The review of psychological research concludes that men evolved to be aggressive towards ‘outsiders’, a tendency at the root of inter-tribal violence.I'm reminded of this oft-cited quote in the Manosphere:
It emerged through natural selection as a result of competition for mates, territory and status, and is seen in conflicts between nations as well as clashes involving rival gangs, football fans or religious groups, say the researchers.
In contrast, they add, women evolved to resolve conflicts peacefully. They are said to have been programmed by natural selection to ‘tend and befriend’ to protect their children.
‘We see similar behaviour in chimpanzees,’ said Prof van Vugt. ‘For example, the males continuously monitor the borders of their territory.
‘If a female from another group comes along, she may be persuaded to emigrate to his group. When a male strays too far, however, he is likely to be brutally beaten and possibly killed.’
Men created civilization to impress women.Some have criticized evo-psych for reducing man to an automaton. I don't disagree, but nonetheless this biological reductionism is undoubtedly true. We evolved just like any other animal and thus are privy to the same environmental pressures just as are butterflies and finches. But if we do accept this view, do we lose something intrinsically valuable about man and his "spiritual" transcendence?
Well, if I told the desire to play with a doe-eyed baby was merely the result of an evolutionary strategy to assure children were protected by their elders - would it make the baby any less cute? Would you not feel the same sort of ethereal connection to that baby? Explaining social experiences in rational terms does not undermine the complicated neurological states we undergo; it may take away some of the mystery, but the potency remains.
102 comments:
"women evolved to resolve conflicts peacefully."
1) not with other women.
2) women don't resolve shit. Women have cunts, which makes them more useful alive than dead.
men go to war for a lot of reasons. Protecting your home and loved ones are two. But so is to prove yourself, family tradition, honor, excitement and a whole host of other reasons egg heads and the uninitiated would not comprehend.
I keep signing up to go back and I don't fully understand why.Mostly I chalk it up to something God made me for.
Evo-psych is shreds of truth woven together into a narrative that bears only the slightest resemblance to empirical science. That so many people blindly buy into it these days says more about the collective pessimistic mentality than it does about the nature of complex phenomena like warfare.
I don't believe anything which psychologists say, so I'm not about to believe this.
Why do men go to war?
Because we're fuckin' told to!
Or because we have to.
You think men LIKE war?! You think we LIKE risking our lives for some stupid macho testeronic bullshit?!
This study is an epic fail.
"You think men LIKE war?! You think we LIKE risking our lives for some stupid macho testeronic bullshit?!"
At 48? not so much. At 17? hell yeah!!!
This study is flawed because it couches very unfeminist evol-psych conclusions in feminist-friendly language.
I guess similar to how Copernicus presented his heliocentric theory as just a conceptual model for measuring the movement of planets, not an actual representation of the solar system. Every ruling class of every era has its Nancy Hopkins.
This study is flawed because it couches very unfeminist evol-psych conclusions in feminist-friendly language.
You're kind of stupid. There is nothing unfeminist about their "conclusions".
As (groups of) men compete over (groups of) women, both WN and MRA are dead-ends. MRAs will never be able to recruit a lot of Men of Color, and WNs will never be able to recruit a lot of White Women.
Starting polygynous, patrilinear cults seems reasonable in comparison.
Women resolve conflicts peacefully? Sounds kind of, shall we say, "culturally constrained"....
Let's just put it this way: the worst fights you will see on a school campus are between black girls. And I mean worse BY FAR.
One is using this study to affirm his "unbearable lightness of being" schtick. But the study is not true. Like most evo-psych, it is complete fantasy.
The conclusions of evol-psych are very much at odds with feminism. This particular study presents them in feminist-friendly language.
Interesting blog:
The Lost Art of Self-Preservation (for Women)
http://grerp.blogspot.com/
If you were born female in the mid-1960's or later, you were probably fed all sorts of erroneous information about how life works, what women deserve, what men want, and what the future will be like. Here's some actually useful advice to help you survive in this increasingly chaotic post-Sexual Revolution world.
The Truth
Life isn't fair. Being alive doesn't entitle you to anything. Women are ensuring their own downfall with their selfish behavior and short-term outlook. Men are bigger than women, stronger than women, and more violent than women. For the past half century our legal system has acted outside their interests, and men have taken the vast share of economic hits in this most recent "recession." A backlash is coming. The pendulum is starting to swing back. What are you going to do to prepare for it?
When I had my first child. I remember my aunt telling me to really work at making friends with other mothers, host playmates, etc. for my son's benefit. Well liked mom often have well liked kids.
