Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: alien42
"the human pupil dilates when an individual is exposed to something that she likes. For instance, the pupils of women and infants (but not men) spontaneously dilate when they see babies. Pupil dilation is an honest indicator of interest and attraction."

i have never heard that before.

I have. Quick theorizing on my part, with basic/sketchy knowledge of optics, says that opening the aperature allows more light in, possibly allowing the looker to observe the subject with greater detail.


I notice it in my cats when they're about to jump up onto furniture, or if they're watching something of interest. Their pupils dilate considerably.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Anyone else think that article is mostly pseudoscience nonsense? And a bit sexist as well.

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.

The author speaks as though men are the only ones who are capable of these things.

Women have done all of the things mentioned in this paragraph. Were they all just confused as to what their gender role is?

we evolved under conditions predating polical correctness and feminism.

humans are animals and motivations can be unconscious.

if we evolved under total equity we wouldnt have sexual dimorphism for one, let alone have the only female primates with external protruding breasts and other decorative fatty tissue.

it continues to this day with powerful career females sometimes giving up child bearing basically commiting genetic suicide.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: herkulease

In one now-classic study, 75 percent of undergraduate men approached by an attractive female stranger agreed to have sex with her; none of the women approached by an attractive male stranger did. Many men who would not date the stranger nonetheless agreed to have sex with her.

what is wrong with the other 25%. Granted it just said attractive, but I'm sure they put up a photo of someone everything could agree is hot looking.

i think they redid that test in a bbc documentary called the secret of the sexes?

they had a woman walk up to guys and ask. worked like clockwork.

basic evolutionary strategy. woman only has one womb and is in teh suck for 9months+16yrs after one bonk in the bush. man on the other hand can tap all the asses he can get away with much less trouble. she has to make sure the guy is reliable and trustable. he just has to make sure the kids his.

2) Correlation is a statistical tool. It is not proof of anything. (See argument for primate mating size) Causation is what we care about, and this article offers no evidence for causation.

these are not proofs, they are theories based on studies and looking at the evolutionary strategies of other animals and primates. at our most basic we are just machines that ensure the genes get passed on. this game has gone on for millions of years, we just think we are above it now because we have a big brain but the problem is our big brain was a product of the game and was for the most part enhanced as it was in an effort to win the game.

steven pinkers -the blank slate
dawkins-selfish gene are good books semi related to this.

 

[Lonyo]

Bill Gates is now a respectable businessman and philanthropist, and is no longer a computer whiz kid.

It was being a business man that got him where he was W.R.T computers, not being a computer whiz kid.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Bill Gates is now a respectable businessman and philanthropist, and is no longer a computer whiz kid.

It was being a business man that got him where he was W.R.T computers, not being a computer whiz kid.

That's not the point - the point is that people peak in their 20's and 30's in many aspects, including this age-genius curve that they bring up in the article.

This point has actually struck me a lot... I figure that if I'm going to do anything that I consider "big", it's going to happen in my 20's or 30's, it's my shot at accomplishing something big and beyond that, it's not going to be as easy. When you look at the age of when a lot of people passed their most famous patents, developed whatever technology, etc., it's often in their 20's. Have to work smart, not hard, and get something done when you have a chance.

Also, what he did required a starting place. If he was in the ice cream industry, can we say he would have done just as well? AFAIK, it hasn't seem the same amount of growth. Basically, it started with something he had done earlier in life and was in the right place at the right time to take that to a much higher level.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
these are not proofs, they are theories based on studies and looking at the evolutionary strategies of other animals and primates. at our most basic we are just machines that ensure the genes get passed on. this game has gone on for millions of years, we just think we are above it now because we have a big brain but the problem is our big brain was a product of the game and was for the most part enhanced as it was in an effort to win the game.

I've said it in the past and now again - humans are the most stupid beings/animals/whatever on this planet and it will always be that way. These unconcious things exist and are at the root of how we behave, but most people are not willing to admit them because of their ego. These points are behind the motivation for very many things.

One of the few people I can say that overcame these thoughts/instincts/whatever, IMO, is Gandhi. Even if he wasn't able to overcome them, that's the impression he gave and made very objective decisions in his life because he was able to put his ego aside on all this.

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Bill Gates is now a respectable businessman and philanthropist, and is no longer a computer whiz kid.

It was being a business man that got him where he was W.R.T computers, not being a computer whiz kid.

That's not the point - the point is that people peak in their 20's and 30's in many aspects, including this age-genius curve that they bring up in the article.

This point has actually struck me a lot... I figure that if I'm going to do anything that I consider "big", it's going to happen in my 20's or 30's, it's my shot at accomplishing something big and beyond that, it's not going to be as easy. When you look at the age of when a lot of people passed their most famous patents, developed whatever technology, etc., it's often in their 20's. Have to work smart, not hard, and get something done when you have a chance.

