View Full Version : Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature
One of the benefits of insomnia is running across really good articles. Behold, the Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature (http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml). It's strictly an evolutionary psychologist's perspective, but that's not a bad way of looking at things. Frankly, those guys have had more provable, testable hypotheses than all the Jungians put together.
I'm not going to try to summarize, 'cause frankly the article is too much fun for that. Just give it a read, if you please, and post your comments. I'm eager to see what the Orgahs have to say about this ...
The implications of some of the ideas in this article may seem immoral, contrary to our ideals, or offensive. We state them because they are true, supported by documented scientific evidence. Like it or not, human nature is simply not politically correct.
seireikhaan
07-06-2007, 07:45
Hmm, I get the feeling that these people are trying to say the human race was designed just to have sex and spit out babies. Don't tell the Catholic's that!:laugh4: Also, I agree w/ statement number one(at least the first part) all the way!:beam:
AntiochusIII
07-06-2007, 07:57
The first one is iffy -- since they didn't link to any sources and since my preferences are different I take it with a whole granary of salt.
Bombshells quite frankly, if not disgust, severely bores me. Besides, the theory's explanations read almost like excuses rather than scientific justification.
The rest is funny: Men create (and destroy) civilization for women to say "yes." :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
It sounds rather believable actually.
Though I do think nobody should actually run the whole courses of their lives based on this Darwinian principle. I don't trust the premise behind the article: that having sex is everything. It's many things but not everything.
Banquo's Ghost
07-06-2007, 09:20
Largely claptrap of western perspective, speculation, conjecture and plain fantasy clothed in selective evidence which does science a disservice. I guess they have to sell the book somehow.
I don't intend to waste time rebutting in detail, aside from noting that the vast majority of human beings now and in evolutionary history have had no access to or experience of white blonde females, so adopting any strategy to optimise them would be a bit daft. Muslims were far more polygamous in their earlier history than now, but committed suicide in war far less. What happened about the Mormon suicide outrages?
One of the crosses evolutionary science has to bear is the appalling misuse of its theories by populists like these authors. Not to mention that human beings have more choices than imposed by their genetics.
The implications of some of the ideas in this article may seem immoral, contrary to our ideals, or offensive. We state them because they are true, supported by documented scientific evidence. Like it or not, human nature is simply not politically correct.
Ah, its TrueTM. That's all right then. :shrug:
Ironside
07-06-2007, 09:37
The first one is iffy -- since they didn't link to any sources and since my preferences are different I take it with a whole granary of salt.
It gets even more iffy when you understand that what is considered beatiful goes in trends, it wouldn't be surpricing if "boygirls" were considering the most beautiful type of females in say 50 years.
Apparently I'm not going to be having (m)any daughters at all. :grin:
:balloon2:
Papewaio
07-06-2007, 09:54
Since when was Psychology on the correct side of the postage stamp line?
Duke John
07-06-2007, 10:44
Thanks for the article, fun read :grin:
When he buys a shiny-red sports car, he's not trying to regain his youth; he's trying to attract young women to replace his menopausal wife by trumpeting his flash and cash.
10 bucks for any man who tries that excuse.
To ask why the President of the United States would have a sexual encounter with a young woman is like asking why someone who worked very hard to earn a large sum of money would then spend it.
Why lie about it with that kind of logic to back you up? :tongue2:
Hmm, not the first time I hear this "genetics and reproduction doom and control you"-talk.
And if it's true, I guess I'm just a sub-human.:bomb:
I mean, I agree with Antiochus and I prefer brunettes because I think blonde looks a bit cold, probably makes me a sexist racist as well, huh?
Wait, I could write a book about the warmth of hair colour makes different women appeal to different types of men based on character and implications.
Would probably as wrong as this, but I think I could find some good examples to support my theory.:sweatdrop:
Should a woman ever tell me that my genetics are insufficient for her to date me, I shall suggest to her that she better start running since only the stronger of the two of us will survive the evening... :sweatdrop:
KukriKhan
07-06-2007, 12:01
It is no coincidence that blond hair evolved in Scandinavia and northern Europe, probably as an alternative means for women to advertise their youth, as their bodies were concealed under heavy clothing.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I guess working on this pays better than what Kanazawa (http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/methodologyInstitute/pdf/SKanazawa/ASR2000.pdf) used to focus on.
This ought to earn them a spot on The Daily Show.
Rodion Romanovich
07-06-2007, 13:13
1. Men like blond bombshells (and women want to look like them)
Not true. These researchers need to google for good-looking brunette babes! And need to consider that most African men like dark women over blondes. And that "big-boobs blondes" is just a way of talking that is deeply rooted in our culture, and not deeply rooted in our genes. Perhaps there's genetically a slight preference for lighter hair the further north you go, but in no way any sharp border, and the whole blondes stuff is more culture than genes.
2. Humans are naturally polygamous
3. Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy
No. 2 is probably true, but the men that would get most women in today's society are not the men that would get most women in pre-civlization society polygamy. Today's society benefits backstabbing, brutal, remorseless maniacs that use law to protect themselves from revenge and a dagger in the back after they've screwed people - i.e. the people that would last less than 1 hour in a lawless pre-civlization society. Moreover, the motivation below the point, as well as point no. 3 is illogical, stating that men would benefit from from monogamy: how? A man who gets 10 women in polygamy may benefit from that over getting a single woman in monogamy, just to point out a single obvious counter-example. Whoever wrote the motivation under this point, can hardly have passed biology course 1 on high school level.
4. Most suicide bombers are Muslim
This may be true at the moment, but history shows plenty of other suicide bombers. Everything from viking berserkers to kamikaze pilots and Christian martyrs. Additionally, you got to put it in relation to population size. If at a time in history when world population was 100 million there were 100 suiciders, and today with 6 billion people there's 1,000 suiciders, those back then were far more prone to suiciding than muslims are today.
5. Having sons reduces the likelihood of divorce
6. Beautiful people have more daughters
I fail to see why these are politically incorrect, especially given their motivations :confused: If they're statistically provable they are, and nobody cares.
What Bill Gates and Paul McCartney have in common with
criminals
Personally, I think women who actively choose a man who is a bloodthirsty and brutal psychopath, rank similar to Hitler, Stalin and co (TM), and should be treated as such. Women have a responsibility to the entire herd (or in the modern case: to mankind), when they choose a man. If they choose a brutal psychopath, they're encouraging bloodthirst, and they're breeding children with a devil. Women confusing achievements through strength with achievements through brutality and abusing the systems, are not very clever IMO. A woman choosing based on valid and justified achievements is clever and just, but a woman who is not interested in scrutinizing the reality behind a successful man before jumping into bed with him, is naive.
And the true motivation text behind this section should be: Emotions and instincts are based on correlations, not on causalities, which means that when the environment changes, the emotions and instincts will not work as expected. This may cause incorrect, irrational or dangerous behaviors to arise in modern society. The example given in the headline (that some female partner choice instinct mechanisms get screwed up by society changes) is not nearly as interesting as this phenomenon in general.
8. The midlife crisis is a myth—sort of
This point is a ridiculous turning of words. The mid-life crisis is not tied to wives, because you will still get it when you get older in a hypothetical polygamic society, as it's causally tied to your own ability to attract women and your perception of this ability, not to having a wife. Whoever wrote this should read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causality
9. It's natural for politicians to risk everything for an affair (but only if they're male)
This is unfortunately true, although the motivation part, rather than the header, contains the interesting stuff. We can call it "the evolution of species through unnatural selection", caused by society structure evolving by itself more than by the hand of humans themselves, complete with positive feedback and negative feedback systems etc., with the correlation-based instincts in a changing environment being the key to causing it.
10. Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist
Possibly true in some cases, but not all (they even admit this in the motivation part).
In short, IMO a sensationalism exaggeration article, which exaggerates and twists words. Certainly, there are some politically incorrect truths in human nature, but most of those mentioned there are not included in them.
Rodion Romanovich
07-06-2007, 13:21
I mean, I agree with Antiochus and I prefer brunettes because I think blonde looks a bit cold, probably makes me a sexist racist as well, huh?
I too think blonde women look cold, but that is just a trick so you will want to warm them.
Should a woman ever tell me that my genetics are insufficient for her to date me, I shall suggest to her that she better start running since only the stronger of the two of us will survive the evening... :sweatdrop:
:laugh4:
Duke John
07-06-2007, 13:29
Moreover, the motivation below the point is illogical, stating that men would benefit from from monogamy: how? A man who gets 10 women in polygamy may benefit from that over getting a single woman in monogamy, just to point out a single obvious counter-example. Whoever wrote the motivation under this point, can hardly have passed biology course 1 on high school level.
It states more men benefit from monogamy:
Men in monogamous societies imagine they would be better off under polygyny. What they don't realize is that, for most men who are not extremely desirable, polygyny means no wife at all.
Which can be proven by elementary school math and that equals 100% logic :wink:
Related to that is how in some cultures women are looked down upon when they lose virginity before marriage while this is ok for men. If 500 of the 1000 men have sex before marriage and assuming they have sex with 500 of the 1000 women and marry with the other 500 then you end up with 500 men unable to get married because the first 500 women are "tainted".
Rodion Romanovich
07-06-2007, 13:34
@Duke John: aha, I read it wrong. Yes of course, you are right. This is similar to when more than 2% of the people (sometimes up to 51%) vote for a right wing party in a national election, even though only 2% of the population will get richer by doing so, and the other get poorer. But in that case, the point is hardly politically incorrect: most people will want to defend monogamy since it will be better for them - but this is exactly what is politically correct, isn't it?
What I misread it as was that women would gain from polygamy while men would gain from monogamy. Thus, I reasoned that neither sex can gain more than the other sex by either system, since the worse or better genetical variety/good properties of the children caused by either system, would affect both sexes equally much. If either side would be short term more effective for women than for men, for example, it would just turn the women into main carriers of the same DNA pool their brothers would carry in a system that is short term more beneficial for men. Thus, both systems are of equal worth for both males and females, no matter which sex has any short term benefits.
One of the benefits of insomnia is running across really good articles.
Another benefit is getting to drink this;
Take mint tea, add a leave of fresh mint, a drop of whiskey, add some honey.
good night.
KafirChobee
07-06-2007, 16:06
They start with a premise on why there are more Muslim suicide bombers (mostly single) than other religions - because they can't get laid or married. Add in the economic factor of wealthy vs. poor, and conclude these are the ultimate factors that create them. They do use the martyredom factor of 72 virgins as an incentive; while again ignoring economic circumstance - they receive monetary compensation for their family (when one exists in a futile environment with little hope, and one is offered a way to assist their family people will go to extremes to feed them). Further, they ignore the political factors and oversimply the sexual urges - making the sex drive of young men the primary reasoning for becoming humanbombs.
