Pages: 1

 

2009-04-26 09:53:39
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5590

1. Men like blond bombshells (and women want to look like them)
2. Humans are naturally polygamous
3. Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy
4. Most suicide bombers are Muslim
5. Having sons reduces the likelihood of divorce
6. Beautiful people have more daughters
7. What Bill Gates and Paul McCartney have in common with criminals
8. The midlife crisis is a myth—sort of
9. It's natural for politicians to risk everything for an affair (but only if they're male)
10. Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles … 000002.xml
Interesting read. What is everyone's thoughts on the conclusions drawn up by the psychologist? Utter bullshit or complete truth?
2009-04-26 10:00:33
Shadow893
lel
+75|6697|England

Macbeth wrote:

5. Having sons reduces the likelihood of divorce
lol fail, 3 sons and no daughters didn't stop my parents divorcing lol
2009-04-26 10:12:15
Lai
Member
+186|6156
Sorry, but 1. is fail too, at least for me. I've have no real preference regarding haircolour (though I don't fancy the type of girl that dye's her hair pink, but that says more about type than about hair), and in fact I find some the prettier women have dark hair. I know of at least one friend of mine, who swears by brunettes.
2009-04-26 10:14:41
=NHB=Shadow
hi
+322|6370|California
i just tend to stay away from black girls, dont know why, but they make me gag...
2009-04-26 10:16:25
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6158|what

#6 is total fail "Beautiful people have more daughters"

There is absolutely zero scientific evidence for this wild claim.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-04-26 10:17:17
SealXo
Member
+309|6541
I don't like blonds....
2009-04-26 10:19:18
-CARNIFEX-[LOC]
Da Blooze
+111|6658

SealXo wrote:

I don't like blonds....
Probably an adaptation to the astounding number of fake blond cougars prowling California's streets...
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/12516/Bitch%20Hunter%20Sig.jpg
2009-04-26 11:07:57
imortal
Member
+240|6670|Austin, TX
Okay, I am sure these may be true about humans in general, but that does not make it a universal rule.  I believe it is dealing in trends.  There are naturally going to be people who buch the trend; if for no other reason than to just break from 'the expected.'
2009-04-26 11:39:29
-CARNIFEX-[LOC]
Da Blooze
+111|6658

imortal wrote:

Okay, I am sure these may be true about humans in general, but that does not make it a universal rule.  I believe it is dealing in trends.  There are naturally going to be people who buch the trend; if for no other reason than to just break from 'the expected.'
True, true...

Just look at the great apes...sure, the silverback/dominant male always THINKS he's got the market cornered, but I'm sure there's always some lesser gorilla getting ass from one of his gorillettes.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/12516/Bitch%20Hunter%20Sig.jpg
2009-04-26 12:07:07
Noobeater
Northern numpty
+194|6452|Boulder, CO

-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:

imortal wrote:

Okay, I am sure these may be true about humans in general, but that does not make it a universal rule.  I believe it is dealing in trends.  There are naturally going to be people who buch the trend; if for no other reason than to just break from 'the expected.'
True, true...

Just look at the great apes...sure, the silverback/dominant male always THINKS he's got the market cornered, but I'm sure there's always some lesser gorilla getting ass from one of his gorillettes.
Yes and psychology has theories for that exact thing happening. In this case its the lesser males that group up and annoy the fuck out of the silver back to distract him, at that point another of the lesser males rapes the silver backs woman. They all take turns to do this.

I remember reading several of those very points quite recently in the text books. Although i had never heard of the sexual harrasment one but reading it through and thinking of my own behaviour towards other guys (even when being friendly) it makes sense to think that it could be misinterpreted as sexual harrassment.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic … at_for_sex

Theres an example of the meat for sex hypothesis of the evolution of machiavellian intelligence. This was originally proposed for early humans but its shared in several species.

Last edited by Noobeater (2009-04-26 12:10:24)

2009-04-26 12:13:08
Lai
Member
+186|6156

Noobeater wrote:

-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:

imortal wrote:

Okay, I am sure these may be true about humans in general, but that does not make it a universal rule.  I believe it is dealing in trends.  There are naturally going to be people who buch the trend; if for no other reason than to just break from 'the expected.'
True, true...

Just look at the great apes...sure, the silverback/dominant male always THINKS he's got the market cornered, but I'm sure there's always some lesser gorilla getting ass from one of his gorillettes.
Yes and psychology has theories for that exact thing happening. In this case its the lesser males that group up and annoy the fuck out of the silver back to distract him, at that point another of the lesser males rapes the silver backs woman. They all take turns to do this.