ZorroPrima,
I think high T boys and men do like the competition. Just like feminine women love beautifying themselves and decorating their houses. That's why when women complain about the effort they have to put in to be attractive, don't worry about it, many of them enjoy doing it.
Men did create civilization to impress women. Why else would they have?
The conclusions of evol-psych are very much at odds with feminism.
Which particular conclusion of this "study" is at odds with feminism?
Most of what young women do is for the purpose of being attractive to men. They might be getting mixed signals on what exactly men find attractive. I remember my mom telling me to do better in school, because high quality men don't want a dumb wife.
Men did create civilization to impress women. Why else would they have?
Yes, I'm sure that Newton, Gauss, Einstein etc did what they did just to impress women! Why else would they do it?
Simple explanations for the way the world works are always dumb ones.
Tend and befriend? Palin's mama bear schtick wouldn't have made any sense if it were so.
Or consider the stories about how queens would try to poison other women's children so that their own could be the rulers.
Reading it up on wiki, it says the effect is of females seeking out their peers, social group to bond in times of stress. The hormone being responsible oxytocin, which might be a hormone of clannishness.
And if so, women will be more hostile to the out-group, though unlike men they can't/won't display this outright.
The same was mentioned in Baumeister's paper "Is there anything good about men?" where men were said to have shallower but broader networks than women.
And that men help strangers more than women, and also pick up more fights with them than women.
@ Q
Are you saying that men don't have an instinct to achieve? I find it really hard to believe that anyone who steps back and looks at the broad sweep of history could deny that.
So, what is the source of that instinct? Why do men have it and women lack it?
Also, anything, ANYTHING demonstrates innate differences between men and women is inherently anti feminist.
"Men did create civilization to impress women. Why else would they have?"
While I think there is some truth in the little statement, it is pretty dang funny to see female reasoning on the topic: It's all about me!
Females are notorious for seeing the world in terms of themselves. So this spontaneous example of it cracks me up.
No offense to Lara. I actually like many of her comments. I am female myself, and hey, we need to laugh at ourselves!
Good comment, stonelifter. In a letter to my son when he was away at Basic/AIT, I noted the difference between the classic concept of happiness and the modern substitution of pleasure, when what most are looking for is "intensity of experience." To elaborate a bit, the Founders intended for capitalism untrammeled by the government, but having its excesses and defects corrected by a virtuous, civic-minded people in what they meant by the "pursuit of happiness." This, to both the Founders and Christians of the time, meant a life of virtue, hard work, charity, and other Christian morals christened the "protestant ethic" by Max Weber and now considered so old fashioned.
Many now mistakenly think they want happiness (i.e. today's term for pure pleasure) when what they crave is "intensity of experience." This can be found in moments of pure pleasure or thrill or through extreme physical exertion, but also through applying oneself, fully-focused at the time, to what one is doing/learning. Some carry the search for intensity too far (always looking for the next thrill) and get killed, while ignoring and leaving behind the family and the quotidian that they never took happiness in.
I then concluded (in my letter) that was why the military was such a good fit for him and others like him. It provides an accepted and structured outlet for "intensity of experience" that can't be gotten in many other ways sanctioned by today's society, while also practicing those Christian and civic virtues (patriotism, service to country and others, etc.).
Maybe that's why you keep signing up to go back? Or maybe I'm full of crap . . . whatever, I'm just speculating!
@ Justin
Learn to use simple terms properly. The term "fantasy", today, usually means some desirable experience that one cannot possibly have. The root is the same as fantastic and fantastical, which just means something that is beyond belief without any positive connotations.
All the researchers are claiming is that dudes fight over chicks and that's pretty damn mundane.
By implication, you must be saying that all evolutionary theory is fantastical, since ev psy is just an attempt to apply the model to behaviors.
Something can be wrong without being fantastical.
Women survive armed conflict / invasion by putting their ankles behind their ears. Not the most pleasant way to live but better than fighting and dying like the men.
I don't think men consciously do everything to impress women, I just think the male sex drive is often the driving force. As far as the really smart scientist you were referring to, I'm sure there were also very interested in that field of study.
@ Lara
Men, very apparently, have an instinct to achieve that women, clearly do no, on average. When you see such disparities between the sexes it is the result of sexual selection. The fact that the drive to achieve isn't always directly about acquiring sex doesn't change its origins, which is sexual selection.
So, human behavior always plays out in a social context. And when you have social prompting to do things like achieve in science this appropriates the achievement instinct that results from eons of sexual selection.
Just another thought. Feminism is just one aspect of the autonomy project, where the only *good* is that which is freely chosen. Anything that establishes innateness as influencing every aspect of behavior undermines the autonomy project.
"Let's just put it this way: the worst fights you will see on a school campus are between black girls. And I mean worse BY FAR."
i think the study was likely about human females
"women evolved to resolve conflicts peacefully."
women don't resolve conflicts peacefully. however nor do they resort to violence. they get men to do it for them.
"Let's just put it this way: the worst fights you will see on a school campus are between black girls. And I mean worse BY FAR."
That is something I learned upon taking my public-school district administrative position three years ago. It was a surprise, but to this day I find it to be overwhelmingly if still anecdotally true: eight out of ten fights I see, hear about or have to preside over administratively, involve pairs of black females ----- about 50-50% in terms of the pairs being in h.s. or in the later K-8 grades.
I have no clear idea why that is so? But among the typical teen enmities that exist among adolescents along race and gender lines, antipathies between black teen or late-preteen girls are clearly the most explosive and quick to explode.
Also, the bad blood seems to linger much, much longer than it typicalliy would among pairs of fighting male teens.
Are you saying that men don't have an instinct to achieve?
Are you saying that the Jets will win the Super Bowl?
That makes as much sense as you asking me "Are you saying that men don't have an instinct to achieve" when I have not said anything of the fucking sort. I said that not everything which men do is done to impress women. Your brain must be miswired to get "men don't have an instinct to achieve" out of that.
Reading comprehension, people. Reading comprehension.
No, we don't lose anything, any more than the Mona Lisa loses something when you do a chemical analysis of the paint.
Rex May (the sentimental Darwinist)
@Q
I said that not everything which men do is done to impress women.
Not sure what "reading comprehension" means in your neck of the woods. The instinct to achieve in man, as I pointed out, does not exist in women. When you get large variances in traits between men and women the source is almost exclusively sexual selection. So ...
A) That instinct to achieve IS the product of sexual selection - historically, men who did not impress women failed to pass on their genes.
B) At any particular point, no particular undertaking a man does is to impress women. But, it is a legacy of the process of sexual selection.
I would blame reading comprehension ... but I suspect the real problem is your rigid ideological blinders.
I also note that you fail to address my point that evo psych is antifeminist, as it posits that behavior is, to some extent, hardwired. This is anathema to feminism. Just more evidence of your intellectual rigidity.
Let me put it another way.
Many, maybe most, male undertakings are not done with the INTENT to impress females.
But the function of the instinct has mainly involved this.
I suspect that you are laboring under the delusion that every action is the product of intent in the world. Humans often see purpose where there is none.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-OfRXIV7Rg&feature=related
GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN!
Not sure what "reading comprehension" means in your neck of the woods.
Great. Now you don't comprehend the phrase "reading comprehension".
The instinct to achieve in man, as I pointed out, does not exist in women.
Which has what, exactly, to do with anything I said?
If I say "X" you can agree or disagree with "X". But don't completely ignore "X", give me a long-winded lecture on "Y", and pat yourself on the back for your cleverness.
I would blame reading comprehension ... but I suspect the real problem is your rigid ideological blinders.
You are carrying on a long conversation with yourself while suffering from the peculiar misconception that your words are in some way applicable to me.
Nothing you are saying has anything to do with anything I am saying. Is that simple and clear enough for you? I can't make it any simpler or clearer.
I suspect that you are laboring under the delusion that every action is the product of intent in the world.
I suspect you have the IQ of a bowling ball. If you want to know what I think about some topic, ask me. Your "suspicions" merely reveal you to be addled.
I also note that you fail to address my point that evo psych is antifeminist
I note that you are under the odd impression that I am have an obligation to respond to every last thing you say.
evo psych is antifeminist, as it posits that behavior is, to some extent, hardwired.
Since I assume you are haranguing me because of my question to PA ("Which particular conclusion of this "study" is at odds with feminism?) I'll direct the question to you.
Which particular conclusion of this "study" is at odds with feminism?
I await your long-winded off-topic non-responsive response in which you tell me all sorts of things, with the exception of the one thing I asked you for.
historically, men who did not impress women failed to pass on their genes.
Historically speaking, you pathetic excuse for an amateur historian, whether women were "impressed" or not was completely irrelevant. What mattered where "passing on genes" were concerned was whether or not men were impressed. This remains the case in many parts of the world right down to the present day. You want to marry a woman in the Muslim world, you'll need the consent of her male relatives. This practice was the norm around the world right up until yesterday (in evolutionary terms).
@ Q
Okay, I take it back. Your problem is reading comprehension, as well as gross ignorance, which is not just understanding simple declaratory sentences. It also involves following arguments and assimilating new information during a conversation.