Did take the time to read the whole thing. I'm sure the book has more detail, and no doubt explains the falacy of natural selection (though they did say tall men good, blonde women good, barby bodies good, etc). Tripe, conjecture and unwarrented supposition.
Found the midlife crisis bit amusing though, especially the red car bit.
edit for spelling only.
It never fails to warm the cockles of my heart when another Orgah links to a site that smacks of or alludes to evolutionary psychology. Good show Lemur! :thumbsup:
I love this paragraph the most....
The midlife crisis is a myth—sort of
Many believe that men go through a midlife crisis when they are in middle age. Not quite. Many middle-aged men do go through midlife crises, but it's not because they are middle-aged. It's because their wives are. From the evolutionary psychological perspective, a man's midlife crisis is precipitated by his wife's imminent menopause and end of her reproductive career, and thus his renewed need to attract younger women. Accordingly, a 50-year-old man married to a 25-year-old woman would not go through a midlife crisis, while a 25-year-old man married to a 50-year-old woman would, just like a more typical 50-year-old man married to a 50-year-old woman. It's not his midlife that matters; it's hers. When he buys a shiny-red sports car, he's not trying to regain his youth; he's trying to attract young women to replace his menopausal wife by trumpeting his flash and cash.
A number of years ago I tried to explain this to some female co-workers who were clearly were not amused. The older I get the more I view Feminism (or rather the rabid element of that movement) as an ill-fated utopian scheme hatched from the minds of blindly idealistic women living in denial about reality.
Great find lemur.
Abuse, intimidation, and degradation are all part of men's repertoire of tactics employed in competitive situations. In other words, men are not treating women differently from men—the definition of discrimination, under which sexual harassment legally falls—but the opposite: Men harass women precisely because they are not discriminating between men and women
My favorite portion. Not all harrasment is based on that (as noted in the top of the #10 section) but the vast majority is.
Hosakawa Tito
07-06-2007, 23:45
Men create (and destroy) civilization for women to say "yes."
I guess it's worth a go.:pirate2:
Crazed Rabbit
07-07-2007, 02:13
Women often say no to men. Men have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them. Men have built (and destroyed) civilization in order to impress women, so that they might say yes.
Hmmm. Most TW players are male...
"Hey baby, I just destroyed the spanish..."
Great article Lemur.
This may be true at the moment, but history shows plenty of other suicide bombers. Everything from viking berserkers to kamikaze pilots and Christian martyrs.
Only the kamikazes fit in the category of suicide bombers.
CR
Marshal Murat
07-07-2007, 03:06
Cut that statement.
I think that it has a ring of truth, but the 'blonde bombshell' was to much.
There are characteristics men look for in women. Hips and Breasts.
Will find link...
BBC Secrets of the Sexes (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/sexsecrets/)
AntiochusIII
07-07-2007, 03:16
Suicide Bombers and Christian Martyrs are different.
Bombers are attempting to kill as many people as possible...
Martyrs are defending something, and make a statement, "I would rather die than deny Variable. :dizzy2:
The article linked to in the OP is a bunch of rubbish. Basically random crap made up off the top of some guy's head, ie: saying that blondes are univerally appealing to every man - no, they are not - that's a lie. Likewise with blue eyes as the article claims. Ridiculous speculations passed off as facts in order to fill in inherent holes in the evolution idea. The whole article boils down to an evolutionist making stuff up in order to fill in the gaps in preconceived ideas stuck in his own mind.
These three statements stuck out to me as the most grievously incorrect rubbish:
Human nature is one of those things that everybody talks about but no one can define precisely
It has been defined precisely for thousands of years by non-evolutionists but I suppose since the article writer is an evolutionist that is why he doesn't want to acknowledge this fact. The definition is called sin nature as caused by Adam and Eve sinning by giving in to Satan's temptation and causing the Fall of man. Thus leading to every human since then other than Jesus Christ having a sin nature.
Every time we fall in love, fight with our spouse, get upset about the influx of immigrants into our country, or go to church, we are, in part, behaving as a human animal with our own unique evolved nature—human nature.
There is nothing "evolved" about how humans behave, nor will there ever be because of the aforementioned sin nature of all humans. How we behave has absolutely nothing to do with "evolution of apes turning into humans" as the article writer is trying to claim here. Kind of ironic he mentions "going to Church" since based on the article he has zero understanding of the content of the Bible, else he wouldn't be making stuff up to coincide with evolution and stating it as if they are facts. Whilst at the same time showing no acknowledgement that he is aware of what a Bible-believing member of any Church would be able to tell him to enlighten him about these things he is making stuff up about.
This means two things. First, our thoughts, feelings, and behavior are produced not only by our individual experiences and environment in our own lifetime but also by what happened to our ancestors millions of years ago. Second, our thoughts, feelings, and behavior are shared, to a large extent, by all men or women, despite seemingly large cultural differences.
No, it does not mean those things. Again it all comes back to sin nature. The disgusting thoughts, feelings, and behaviour of all men and women across every culture around the world can be attributed to this sin nature. Sin nature is universal because all humans were descended from Adam and Eve who sinned. Except for Jesus Christ, which is precisely the reason why the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ is a core tenet of Christianity - because that allowed him to escape having a sin nature. A luxury which no other human has ever had which therefore leads to universal thoughts, feelings, and behaviours among every other human.