I remember reading several of those very points quite recently in the text books. Although i had never heard of the sexual harrasment one but reading it through and thinking of my own behaviour towards other guys (even when being friendly) it makes sense to think that it could be misinterpreted as sexual harrassment.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic … at_for_sex

Theres an example of the meat for sex hypothesis of the evolution of machiavellian intelligence. This was originally proposed for early humans but its shared in several species.
There's one problem with your hypothesis though. If gorilla's are smart enough to device schemes like that, aren't they smart enough so the raped female gorilla will yell/communicate "rape" to the Silverback afterwards, who will then beat the crap out of the lesser guy?
2009-04-26 12:20:36
Noobeater
Northern numpty
+194|6452|Boulder, CO

Lai wrote:

Noobeater wrote:

-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:


True, true...

Just look at the great apes...sure, the silverback/dominant male always THINKS he's got the market cornered, but I'm sure there's always some lesser gorilla getting ass from one of his gorillettes.
Yes and psychology has theories for that exact thing happening. In this case its the lesser males that group up and annoy the fuck out of the silver back to distract him, at that point another of the lesser males rapes the silver backs woman. They all take turns to do this.

I remember reading several of those very points quite recently in the text books. Although i had never heard of the sexual harrasment one but reading it through and thinking of my own behaviour towards other guys (even when being friendly) it makes sense to think that it could be misinterpreted as sexual harrassment.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic … at_for_sex

Theres an example of the meat for sex hypothesis of the evolution of machiavellian intelligence. This was originally proposed for early humans but its shared in several species.
There's one problem with your hypothesis though. If gorilla's are smart enough to device schemes like that, aren't they smart enough so the raped female gorilla will yell/communicate "rape" to the Silverback afterwards, who will then beat the crap out of the lesser guy?
I didn't say it was my hypothesis and it is just that a hypothesis. Also in this area cuckoldery is quite common and to be quite honest its all rape and the females are happy enough to get raped by any male so long as the child is raised by the male with resources and status within the group.

Its the fear of cuckoldery that makes men more pissed off by sexual cheating and its the fear of a loss of resources for their child or possible child that makes women more fearfull of their men cheating on them emotionally with another women as he may choose to raise and support a child with her instead. Or so the theories say.
2009-04-26 12:31:22
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5999|Truthistan
TRUE     2. Humans are naturally polygamous

Here is the case for polygamy

1. Like the old saying, Show me a beautiful woman and I'll show you a man who is tired of f@cking her.

2. And I read some place that if a guy does one chick and then goes to do a second chick the refractory period is a lot shorter.... hmmm that might be helpful where humans are meant to group into herds.

3. And another unknown... chicks who are close together synch up their menses. So they are all fertile at the same time. If one chick is on the pill and close to another group of chicks not on the pill, that chick will set the cycle for the entire groups because her cycle is fixed by the pill.

4. And if you are doing two chicks they don't even have to meet for their cycles to synch up, you become the messenger between the two chicks who are now part of your herd. FYI you don't want to knock your chick off her cycle or she will start to suspect things.

5. And chicks are more likely to show more skin when they are Fertile, I guess to advertise the fact that their bodies are telling them to get knocked up.

6. And another dirty secret is that chicks are more likely to cheat at times when they are fertile... so you end up with a gooney bird scenario where the unsuspecting boyfriend ends up raising some other guys kid... I heard a crazy state that 25% of children are raised by guys who are not the biological father.

I believe most chicks know these things, they just don't tell guys about them.

Now if that's not a case for polygamy....
2009-04-26 12:38:40
Lai
Member
+186|6156
That said, I don't really believe in any of the biological instinct crap. All of them assume mankind hasn't been able to evolve psychologically since we left the caves.

Most animal species haven't of course, but then again most animal species don't build air fuel bombs either.
2009-04-26 12:51:25
imortal
Member
+240|6670|Austin, TX

Lai wrote:

That said, I don't really believe in any of the biological instinct crap. All of them assume mankind hasn't been able to evolve psychologically since we left the caves.

Most animal species haven't of course, but then again most animal species don't build air fuel bombs either.
You are incorrect.  Of course we are capable of psychologically overcoming these things.  Sometimes, you feel just feel an 'urge.'  Your decision to act on it or not is a matter of higher inteligence.  After all, just because a woman is 'in season,' doesn't mean she still doesn't have control of her actions.   There is still instinct, but we can listen to or ignore that instict if we choose to.
2009-04-26 12:54:28
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5999|Truthistan

imortal wrote:

Lai wrote:

That said, I don't really believe in any of the biological instinct crap. All of them assume mankind hasn't been able to evolve psychologically since we left the caves.

