[Split] A discussion about evolution and relationships etc.

Page 5 of 15 [ 227 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 15 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

17 Jun 2011, 7:39 pm

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:

Pop psychology, MCalavera.

It's credible for me. I see things happening all the time that confirm what is labeled as pop psychology to be more accurate than what other pop psychologists theorize.

MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,052
Location: MO

17 Jun 2011, 7:42 pm

zen_mistress wrote:

MissConstrue wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

Yes, most women are attracted to wealth and such because they are a big indicator of security and high status. Women are very attracted to this. It's called woman psychology 101.

However, even among women, there are psychological differences due to genetic differences and education background and different environments, so slight deviations from the norm do occur just as homosexuality, a deviation from the evolutionary norm, does occur.

Then I must be part of this slight "deviation" from the "evolutionary" norm as well as the women in my family... :roll:

Same here.

I guess we're special.

_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan

TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

17 Jun 2011, 7:44 pm

Aspie_Chav wrote:

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:

The leading theory on why we evolved the intelligence we did is rapid climate change, this is true. However, survival in a harsh environment is hardly the same as an instinct to duplicate.

Our instinct to duplicate and living in a harsh environment are highly linked. If you have have stupid children with a stupid men in a harsh environment then those children would have a slim chance surviving to adulthood. The choice of man to suit the environment is very important

Linked, but not the same. We grew larger brains and the thinking capacity to find quick ways to adapt to climate change.

See, you're arguing that women instinctively go for the more intelligent and stable male they can get to benefit their offspring. I'm asserting that not all women have the 'mothering instinct'. Until we can be on the same page, this discussion is pointless.

_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.

TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

17 Jun 2011, 7:50 pm

MCalavera wrote:

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:

Pop psychology, MCalavera.

It's credible for me. I see things happening all the time that confirm what is labeled as pop psychology to be more accurate than what other pop psychologists theorize.

Correlation =/= causation. While all this evidence of yours may appear to be backing your theory, it doesn't mean it is. There are far more factors involved than many really take into account. Culture, values, and upbringing should be considered here, and when looking at this from a purely evolutionary angle, we miss that.

_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

17 Jun 2011, 8:03 pm

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:

Pop psychology, MCalavera.

It's credible for me. I see things happening all the time that confirm what is labeled as pop psychology to be more accurate than what other pop psychologists theorize.

I've been in more than one culture, Tea. Completely different cultures, mind you. One Western and one Arab. Same general psychology when it comes to what women are subconsciously attracted to. Other people of other races will also tell you something similar.

From an evolutionary angle, man was the one conditioned to provide security and comfort for woman. Not the other way around. That's why women, generally speaking, are conditioned to look for security, comfort, high status (indicator of security), excellent height (also indicator of security), wealth (again, indicator of security) when it comes to seeking potential male partners.

That's why many women say they want men taller than then, men financially comfortable, men who are physically strong, and so on.

Now ask a man what he wants. And most of them will not say they're after taller women, or women who are financially comfortable, or women who are physically strong. Why that difference?

You and a few others (especially Aspie women) may be different, but you're not the rule. And I'm not the rule when it comes to what men are after. Here, as Aspies and what have you, we're exceptions to the rule because we're cognitively quite different from others. What you want or are after and what I want or are after doesn't say much about what people, in general, want or are after.

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

17 Jun 2011, 11:50 pm

i am beginning to think that people can be neatly divided into 2 groups: those that notice and follow social norms, and those that notice and gravitate towards social exceptions. seems like whatever we are looking for and whatever we believe about humanity is exactly what we will find. i like people who are different, who follow their own paths and who make their own way in our culture, and that is who i find myself among. we are not slaves to biology.

_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105

zen_mistress
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,033

17 Jun 2011, 11:52 pm

MissConstrue wrote:

zen_mistress wrote:

MissConstrue wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

Then I must be part of this slight "deviation" from the "evolutionary" norm as well as the women in my family... :roll:

Same here.

I guess we're special.

Yep. You, me and most women I know must be very unusual indeed.

_________________
"Caravan is the name of my history, and my life an extraordinary adventure."
~ Amin Maalouf

Taking a break.

TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

18 Jun 2011, 12:58 am

hyperlexian wrote:

Perfectly put.

