Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

[Lemur]

One of the benefits of insomnia is running across really good articles. Behold, the Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature. 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]

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! Also, I agree w/ statement number one(at least the first part) all the way!

[AntiochusIII]

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."

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]

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.

[Ironside]

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.

[Whacker]

Apparently I'm not going to be having (m)any daughters at all.

[Papewaio]

Since when was Psychology on the correct side of the postage stamp line?

[Duke John]

Thanks for the article, fun read

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?

[Husar]

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.

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.

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...

[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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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...

[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.

[Fragony]

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]

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.

[Spino]

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!

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.

[BigTex]

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]

Men create (and destroy) civilization for women to say "yes."

I guess it's worth a go.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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]

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

[AntiochusIII]

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.

[Navaros]

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.

[Lemur]

In other words ...

[Rodion Romanovich]

Early hominids didn't have murderous knifes, it took human intellect to invent them

[BigTex]

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]

Edit: Meh. A bit too cynical. Never mind.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

[Husar]

amazingly well.

No it doesn't, I wouldn't kill you to impress a woman.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.