Most animal species haven't of course, but then again most animal species don't build air fuel bombs either.
You are incorrect.  Of course we are capable of psychologically overcoming these things.  Sometimes, you feel just feel an 'urge.'  Your decision to act on it or not is a matter of higher inteligence.  After all, just because a woman is 'in season,' doesn't mean she still doesn't have control of her actions.   There is still instinct, but we can listen to or ignore that instict if we choose to.
But your psychologially evolution of humanity is combined with cultral aspects and diferent solutions created by different cultures. That's what creates a psychologial norm for the individual.

The only common thread between cultures would be biological ones like hormones. And hormones have a really powerful influence on the body... in fact hormonal imbalances can cause mental illness.

While cultures can try to change humans into something else, culture/psychy can't change your hormones.

If people were truly monogamous, like some animals are, we wouldn't have infidelity, or illegimate children. but we do and that's evidence enough that we a polygamous.
2009-04-26 13:18:47
Lai
Member
+186|6156

imortal wrote:

Lai wrote:

That said, I don't really believe in any of the biological instinct crap. All of them assume mankind hasn't been able to evolve psychologically since we left the caves.

Most animal species haven't of course, but then again most animal species don't build air fuel bombs either.
You are incorrect.  Of course we are capable of psychologically overcoming these things.  Sometimes, you feel just feel an 'urge.'  Your decision to act on it or not is a matter of higher inteligence.  After all, just because a woman is 'in season,' doesn't mean she still doesn't have control of her actions.   There is still instinct, but we can listen to or ignore that instict if we choose to.
That any instinct can be overcome by discipline is evident, however I am not convinced all these prehistoric urges are still present at all, consciously or unconsciously. Some maybe, but why would all of them have persisted after millions of years, why can not some have evolved out, similar as to why we do not have a tail anymore, even though we know and can see we once had?
2009-04-26 13:40:56
imortal
Member
+240|6670|Austin, TX

Lai wrote:

imortal wrote:

Lai wrote:

That said, I don't really believe in any of the biological instinct crap. All of them assume mankind hasn't been able to evolve psychologically since we left the caves.

Most animal species haven't of course, but then again most animal species don't build air fuel bombs either.
You are incorrect.  Of course we are capable of psychologically overcoming these things.  Sometimes, you feel just feel an 'urge.'  Your decision to act on it or not is a matter of higher inteligence.  After all, just because a woman is 'in season,' doesn't mean she still doesn't have control of her actions.   There is still instinct, but we can listen to or ignore that instict if we choose to.
That any instinct can be overcome by discipline is evident, however I am not convinced all these prehistoric urges are still present at all, consciously or unconsciously. Some maybe, but why would all of them have persisted after millions of years, why can not some have evolved out, similar as to why we do not have a tail anymore, even though we know and can see we once had?
They persist because they work?  We are MUCH further removed from a tail than we are from our instinct-driven cave-dwelling past.   As in many tens of millions of years compared to a few tens of thousands of years.

EDIT:  Also, this is why these are 'ugly' truths.  We don't like facing them, because we don't like what things like this suggest about us.  Your reaction is a case in point.

Last edited by imortal (2009-04-26 13:42:52)

2009-04-26 13:51:21
Noobeater
Northern numpty
+194|6452|Boulder, CO
Our instincts of our own gender certainly haven't evolved out so why should other behaviours, its been proven through studies that women still seek men that are predominately successful with resources and status whilst men seek young fertile women who are "attractive" (attractivity generally acts as a symbol of health and fertilility). An interesting study is that done on the life of David Reimer who to sum his life up quickly was:


Born as a twin boy
-Penis accidentally burnt to a crisp during a routine circumcision using lasers
-Parents decided to raise him as a girl (due to lack of penis), called him Brenda and had him given fake genitals.
-Brenda was raised as a normal girl, given female hormones and all around her knew her as female.
-During Brenda's teens she started to feel that something was wrong with her, she just didn't seem right, she got depression.
-Asked her parents why she felt wrong as a girl (bear in mind she would have looked like a girl due to hormonal implants).
-Parents revealed she was originally male.
-Brenda becomes David and gets fake genitalia surgically implanted.
-David gets married to a woman and adopts her kids.
-David gets depression and sadly shoots himself.


A tragic case but it shows how we do still have instincts that are able to overpower our socially learned behaviours thus showing that nature is able to over ride nurture.
2009-04-26 18:29:21
mcjagdflieger
Champion of Dueling Rectums
+26|6315|South Jersey
definitely, id put it at 75% nature, 25% nurture
2009-04-26 21:38:20
topthrill05
Member
+125|6583|Rochester NY USA
The moral of the story is, it's all about the kids.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard