Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

[KukriKhan]

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.

I guess working on this pays better than what Kanazawa used to focus on.

This ought to earn them a spot on The Daily Show.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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 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/Correla...mply_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.

[Duke John]

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

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]

@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.