I'd like to see the data regarding the "age-genius" curve they mention; I'd imagine that for a good part of our history, the results would be skewed simply based on lifespan and general health and well-being. Only recently have we begun to live, and live relatively comfortably, past our 40's and 50's.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Bill Gates is now a respectable businessman and philanthropist, and is no longer a computer whiz kid.

It was being a business man that got him where he was W.R.T computers, not being a computer whiz kid.

That's not the point - the point is that people peak in their 20's and 30's in many aspects, including this age-genius curve that they bring up in the article.

This point has actually struck me a lot... I figure that if I'm going to do anything that I consider "big", it's going to happen in my 20's or 30's, it's my shot at accomplishing something big and beyond that, it's not going to be as easy. When you look at the age of when a lot of people passed their most famous patents, developed whatever technology, etc., it's often in their 20's. Have to work smart, not hard, and get something done when you have a chance.

I'd like to see the data regarding the "age-genius" curve they mention; I'd imagine that for a good part of our history, the results would be skewed simply based on lifespan and general health and well-being. Only recently have we begun to live, and live relatively comfortably, past our 40's and 50's.

It's hard to tell without solid data, I've had a generalization in my head that people in the last 100 years or so have peaked in their 20's and 30's. This doesn't mean they don't gain more experience and use that in their career to further themselves, but their ability to look at things as deeply as possible and process information happens at their peak in their 20's. I wish I knew more about all this and knew all the proper terminology, this is some interesting stuff.

 

[dug777]

Seems like a lot of horse-sh1t.

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Bill Gates is now a respectable businessman and philanthropist, and is no longer a computer whiz kid.

It was being a business man that got him where he was W.R.T computers, not being a computer whiz kid.

That's not the point - the point is that people peak in their 20's and 30's in many aspects, including this age-genius curve that they bring up in the article.

This point has actually struck me a lot... I figure that if I'm going to do anything that I consider "big", it's going to happen in my 20's or 30's, it's my shot at accomplishing something big and beyond that, it's not going to be as easy. When you look at the age of when a lot of people passed their most famous patents, developed whatever technology, etc., it's often in their 20's. Have to work smart, not hard, and get something done when you have a chance.

I'd like to see the data regarding the "age-genius" curve they mention; I'd imagine that for a good part of our history, the results would be skewed simply based on lifespan and general health and well-being. Only recently have we begun to live, and live relatively comfortably, past our 40's and 50's.

It's hard to tell without solid data, I've had a generalization in my head that people in the last 100 years or so have peaked in their 20's and 30's. This doesn't mean they don't gain more experience and use that in their career to further themselves, but their ability to look at things as deeply as possible and process information happens at their peak in their 20's. I wish I knew more about all this and knew all the proper terminology, this is some interesting stuff.

Well, considering that the frontal lobes don't fully develop until the late-teens/early-20's, I'd definitely agree that a person's full potential for insightful, critical thought isn't reached until at least that time.

Although with the way things seem to be going, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the 20's-30's productivity peak--should it actually exist--began shifting into the 30's and 40's over the next few decades.

However, a big part this would also be related to how you actually defined "productivity."

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Anyone else think that article is mostly pseudoscience nonsense? And a bit sexist as well.

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.

The author speaks as though men are the only ones who are capable of these things.

Women have done all of the things mentioned in this paragraph. Were they all just confused as to what their gender role is?

Women are extremely interested in gaining and maintaining higher social status

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: alien42
"the human pupil dilates when an individual is exposed to something that she likes. For instance, the pupils of women and infants (but not men) spontaneously dilate when they see babies. Pupil dilation is an honest indicator of interest and attraction."

i have never heard that before.

sure you have, that is what "wide eyed" means.

Also bases of the Android test in Bladerunner or if you will the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Anyone else think that article is mostly pseudoscience nonsense? And a bit sexist as well.

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.

The author speaks as though men are the only ones who are capable of these things.

Women have done all of the things mentioned in this paragraph. Were they all just confused as to what their gender role is?

Women doing these things are the exception rather than the norm. Every rule has an exception.

 

[CPA]

After reading this, it's obvious there is only one conclusion to most maladies of the world: it's all woman's fault!

 

[Mucho]

Most suicide bombers are Muslim

I don't know about this one, it was the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka who perfected suicide bombing and they are Hindus.

 

[bignateyk]

Originally posted by: Pandamonium
I read the intro and skimmed through the points; it was trash.

