habit, but I'm of the opinion that it makes it the case that school only works for those whose moral home education teaches them to worship technique. And not only does that alienate a portion of the citizenry from school, I'm not even sure that that's an appropriate dichotomy to begin with.
I find this part of the original, 1780 Massachusetts Constitution fascinating, not because it clarifies the role public of education, but because it understands it as properly murky. I'm not saying that I believe it, I'm arguing that the distinction of what belongs in school and what belongs at home isn't nearly as clear as we believe it to be.
quote:CHAPTER V.
Section 2.--The Encouragement of Literature, etc.
Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools, adn grammar-schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, and good humor, and all social affections and generous sentiments, among the people.
posted
You are back to being fuzzy, noncommittal and dismissive all at the same time. I knew the clarity was too good to last. *sigh*
The reason we have technique at school and moral education at home is because we are not a state that is willing to relinquish the ideology of our children to the government. In order for your argument to work, you have to come up with a clear and convincing reason to do so.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
while it's true that the media does attempt to perpetuate the myth of skinny-beauty, there are few people i know that'd say that out loud. Most people i know are put off by overly thin women.
The question i have is whether or not replacing "slimness" with "a certain chubbiness" is really just robbing peter to pay paul. The problem is the identification of beauty and the localization of it within certain (ANY) narrowly defined parameters. The whole concept of beauty itself is a delimitting one. It seeks to identify and in doing so, exclude. Regardless of what criteria you choose, the project itself is inherently fascist.
And it's just Media; who gives a darn what the media says anyway? If people are going to pattern their behavior based on media-propogated notions of whatever, then there's really not much we can do for these people anyway.
The real trick is to try to get to a place where we either don't dwell too much on beauty at all, or any other fascistly delimiting characterizations for that matter.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The reason we have technique at school and moral education at home is because we are not a state that is willing to relinquish the ideology of our children to the government.
I don't think that's the case. It's more murky. Look at the excerpt from the Mass constitution. The problem is, and this is big, saying that moral inquiry doesn't belong in public school is making a positive unsubstantiated statement, especially if one makes that argument that children ought to attend and do well in studying technique. Taking moral inquiry out of public education degrades the institution for all of those who don't worship science, rendering the curriculum irrelevant, and my argument is that that's the reason for the "achievement" gap.
quote:In order for your argument to work, you have to come up with a clear and convincing reason to do so.
No, I don't. It's true, you are in a privileged position, and you have the advantage of being on the side of "common sense," but it doesn't mean that it's at all appropriate. I think you are influenced by the same "common sense" that's led to the gap.
posted
Out of interest, Irami, do you really think that we should listen to advice given without "clear and convincing" reasons? Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I am still, after slogging through 11 pages of argument, mystified as to how math and science can be considered irrelevant to all but mathematicians and scientists. I am not in a hard science field, horsemanship, and the math and science required of us is base line, but I see my fellow students struggling with it because of inadequate preparation at the high school level.
If I am understanding you correctly, you feel that math and science create a preference for concrete, easy, black-and-white answers, but the more I learn in science, the less I find that this is true. Every discovery leads to more questions, and there is always always ALWAYS the possibility of any given theory, no matter how well backed, to be proven wrong.
I think it’s kinda funny that this conversation is happening on a message board for fans of an SF writer. Aren’t SF readers science geeks?
Posts: 152 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, I don't. It's true, you are in a privileged position, and you have the advantage of being on the side of "common sense," but it doesn't mean that it's at all appropriate. I think you are influenced by the same "common sense" that's led to the gap.
posted
Personally, I wonder why folks in our society are so obsessed about appearance at all. I'm sure it's some kind of subliminal reproductive-messaging instinct, but it kind of seems to me that one thing we should try to do is exceed that instinct and make some intellectual and spiritual progress. I don't mean this to sound trendy (because if there's anything I'm NOT it's "trendy"), but weight is more of a qualifier for celebrity than it is for greatness, don't you think? And our obsession with celebrity is about as unhealthy as anything I ever saw. I think it's the reason that Lennon said the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus." I don't think he meant "wiser" or "greater" or "more important." I think he was referring to the fact that the fans chased them into bathroom stalls! ~Ele
Posts: 745 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have strange and conflicted markers about personal appearance in out society because our self-presentation actually can serve several purposes and be shaped by many influences.
1. Reproductive markers: Females choose tall, strong, bold males to provide genes that will enhance the survival of their children. Males choose markers of fecundity (when they're not just choosing "anything I can get"), like large breasts, etc. These are themes that keep recurring because they're at the baboon level, almost independent of culture.
2. Success markers: Females (and some males) choose males with markers that signify wealth, which indicates (unconsciously) a greater likelihood of offspring having enough to eat AND advantages to enhance their reproductive chances; OR success markers simply promise an easier, safer life for oneself. Recent ones: A healthy tan, a "cut" body.
3. Social entry markers: You dress and present yourself with the markers that say "I am in this group" (I.e: rich; goth; athlete; gay; fashion-conscious cool; preppie; intellectual; above all this; Hasid; Amish; serious businessman; etc.)