_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

18 Jun 2011, 1:16 am

metaphysics wrote:

hyperlexian wrote:

really, wealth is *only* an indicator that a person has... money. (as an extreme example, rich people of either gender can be deadbeat parents - money does not equal being a good provider). therefore, judging anything about a person based on their money is not only shallow but also potentially inaccurate.

i think the world would be a better place if people really understood how empty those kind of judgements really are, at the core.

This is the thing I really want to have a debate about.

You are making one of those kind of judgements while you are saying so. But in a different form.

Shallowness also depends.

I think the world would be a better place if people would like to try to take less those kind of prejudices.

I am not pro-Capitalist, etc. I am just trying to explain my opinion.

yes, i am judging someone based on their judgementalism. absolutely. i think we have to make judgements, as without judgements we are rudderless. however, i try my best to judge people based on character, which i believe is not so shallow as wealth.

_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105

cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

18 Jun 2011, 2:03 am

Francis Galton you have a lot to answer for the issue of the nature versus nurture debate.
Then again this all started in 1610 by Shakespeare in the Tempest, bloody act 4 is a pain in the arse to study literature wise I remember as I did it for my A levels.

Again the nature versus nurture debate came up with Shakespeare at university this time in the field of organizational psychology, this time with Twelfth Night

I been having a quick nose thought this
http://www.flyfishingdevon.co.uk/salmon ... #four-ways

Quite insight thought, oh if anyone whats to go down the Shakespearean route with this.
Please give me some time to read my sodding annotated copy of the Tempest as it been a long time since I studied the play and read my notes about it now.

metaphysics
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Jun 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 809
Location: Everywhere

18 Jun 2011, 4:54 am

hyperlexian wrote:

God, I cannnot bear to read such insult anymore!

I am sorry for my blasphemy if you are a Critistian....

I am not a slave to biology either. Have any of you reading my posts carefully? Or everybody just have read his quotation????

I have never have stereotypes to any of you. Why I have to suffer various, numerous sterotypes from all of you now?

Plese have a little bit consideration to others.

Thank you very much for if you would like to do so, madame.

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

18 Jun 2011, 5:23 am

zen_mistress wrote:

MissConstrue wrote:

zen_mistress wrote:

MissConstrue wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

Then I must be part of this slight "deviation" from the "evolutionary" norm as well as the women in my family... :roll:

Same here.

I guess we're special.

Yep. You, me and most women I know must be very unusual indeed.

So now, all of a sudden, most women don't care much for height, for whether a man is financially secure, and so on?

Well, true, most won't care for such factors above if they see other qualities that indicate high security and status. But at the end of the day, most women are quite alike when it comes to mere sexual attraction.

Do you want a wimp to be your husband? If not, then you're not as unusual as you may think you are.

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

18 Jun 2011, 5:25 am

I'm a determinist. That means I believe we're all slaves to our biological and psychological makeup.

MONKEY
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,896
Location: Stoke, England (sometimes :P)

18 Jun 2011, 9:40 am

MCalavera wrote:

I'm a determinist. That means I believe we're all slaves to our biological and psychological makeup.

Same here actually, there's nothing more to life than biology. Life is biology.
I think in general people like to think of themselves as above the rest of biological life and somehow their life has some higher importance, it's just a side affect of having big over the top brains.

_________________
What film do atheists watch on Christmas?
Coincidence on 34th street.

metaphysics
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Jun 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 809
Location: Everywhere

18 Jun 2011, 10:08 am

MONKEY wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

I'm a determinist. That means I believe we're all slaves to our biological and psychological makeup.

Can Psychology subordinate to Biology also? And, if so, your opinion is right.

MONKEY
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,896
Location: Stoke, England (sometimes :P)

18 Jun 2011, 10:24 am

metaphysics wrote:

MONKEY wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

I'm a determinist. That means I believe we're all slaves to our biological and psychological makeup.

Can Psychology subordinate to Biology also? And, if so, your opinion is right.

Psychology is really a part of biology, because it's all to do with your brain and your brain is a biological organ. 'Tis all biology anyway.

_________________
What film do atheists watch on Christmas?
Coincidence on 34th street.

Page 5 of 15 [ 227 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 15 Next

Jump to:

[Split] A discussion about evolution and relationships etc. Post Reply New Topic

[Split] A discussion about evolution and relationships etc.