Off the top of my head:

1) Biology doesn't define behavior. We don't even understand how most of our enzymes spontaneously fold themselves. Who is any scientist to draw lines between biology and behavior?
2) Correlation is a statistical tool. It is not proof of anything. (See argument for primate mating size) Causation is what we care about, and this article offers no evidence for causation.
3) This one's good. See point 10, where they write about how men are interested in short term sex more than women are. There's good reasoning behind why that might be evolutionary, but what kills me is how they prove that men want sex more. Read it for yourself.

LOL. Not much point in reading what you have to say after that comment. Ever heard of nature vs. nurture? There is tremendous eveidence to support that our behavior is equally influenced by our biology and our society.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Yes, it's called a generalization, upon which the entire article is based.

IMO that's the very thing that kills the credibility of the article. It's like someone looked at certain facts about human beings and thought "Why are things like this"? After they came to a conclusion they simply stated that conclusion as fact. Consider a statement from the article:

Men also have a universal preference for women with a low waist-to-hip ratio. They are healthier and more fertile than other women; they have an easier time conceiving a child and do so at earlier ages because they have larger amounts of essential reproductive hormones. Thus men are unconsciously seeking healthier and more fertile women when they seek women with small waists.

As mentioned before, this statement makes sense, but lots of things make sense on the surface. From simple observation and no structured mathematical proofs or prior knowledge it would still make sense to think that the sun and the entire universe revolves around the earth rather than what we know to be true today.

It's like looking at an egg when you have never seen one before and trying to guess at what kind of machine made it. Something so uniform and smooth and flawless must have been made by a machine right? I'm sure you could come up with any number of elaborate answers to the puzzle, but you'd always be wrong because you were barking up the wrong tree to start with.

Admittedly we know much more about animal behavior than we do the hypothetical egg, but the point stands on a basic level. The author makes leaps in logic that are not warranted by the observations that he cites, furthermore he presents those leaps as undoubted truisms.

 

[FoBoT]

psychology has nothing to do with science, it is all made up stuff

 

[jjzelinski]

Blah, blah, blah... seems as if much of this thread is composed of people taking umbrage at the thought of humans being far less noble and "deification" worthy as some would hope.

 

[imported_Baloo]

slithery, read the artical again, more carefully. You've missed it completely.

 

[Compton]

Originally posted by: dug777
Seems like a lot of horse-sh1t.

I couldn't have said it better.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: Compton

Originally posted by: dug777
Seems like a lot of horse-sh1t.

I couldn't have said it better.

Thirded.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Yes, it's called a generalization, upon which the entire article is based.

IMO that's the very thing that kills the credibility of the article. It's like someone looked at certain facts about human beings and thought "Why are things like this"? After they came to a conclusion they simply stated that conclusion as fact. Consider a statement from the article:

Men also have a universal preference for women with a low waist-to-hip ratio. They are healthier and more fertile than other women; they have an easier time conceiving a child and do so at earlier ages because they have larger amounts of essential reproductive hormones. Thus men are unconsciously seeking healthier and more fertile women when they seek women with small waists.

As mentioned before, this statement makes sense, but lots of things make sense on the surface. From simple observation and no structured mathematical proofs or prior knowledge it would still make sense to think that the sun and the entire universe revolves around the earth rather than what we know to be true today.

It's like looking at an egg when you have never seen one before and trying to guess at what kind of machine made it. Something so uniform and smooth and flawless must have been made by a machine right? I'm sure you could come up with any number of elaborate answers to the puzzle, but you'd always be wrong because you were barking up the wrong tree to start with.

Admittedly we know much more about animal behavior than we do the hypothetical egg, but the point stands on a basic level. The author makes leaps in logic that are not warranted by the observations that he cites, furthermore he presents those leaps as undoubted truisms.

we know a lot more about evolution and genetics than ancient people knew about the sun and the earth. the conclusions and strategies the author listed are not new, they are in many other books with relation to evolution or evolutionary psychology and have evidence in studies and in the exploration of strategies used by other animals in nature which can be quite different or quite similar. but the strategies are there and they follow a simple rule, the goal is the pass on the genes,the genes must live on to win.

scientists aren't starting with the profound ignorance you seem to be imply when talking about such things. its more akin to scientists making the claim that the earth does revolve around the sun after viewing many other solar systems through telescopes. already knowing the general order of things they can then surmise about another with reasonable accuracy. your comparisons are flawed.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: Compton

Originally posted by: dug777
Seems like a lot of horse-sh1t.

I couldn't have said it better.

Thirded.

actually you can say it better, which part and why?
or are you unable to.

 

[Sahakiel]

Judging solely on earlier posts and a short read of the article linked, I get the feeling some posters need to learn the concept of "lay article."