Cape Cod Institute
 
Behavior OnLine Forums  
The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals.
 
Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine.

Go Back   Behavior OnLine Forums > BOL Forums > Evolutionary Psychology

Notices

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Unread March 23rd, 2006, 02:23 PM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site

Quote:
TomJ: How much do you think women had a voice in choosing their mates 500, 5000, 50000 and 500000 years ago? I think that they had little to none, respectively.
You’re wrong of course. Females primarily do the selecting (your “choosing,” is an odd term for someone claiming that humans lack free will), today and in the past (although males often seem to delude themselves, thinking they’re controlling things). Females seem to “select” for the traits needed to acquire and maintain turf for the female and her offspring, and to make occasional sperm deposits enabling female production of fit offspring—such traits essentially boil down to “manliness.”

As it happens, Harvey Mansfield, “the Last Conservative Standing at Harvard,” has a new book out that’s somewhat relevant here. I’ve provided a blip below from ABC News on his book. (It’s not necessarily a lot of hard science or evidence, but then the “reality” of most here doesn’t seem to require such things anyway)—
Quote:
Do Women Want Sensitive or Manly? Harvey Mansfield Is the Author of "Manliness"

March 22, 2006 — - Ladies, if faced with the decision of picking between a Humphrey Bogart in "Casablanca" -- the cool, independent, self-sufficient type -- or a Tom Hanks in "Sleepless in Seattle" -- the sensitive, supportive, thinking type -- who would you choose?

One Harvard professor argues that if you said Hanks, that's just because you have been brainwashed by feminism.

"Women may say they want a sensitive man but they don't always love one," said Harvey Mansfield, professor of political philosophy at Harvard and author of "Manliness." "They are sometimes much more attracted to a manly man. He may be more oblivious of their needs and their desires but impresses them more."

In his controversial book, Mansfield argues that manliness has been hijacked by feminism and advocates of gender-neutral society. He defines manliness as confidence in the face of risk, and says America is on the verge of a manliness crisis.

"Men are still free to be manly; but there's no justification for it, no welcome for it, no respect for it," Mansfield said. "We're losing the contribution manly men can make, and we're confusing women and men, who don't quite know what to do about manliness."

Mansfield suggests that women really want men who embrace their manliness, someone who can provide and care for the family, rather than a person who is more sensitive.

Whether or not they want macho, more modern women may be yearning for old-fashioned roles. In a recent survey of nearly 5,000 couples, the happiest wives said their men support them financially and emotionally ... a Humphrey Bogart who cuddles.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures
Also, there’s still my unresolved query: Am I still the only one here, that is troubled by Tom’s “It's ultimately not their fault,” regarding whenever humans behave badly (e.g., Hitler, Stalin, etc.)?
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Unread March 23rd, 2006, 03:06 PM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred H.
You’re wrong of course.
You say that like you were there.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Unread March 23rd, 2006, 03:30 PM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred H.
your “choosing,” is an odd term for someone claiming that humans lack free will
I've maintained all along that there is choice but that choice is predetermined and not free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred H.
Females seem to “select” for the traits needed to acquire and maintain turf for the female and her offspring
This makes both of my points. Their choice is predetermined, they had to take the strongest available. And they didn't have much choice, they couldn't care if he had blond hair or carry a tune.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Unread March 25th, 2006, 11:43 AM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred H.
Am I still the only one here, that is troubled by Tom’s “It's ultimately not their fault,” regarding whenever humans behave badly (e.g., Hitler, Stalin, etc.)?
The reason is simple, they don't share your brain.

Maybe they understand what I mean by 'determination is not blind'. That our eyes and minds and written words are actually a part of that determinism.

Maybe they understand that guiltlessness does not directly lead to chaos. That humans have survived for millennia even before your invented 'objective morality'. That our genes have given us an instinctive morality that deterministically causes society to deter and punish cheaters of all sorts.

Your repressor module acts to support your ego. It massages the inputs and ignores those that are too harmful to your self-concept. You can't expect Margaret's repressor module to convince her that your ego is correct. And you can't expect mine to argue for yours.

Like I said, you talk about 1+1=2 but you have a different 1 from anybody else; what's obvious to you is incomprehensible to most and probably completely wrong.

This must be a fascinating case study for those among us without repressor modules. They can see the results of evolved psychology.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Unread March 25th, 2006, 12:34 PM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site

Quote:
TomJ: Maybe they understand that guiltlessness does not directly lead to chaos. That humans have survived for millennia even before your invented 'objective morality'. That our genes have given us an instinctive morality that deterministically causes society to deter and punish cheaters of all sorts.
Sure, and ants and various other animals have survived even longer. Or, as a famous socialist once said: “Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong.”

And what’s this about a “fascinating case study for those among us without repressor modules?”
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Unread March 25th, 2006, 02:42 PM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred H.
And what’s this about a “fascinating case study for those among us without repressor modules?”
Sorry. I wasn't clear. By 'us' I meant the population at large.

If there's a part of the brain that does actively repress, it stands to reason that someone out there either doesn't have one or lost it. I don't know if they can survive psychologically without one but I think it would be interesting to read these posts without a filter. Except by sheer coincidence, they probably have the only chance to know the truth, but only so far as the data lead.

What I'm trying to say is that we're all flawed and have little hope of coming to a consensus. But it's still a fascinating discussion.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.