In other words ...
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/EvolutionDarwinism.jpg
Rodion Romanovich
07-08-2007, 18:09
Early hominids didn't have murderous knifes, it took human intellect to invent them :tongue:
Looks almost as though you stoped before getting into the actual points of the article nav. In fact all of those quotes are from the opening of the article. If anything if you disagree with the evolution portion the article still sums up the near (lets be honest here it's not completely universal that would imply we were telepathic, heretical.)
universal thoughts, feelings, and behaviours among every other human amazingly well.
Louis VI the Fat
07-08-2007, 21:01
Edit: Meh. A bit too cynical. Never mind.
Crazed Rabbit
07-08-2007, 21:13
Ooohh...if only we true Christians had some of that religious fervour of Muslims you so admire!
Curse our laid-back ways and accepting nature!
CR
amazingly well.
No it doesn't, I wouldn't kill you to impress a woman.:dizzy2:
ICantSpellDawg
07-08-2007, 21:31
This is personal opinion shrouded in a thin veil of "science".
Interesting read, but there was too much conjecture that didn't follow to me. Why arn't the Chinese using their over-abundance of young men to bomb us?
I agreed with the sexism bit whole-heartedly, but truth may exist whether i believe in it or not.
Papewaio
07-08-2007, 23:38
It has been defined precisely for thousands of years by non-evolutionists but I suppose since the article writer is an evolutionist that is why he doesn't want to acknowledge this fact. The definition is called sin nature as caused by Adam and Eve sinning by giving in to Satan's temptation and causing the Fall of man. Thus leading to every human since then other than Jesus Christ having a sin nature.
I always found it interesting that Adam and Eve's first sin was by eating the fruit of knowledge. Without knowledge where is free will and hence where is the ability to sin? If they gained complete knowledge after the first bite, I would understand that the second bite could be sinful. But I suppose most don't give a fig about the philosophical ramifications of this.
No, it does not mean those things. Again it all comes back to sin nature. The disgusting thoughts, feelings, and behaviour of all men and women across every culture around the world can be attributed to this sin nature. Sin nature is universal because all humans were descended from Adam and Eve who sinned. Except for Jesus Christ, which is precisely the reason why the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ is a core tenet of Christianity - because that allowed him to escape having a sin nature. A luxury which no other human has ever had which therefore leads to universal thoughts, feelings, and behaviours among every other human.
Most humans are born of a young woman. Why should that become a core tenet? I must be missing something in the communication.
AntiochusIII
07-09-2007, 06:15
To be honest, the Adam and Eve myth is one of the lamest in existence.
It paints God as a self-righteous arsehole who punishes his creations because he himself couldn't make them perfect. And what idiot plant the Tree of Knowledge right in the place where it could be most easily reached, then proceed to say no you can't reach it to dummies without free will? Riiiight. That's some smart decision, Santa. :dizzy2:
In other words, it's just a myth. There are far better ways to debunk this article than pulling out a flawed Biblical myth in all its literal glory. How about starting with the recently deceased Mr. Gould? His arguments against evolutionary psychology are pretty convincing to me.
Samurai Waki
07-09-2007, 06:41
More existentialist mumbo-jumbo. If you believe Adam and Eve to be a literal truth then far be it from me to judge you. But personally I'm with Pape on this one. If humans are born with sin, please someone explain to me how it is a sin to sin?
This thread is a gold-mine. It's ... it's perfect. Religion, violence, philosophy, ideology, propaganda; all it needs now is some rampant outburst of politics and controversy on such a scale it would make Hitler, Stalin, Attila and Genghis all blush and squirm in their graves.
I'm iffy with parts of the first one, as I prefer black hair as it's sexier :shrug:. But the stuff about hips/waists is true.
Number five = complete bollox. Of all the divorced people I know, they all have sons and alot of them have no daughters.
Number six is just ridiculous, it's complete rubbish.
(The biological mechanism by which this occurs is not yet understood.)
That's probably because it doesn't exist.
Should a woman ever tell me that my genetics are insufficient for her to date me, I shall suggest to her that she better start running since only the stronger of the two of us will survive the evening...
LMAO, my sides hurt.
Curse our laid-back ways and accepting nature!
Lol.
If they gained complete knowledge after the first bite, I would understand that the second bite could be sinful. But I suppose most don't give a fig about the philosophical ramifications of this.
LMAO, so true.
Now time for my religion rant:
To be honest, the Adam and Eve myth is one of the lamest in existence.
It paints God as a self-righteous arsehole who punishes his creations because he himself couldn't make them perfect. And what idiot plant the Tree of Knowledge right in the place where it could be most easily reached, then proceed to say no you can't reach it to dummies without free will? Riiiight. That's some smart decision, Santa.
I'm spiritual and a "Christian" (such a lame word, as is the word religion), :waits for flames:, and I personally don't take the stories of Genesis literally as they are meant to be just that, a story based upon interpretation. But my understanding of God giving people free will is that we have the choice to follow him or do our own thing. He made people, but he wants a relationship with them. The only way a relationship works is if there is choice. And since you are choosing to follow God or not follow God of your own accord that's what gives it meaning, you chose to have it or not have it. I think the problem with most Christians is they get wound up in "rules" and regulations cooked up by the "holy men" of ages past. Many Christians say no sex before marriage, am I going to listen, of course not. My interpretation of what is stated in the Bible is a guideline to prevent yourself getting diseases and unwanted children. It's saying you can do it, but there are risks, and I'll risk it with the right people. The same applies to drinking, the Bible doesn't forbid booze, if anything Jesus was a heavy partier (most the Bible stories of him have wine in them or him at some persons house "partying"), it just says don't go overboard and break SFTS's rules. I have Christian friends (how lame ~D) and we drink beer and party (shock-horror), etcetera.
All the Christian rules, (ones in the Bible not cooked up by men in churches), IMHO are simply designed for me to know where my limits lie and the danger of overstepping those limits. Just a simple way of protecting my-self and living a fulfilling life. Because the true message of Christianity is not rules and all that bollox, but following some bloke who lived 2000 years ago and did what I can't do. Maybe it's just my insanity talking?
End of religious rant.
Most humans are born of a young woman. Why should that become a core tenet? I must be missing something in the communication.
A young woman has nothing to do with it, "virgin" is the key point.
God did not create humans to have sex. Rather, he created them to be immortal, as Adam and Eve were before they sinned. Sex only became necessary after Adam and Eve sinned which brought death and all corruption, including sex, into the world. Sex is a fundamental part of original sin. Because sex (or synthesized sex for those who try to cop the "what about test tube babies" argument) is necessary for human life, every human is born in sin and thus is stricken with a sin nature at the very moment their life begins. Therefore, any human not born of a virgin will always be grossly imperfect and have a sin nature.
This thread is a gold-mine. It's ... it's perfect. Religion, violence, philosophy, ideology, propaganda; all it needs now is some rampant outburst of politics and controversy on such a scale it would make Hitler, Stalin, Attila and Genghis all blush and squirm in their graves.
They would turn so fast in their graves you could power a whole city.
To be honest, the Adam and Eve myth is one of the lamest in existence.
It paints God as a self-righteous arsehole who punishes his creations because he himself couldn't make them perfect. And what idiot plant the Tree of Knowledge right in the place where it could be most easily reached, then proceed to say no you can't reach it to dummies without free will? Riiiight. That's some smart decision, Santa. :dizzy2:
Heh heh heh :yes:
---
My apologies for I have nothing of significance to add to the thread today.
It paints God as a self-righteous arsehole who punishes his creations because he himself couldn't make them perfect. And what idiot plant the Tree of Knowledge right in the place where it could be most easily reached, then proceed to say no you can't reach it to dummies without free will? Riiiight. That's some smart decision, Santa. :dizzy2:
They weren't dummies without free will. They were dummies with free will and a commandment to use that free will to obey God. The tree was placed there purposely within their reach to see if they would use their free will to obey God or not.
They were created perfect. They didn't need to be smart because God was the direct provider for all of their needs, conditional only upon them choosing to obey him with their gift of free will.
In other words, it's just a myth. There are far better ways to debunk this article than pulling out a flawed Biblical myth in all its literal glory.
No, there isn't. Sin nature as illustrated starting in Genesis and following throughout every book of the Bible explains everything about human nature. It's the only explanation for human behaviour that makes sense. There is nothing else out there nearly as good at explaining human nature, naturally because anything contrary to sin nature is false. But that said, there are no "competing theories" that can even attempt to reasonably account for why humans are always debauched, evil, screw-ups.
AntiochusIII
07-09-2007, 23:10
[Off Topic]
They weren't dummies without free will. They were dummies with free will and a commandment to use that free will to obey God. The tree was placed there purposely within their reach to see if they would use their free will to obey God or not.In other words, God teased poor Adam and Eve and they fell for it. Too bad, oops, eternal damnation for you. In fact, not only you, but your children and your children's children. :inquisitive:
Sorry, as a myth to illustrate proper morality I remain by my point that it fails. As a "reason" as to why humans are such scumbags that we are it is at best a flimsy excuse: "somebody else's fault."
They were created perfect. They didn't need to be smart because God was the direct provider for all of their needs, conditional only upon them choosing to obey him with their gift of free will.Then why has perfection failed? And if they were perfect then why aren't we -- supposed descendants whatever -- perfect? Perfect + Perfect = Imperfect ???
Man, your God's a terrible craftsman.
No, there isn't. Sin nature as illustrated starting in Genesis and following throughout every book of the Bible explains everything about human nature. It's the only explanation for human behaviour that makes sense. There is nothing else out there nearly as good at explaining human nature, naturally because anything contrary to sin nature is false. But that said, there are no "competing theories" that can even attempt to reasonably account for why humans are always debauched, evil, screw-ups.Is the world 6000 years old?
Evolutionary psychology insists that the primary motivation in any human behavior is to pass on the genes (to use a worksafe expression). It is an interesting offshoot of Darwin's theories, even though I disagree with at least parts of its assumptions. Yet, I'd rather buy that before having anyone tell me some idiot 200 generations above me did something stupid and I'm paying for it. And that explanation come from a centuries-old, evolving (i.e. lots of versions) religious document. Hurr. Way to excuse human behavior.
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_controversy#Controversies_related_to_Evolutionary_Psychology.2C_Sociobiology .2C_and_Human_behavioral_ecology) has a pretty good summary of the criticism of evolutionary psychology, though it's not particularly detailed or that eloquently written.
I particularly like the point about explanations usually being "Just So" stories, relying on "oh it makes sense" which isn't that scientific.
Then why has perfection failed? And if they were perfect then why aren't we -- supposed descendants whatever -- perfect? Perfect + Perfect = Imperfect ???
Man, your God's a terrible craftsman.
Did you read what I wrote? (I wouldn't be surprised or offended if you said no, it was rather long ~D) But the passages Navaros is refering to don't actually say perfect, they were made in God's image. So a reflection of himself, not actually himself to the pixel. But genesis is just:
a story based upon interpretation
And this is incredibly off-topic.
AntiochusIII
07-09-2007, 23:54
Did you read what I wrote? (I wouldn't be surprised or offended if you said no, it was rather long ~D) But the passages Navaros is refering to don't actually say perfect, they were made in God's image. So a reflection of himself, not actually himself to the pixel.I missed it, sorry. :sweatdrop:
I have no problem with people interpreting Genesis indirectly, it is after all a cornerstone of a very important document historically or religiously; but the literalist interpretation irks me to no end (Yeah, yeah religious freedom whatever). Even with an indirect interpretation though, Genesis makes no sense to me...what was Pindar's term when he pointed out the moral inconsistency in a certain Biblical story involving some guy's raped daughters or some such?
Here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1999156144133435477&q=family+guy+adam+eve&total=39&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0): a little clip to lighten you all up :saint:
I also totally disagree with the crime-curve/genius-curve. The fact that Paul McCartney hasn't released a hit song/album isn't down to his decline of ability, but to his loss of popularity and the shift in Modern music tastes. Another example would be that Einstein was theorising up to his dying day, at the age of 76. Also Bob Dylan has been recieving awards for his recent works, such as "Things Have Changed" (2000) which won a Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song and an Academy Award for Best Song. And the album Modern Times (2006) reached #1 on the U.S. charts; it also reached #1 in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland. It was listed as #1 on Rolling Stone Magazine's best albums of 2006. It won a grammy for Best Contemporary Folk/Americana Album, and was nominated for two others. He also won Best Solo Rock Vocal Performance for the song "Someday Baby". And all that at the age of 60-65.
This article wasnt sponsored by the white male supremacist biggots society for fake psudo-sciences was it ???
Cause it sure read like
Evolutionary psycology - ahem yeh right
Monogamy benefits men more than polygamy
if you were to take the natural selection slant on this - it would benefit 'man' if only the fittest men were reproducing - you dont want all the dregs reproducing as is the case in monogamy - so in terms of survival of the fittest polygamy is clearly leading to long term genetic superiority.
Suicide bombers related to not getting any - that really unveils the pile of camel dung this article is.
Heres as valid argument suicide bombers related to no alcohol because come 5 o clock I would kill for a drink
Rodion Romanovich
07-10-2007, 13:48
Re Adam and Eve: the bible NEVER states Adam and Eve were the first human beings, but it rather suggests that Adam and Eve were the first human beings to abandon the pre-civlization environment and replacing it with civilization (distancing yourself from nature), after which they curse themselves (because God is supposed to be everything/the reality/what controls everything, someone acting in a way that is harmful given the environment, can both be said to be cursed by God, to have cursed himself, or to have been cursed by nature itself). The whole "Adam and Eve are the first humans" is part of a tradition that arose many centuries after the old Testament, and the Bible, and originates from errors in the translation.
Additionally, the eating of the fruit being free will that results in eternal damnation is likewise part of church tradition rather than the religion itself. The whole idea of free will originates from the Medieval church philosophy that tried to get around the problem of how God can be both good, almighty and intervening against everything bad, while at the same time the earth is so evil (this free will solution to that problem is problematic not only in Genesis but quite contradictory in other places as well). Reading the actual text of Genesis reveals that this chapter tries to convey a quite different message: man created civilization because of man's nature (curiosity and wish to learn things etc), and as a result, mankind (possibly but not necessarily irreversibly) left the pre-civlization environment and created a new environment (civilization), which created more and worse problems than had ever been present before civilization, i.e. the damnation. The damnation is not a morality issue (but an inevitable consequence of this action, caused by the laws of nature), i.e. regret or prayer cannot solve these problems. They can only be solved by finding a way back to Eden, by solving the problems caused by the invention of civilization.
Finally, the virginity birth is another thing that comes from traditions arising much later than the original writings. It's never stated in the bible that normal sex would be a sin. In fact, it's rather presented as a form of damnation or sin, that Adam and Eve start to cover themselves behind leaves instead of being naked. The damnation in sex lies in the resulting overpopulation from unprotected sex continuing in a civilization that reduces infant mortality. Therefore, unprotected sex is a sin in civilization, after the expulsion from Eden, but it is not a sin in itself.
-----------
Evolutionary psychology insists that the primary motivation in any human behavior is to pass on the genes (to use a worksafe expression). It is an interesting offshoot of Darwin's theories, even though I disagree with at least parts of its assumptions.
Just out of curiosity, which particular assumptions do they make, and which do you disagree with?
---------
Monogamy benefits men more than polygamy
if you were to take the natural selection slant on this - it would benefit 'man' if only the fittest men were reproducing - you dont want all the dregs reproducing as is the case in monogamy - so in terms of survival of the fittest polygamy is clearly leading to long term genetic superiority.
Not the case if too few men take part in the reproduction, and especially not the case in modern human society, where the partner choice instincts of females can't work properly due to the changed stimuli composition. In modern society, polygamy would result in quick genetic degradation due to choosing ill, ruthless immoral men, and coupling this with inbreeding. Someone who happens to be born from richer parents than you, but is weak and sickly, would be more likely to carry on his genes than you in a polygamy society. Current society doesn't really require much strength or intelligence to survive if you just get a head start of all others, due to you being weak in terms of society position. In short, polygamy would create a massive incentive to bring out the guilliotinne in the streets again.
doc_bean
07-10-2007, 15:12
I also totally disagree with the crime-curve/genius-curve. The fact that Paul McCartney hasn't released a hit song/album isn't down to his decline of ability, but to his loss of popularity and the shift in Modern music tastes. Another example would be that Einstein was theorising up to his dying day, at the age of 76. Also Bob Dylan has been recieving awards for his recent works, such as "Things Have Changed" (2000) which won a Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song and an Academy Award for Best Song. And the album Modern Times (2006) reached #1 on the U.S. charts; it also reached #1 in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland. It was listed as #1 on Rolling Stone Magazine's best albums of 2006. It won a grammy for Best Contemporary Folk/Americana Album, and was nominated for two others. He also won Best Solo Rock Vocal Performance for the song "Someday Baby". And all that at the age of 60-65.
Companies tend to be 'less creative' the older/more experienced they get, this is a well known phenomenom in economy/design. That the same happens to individuals is only natural, since a company should be more robust considering it can change its people.
This has little to do with genetics, it seems to be mostly an economical problem (okay, related to humans and the way they think of course, but not for the reasons stated in the article).
Suraknar
07-10-2007, 19:56
Very nice article! :book:
Thanks :)
Big King Sanctaphrax
07-10-2007, 20:05
Another example would be that Einstein was theorising up to his dying day, at the age of 76.
Yes, but most of the really important stuff he did-photo-electric effect, relativity, etc, took place in a span of relatively few years when he was a reasonably young man. The majority of his time as he got older was spent on trying to develop unified field theory, which ultimately proved fruitless.
Suraknar
07-10-2007, 20:31
Yes, but most of the really important stuff he did-photo-electric effect, relativity, etc, took place in a span of relatively few years when he was a reasonably young man. The majority of his time as he got older was spent on trying to develop unified field theory, which ultimately proved fruitless.
Not necessarilly fruitless, he started it...he was not able to finish it..and today most astrophisicist and theoretical mathematicians are pursuing the efforts.
it isour next challenge in our understanding of the universe. Unifying and explaining the relationships and innerworkings of the infinetly big with the infinetly small.
Suraknar
07-10-2007, 22:17
In any case back to the topic :)
# The midlife crisis is a myth—sort of
Many believe that men go through a midlife crisis when they are in middle age. Not quite. Many middle-aged men do go through midlife crises, but it's not because they are middle-aged. It's because their wives are. From the evolutionary psychological perspective, a man's midlife crisis is precipitated by his wife's imminent menopause and end of her reproductive career, and thus his renewed need to attract younger women. Accordingly, a 50-year-old man married to a 25-year-old woman would not go through a midlife crisis, while a 25-year-old man married to a 50-year-old woman would, just like a more typical 50-year-old man married to a 50-year-old woman. It's not his midlife that matters; it's hers. When he buys a shiny-red sports car, he's not trying to regain his youth; he's trying to attract young women to replace his menopausal wife by trumpeting his flash and cash.
This somehow makes very nice sense, and it affirms the wisdom of ancient, pre-christian, societies, like the Ancient Greeks (for example), where it was customary for 25 year old men marryin to 15 year old women, most probably having children by the time the man was 30 and the woman 20.
I guess ancient greeks had the wisdom to acknowledge human nature, even if they did not have the knowledge of Psychology as we know it today, and very few if any men would ever go through a mid-life crisis. :)
They weren't dummies without free will. They were dummies with free will and a commandment to use that free will to obey God. The tree was placed there purposely within their reach to see if they would use their free will to obey God or not.
Ok...I´ll bite (pun intended) and play the Christian game for a while.
how could they have free will if they didn´t have knowledge?
How would Adam and Eve use their free will to make decisions if they did not have knowledge as to what those decisions meant?
they could not know that eating from the tree was wrong, because they had no knowledge of what wrong and right were....they only knew that God had told them not to eat from it.
so if they don´t know about right and wrong..truth and lies..they don´t know about any difference in value between what God told them (you can´t eat from the tree)....and what the snake told them (you can eat from the tree)
so we can reach one of 2 conclusions:
-if they decided to not eat from the tree they would have done this not because they knew it was wrong (in which case it would have been a moral choice)...but just because God told them not to.......my friend that is the definition of a sheep....is that what God "created" humanity for?
-They ate from the tree because....given 2 conflicting instructions of equal weight (remember...they have no knowledge of right and wrong...so God´s word is worth as much as the snake´s to them) they went were their normal instinct of curiosity took them....so we can conclude that God...."created man" and gave him instincts....God then proceeded to arbitrarily set the rules of conduct in direct oposition to the instincts that God himself gave man...Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow...etc....
Don´t know about you...but to me it sounds like Man was set up....and why would God do such a thing?....why set Man up to fail?...for personal amusement?....does this seem like someone anyone would want to worship?
I know this will probably bounce right off that armor of blind faith you have and won´t reach your common sense.......but you might want to let it out and stretch it´s legs a little bit...you might find it refreshing.
Peace,
Ronin
Not the case if too few men take part in the reproduction, and especially not the case in modern human society, where the partner choice instincts of females can't work properly due to the changed stimuli composition. In modern society, polygamy would result in quick genetic degradation due to choosing ill, ruthless immoral men, and coupling this with inbreeding. Someone who happens to be born from richer parents than you, but is weak and sickly, would be more likely to carry on his genes than you in a polygamy society. Current society doesn't really require much strength or intelligence to survive if you just get a head start of all others, due to you being weak in terms of society position. In short, polygamy would create a massive incentive to bring out the guilliotinne in the streets again.
your talking about medieval/renaissance royalty - generally the rich in todays world are in much better health and physical fitness than the poor, and tend not to be as disposed toward inbreeding.
Yeh but what are you selecting for ? - how do you know what will be an advantage in future world ? - yes I understand what your saying about the advantages of sexual variation in being best able to adapt to change. But in a world that adores celebrity whos to say the children of the rich or whatever other factor women happen to be selecting for wont be an advantage in the world of the next generation. You cant know, you are assuming based on what you think are successful traits from the past. Who is to say woman are even the major section pressure anymore - for we know media or Bill Gates could be the largest selective pressre in modern society.
Thats whats wrong with the article it attempts to grossly simplify selective pressure in humans into attraction and pop statistics. Well, A) you may think you prefer one woman over another because of these 'reproductive' imperatives, but in reality it is much more complex, and for all you know gene X could be overiding you reproductive attraction genes because of some rare genetic disease you have. B) Just because the lord of the village had 20 children dont mean they were all his, you never hear about the Peter the Poet peasant boy who sired the Sultan children? people lie alot, C) Lets not even begin talking about enivronmental factors influencing selctive pressure because I have a life and I dont want to spend half on it on here debunking BS quasi scientific article - life is too short.
As an interesting aside contrary to popular belief female chimps were found to favour good parental related attributes exhibited by males over the strongest or most aggresive males which was a surprise to all those who wrongly believed that natural selection should favour the strongest and most dominant males.
In a changing world there is no good or bad, you cannot know what could be a future advantage based on what was advantageous in the past
Just because the selective pressure of the past was to sire as many children as possible by surrounding yourself with fertile young women - does not necessarily apply today in an overpopulated planet on the brink of environmental or man induced annihaltion - despite our wishful thinking.
Rodion Romanovich
07-11-2007, 14:16
your talking about medieval/renaissance royalty - generally the rich in todays world are in much better health and physical fitness than the poor, and tend not to be as disposed toward inbreeding.
That's because rich have money to pay doctors. Those who are poor can't afford it when social justice and free health care is withdrawn while prices increase for regular people. You can see today who is poor and who is rich because the rich have white teeth and the poor have yellow-brown teeth. No surprise the poor who do body work get problems with their back, while the rich who only need to have drinks with other rich in "representation work" don't get any such problems. No, the rich are not genetically better than the poor.
If it were the case that rich have better genes, the poor would have good reason to disapprove of the society system, for two reasons: 1. it is genetics-based oppression to let people become richers just because they have certain genes, 2. if they're superior genetically, they certainly do not need an advantageous start in life compared to others.
If it isn't the case that rich have better genes, then it's also justified to ask why the rich should have better starting chances in life than more competent people who happened to be born by the wrong parents?
In a changing world there is no good or bad, you cannot know what could be a future advantage based on what was advantageous in the past
It's bad to have selection determined by random, unreflected consequences of a cultural past and present that is ruled by semi-random game theory equilibrium effects, rather than having selection determined by true emotions in a natural setting. There's no excuse for implicitly genociding all people who the current society form gives an unfair disadvantage. Yet, this is what society constantly does, when it diverts from the natural selection. Who has the right to determine that certain persons that would have children in a pre-civilization setting would not, in our current setting? Who has the right to determine that certain persons who would otherwise have no offspring, should survive? Every time someone argues that society should change in some way, they indirectly also argue for a change in who should live and who should die.
Just because the selective pressure of the past was to sire as many children as possible by surrounding yourself with fertile young women - does not necessarily apply today in an overpopulated planet on the brink of environmental or man induced annihaltion - despite our wishful thinking.
This is one good example of what I mean. Current society favors people who get so many children that overpopulation increases, over people who get an amount of children that is bearable to mankind. This is a good example of how the unnatural selection by modern society causes problems. Mankind is too stupid to ever completely understand the mechanisms of evolution fully, she has barely enough intellect to choose a partner properly in a pre-civilization setting. Until we can go back to such a setting (at least seen from the stimuli composition and resource distribution perspective), we're stuck with the current implicitly genociding system. All we can do in the meantime, is to fight over what properties should be genocided in our current generation, and which should prevail, until fashion changes yet again. It is no surprise, that politics is such a controversial subject. IMO the only justifiable system for selection is the natural selection, since it wasn't invented by a human being, but given to us, as opposed to the others, which were invented by humans and forced upon others by violence, threat and pressure. But people have been scared of nature since the historical counterparts of Adam and Eve.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.