4. Inadvertent social markers: An attempt to simulate any of the above, but with inadvertent errors that signal to those really in the know that these are wannabes who seriously need to be put down. (A huge subset: adolescenets trying to simulate adult markers and failing, thereby reliably labeling themselves as young and naive.) Examples: A sprayed-on tan, which suggests you don't really have the leisure time of a wealthy person, but wish to fake it; moves you into the how-sad category.
5. Hereditary markers: Can't help lookin' like the folks.
6. Health markers: which we often try to hide, lest people KNOW our ailments and find us unattractive (acne; eczema; herpes; psoriasis; nail fungus; cold symptoms; anything that makes us seem unhealthy makes us less attractive to others). We also attempt to fake good-health markers: Red lips, rosy cheeks, even body fat in some eras and cultures; long lustrous hair, etc.
7. Authority markers: Anything that helps us get our way - but most societies have very stiff penalties, social or otherwise, for faking authority (and getting caught).
And so on.
One marker that ALWAYS trumps the others, given enough time: Genuine happiness and concern for others. If you show that you care about other people and radiate contentment, then even if you have NONE of the other markers, people will seek your company, and some of them will even seek reproductive activities. This is what women REALLY mean when they say they like "a man with a sense of humor." But it is also one of the real markers of attractiveness in women, which men rarely mention but usually act on: A woman who is happy and content with herself will find men who are able to relax in her company and, I have observed, eventually some find such women attractive. I have seen many happy marriages between otherwise unattractive (by any standard measure) people, but they ARE attractive because they are so ham dappy.
posted
Also, resurrecting long dead threads that should DIE ALREADY. Because they got so terribly derailed.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1. Reproductive markers: Females choose tall, strong, bold males to provide genes that will enhance the survival of their children. Males choose markers of fecundity (when they're not just choosing "anything I can get"), like large breasts, etc. These are themes that keep recurring because they're at the baboon level, almost independent of culture.
2. Success markers: Females (and some males) choose males with markers that signify wealth, which indicates (unconsciously) a greater likelihood of offspring having enough to eat AND advantages to enhance their reproductive chances; OR success markers simply promise an easier, safer life for oneself. Recent ones: A healthy tan, a "cut" body.
Interesting that it seems men are more attracted to long term traits and women more attracted to passing fads. But then, the mother/dauther line can only alter itself once per generation at the time of egg formation (which is generally held to occur prenatally) whereas men generate variation throughout their lifecycle.
Most of the fads in female appearance tend to come not from men wanting partners as much as women being used to sell things to women. Which may or may not involve them looking like men. Leanness, dark lashes/brows, and a pathetic lack of color coordination all scream "male" to me. Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Males choose markers of fecundity (when they're not just choosing "anything I can get"), like large breasts, etc. These are themes that keep recurring because they're at the baboon level, almost independent of culture.
You'd think so, wouldn't you? Breasts as sexually attractive parts of a woman's body are such a fundamental part of western sexuality that it's natural for a member of that society to assume that it's an inherent something that men are attracted to. There are cultures where the breasts are completely incedental though. They might be appreciated in the same way a male in our culture appreciates, say, the curve of a woman's back, but not in any kind of a primary way. I actually think that almost every single thing that people find sexually attractive is learned. People have an inherent drive to find physical characteristics sexually arousing, but which characteristics those happen to be are dictated--not totally, but to a huge degree--by the culture the person finds themselves in.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another possible explanation for attraction to sense of humor is that it is a sign of intelligence. Sense of humor isn't a particularly useful survival trait, but it does indicate a highly useful survival trait.
Noemon has a good point that breasts are less important in other cultures. After all, even small breasts are usually sufficient for feeding babies (so I am told). I suspect, though, that the waist-to-hip ratio, which is supposed to be strongly correlated with fertility, is closer to universal among humans.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I suspect, though, that the waist-to-hip ratio, which is supposed to be strongly correlated with fertility, is closer to universal among humans.
I agree. Another stand-out fertility marker is the arch of a woman's brow--the more arch, the more estrogen, and the more likely the woman's fertile. I mentioned it in thread back in '03.
I always wondered why I was so fascinated by women's eyebrows.
Estrogen and testosterone levels both shape male and female faces, before and during adolescence.
Of course, culture plays a role in selecting markers. But some are pure biology. One of the best and most instinctive health markers is bilateral symmetry--the more symmetrical a face and body, the more likely that person is healthy, for various reasons.
This is one of the foundations of human perception of beauty, IMO.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish Anne Kate were here--she's got great insights into this subject. It was a post of hers that swung me from thinking that a lot of this stuff was inherent to thinking that most of it was societal in origin.
Interesting about the arch of the brow thing Morbo--didn't know that. It'd be interesting to see a well designed study with subjects from a wide array of cultures to see if highly arched brows=more sexually attractive in the eyes of all the subjects.
I suspect you're right about attraction to symmetry being a human universal.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone tried to tell me that I like old men because thier age was an indication of their ability to survive. I think it's because I'm stupid and psychotic because it's cool to be stupid and psychotic. Neurosis: The New Pink
Posts: 152 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, in reading OSC's post above, it hit me again why I think I reread his books over and over. The little life observations interspersed throughout that you can feel in your gut, but never thought to put into words until one of his characters comes along and phrases it in a nice neat index card that I can file in my brain and quote later at my leisure. "Sometimes lies were more dependable than the truth"
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
~Ele
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
But we love you anyway!
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Because they got so terribly derailed.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