A) We're talking about selective pressures, and you clearly don't understand the topic. If you're talking about some topic on which you are ill-informed then it is incumbent on you to assimilate knowledge during the conversation. If you're talking about Topic X and topic X includes features A, B and C then you're talking about features A, B and C, too. The fact that you're not aware of features A, B and C is utterly irrelevant.
B) Feminism is a subset of what's called autonomy theory. Any theory that asserts the biological inherntcy of traits is, BY DEFINITION, antifeminist. That you do not realize this just indicates that you are ignorant of the intellectual framework of feminism. Since we're talking about feminism any mention you make is going to involve the autonomy project. That you are not aware that the autonomy project is at the center of feminism just means you are ignorant of the topic. That's not my problem.
@ Q
Okay, you say three different things that need to be addressed
If you want to know what I think about some topic, ask me. Your "suspicions" merely reveal you to be addled.
I'm not particularly interested in what you think of this conversation, because you are so grossly ignorant of them. I am correcting you so that your ridiculous positions do no infect anyone else. Not only are they ridiculous but they are dangerous, if widely held. You can think whatever you like, as long as no one else does.
Which particular conclusion of this "study" is at odds with feminism?
The study purports to find inherent differences between males and females, in behavioral traits. Since feminists, and all philosophical liberals, reject the biological inherency of behavioral traits this is, BY DEFINITION, antifeminist. Any study, no matter the finding, that concludes any biological inherency of traits is antifeminist.
The instinct to achieve in man, as I pointed out, does not exist in women ...Which has what, exactly, to do with anything I said? ... whether women were "impressed" or not was completely irrelevant.
Again, you're just demonstrating your gross ignorance of evolutionary selective pressures. It does matter to you emotionally. It mattered very much in terms of selective pressures. The gap in the achievement instinct between males and females is a product of evolutionary pressures. That you do not comprehend selective mechanisms just demonstrates your gross ignorance of the topic. You're talking about a subject from such a basis of gross ignorance that every single thing you say about it is wrong.
Men and women, clearly, have different instinctual bases for behavior. If you disagree with the premise that the source of those differences is sexual selection then it is your responsibility to come up with an alternative explanation.
Also, I'd point out that I've answered every single query of yours.
We're talking about selective pressures
Who the fuck is "we", asshole?
You are frantically anxious to talk about selective pressures. YOU. Not "we".
you clearly don't understand the topic
LOL
Any theory that asserts the biological inherntcy of traits is, BY DEFINITION, antifeminist.
Feminism believes that women are good and men are bad. Any theory which supports the contention that man are bad (read "aggressive") and women are good (read "peaceful") will be adapted by feminism. Exactly insofar as it helps them, and not one millimeter further.
You have some bizarre notion that feminists are going to be intellectually checkmated if they make the "mistake" of saying "See, this study found that men are war-like". But that notion just shows your own intellectual vacuity and general lack of understanding of how people tick.
Like everyone else in the world the feminists will adapt the findings of science when convenient, and reject them when inconvenient.
Your idea that they will now be compelled to accept "the biological inherntcy{sic} of traits" as YOU understand them is farcical. They already believed that men are biologically rotten. They did not need this "study" to tell them that men are more war-like than women.
I'd point out that I've answered every single query of yours.
Can you give the timestamp of the post where you answered the question "Which particular conclusion of this "study" is at odds with feminism?"
Because I just don't see it.
What I do see is exactly what I predicted from you - a long-winded off-topic non-responsive response in which you tell me all sorts of things, with the exception of the one thing I asked you for.
If you're talking about Topic X and topic X includes features A, B and C then you're talking about features A, B and C, too. The fact that you're not aware of features A, B and C is utterly irrelevant.
Blah blah yada yada.
Which particular conclusion of this "study" is at odds with feminism?
Don't tell me your theory of epistemology in response, and your other theory about how your theory of epistemology and feminism are incompatible.
Just tell me the conclusion which is at odds with feminism.
@ Q
Who the fuck is "we", asshole?
You are frantically anxious to talk about selective pressures. YOU. Not "we".
When you talk about behavioral traits you're talking about their evoluiionary history and development. If not, you're going to have to offer an alternative explanation for them. Which brings us to ...
Feminism believes that women are good and men are bad. Any theory which supports the contention that man are bad (read "aggressive") and women are good (read "peaceful") will be adapted by feminism.
The first sentence is true, but your conclusion does not follow. Feminists hold that men are bad, because men HAVE CHOSEN to be bad, and that men can only become good by unchoosing and rejecting their historic badness. If men are more aggressive and violent, by their nature, then they can't be held to be bad. What's frustrating is that you're buying into the feminist playbook by condemning what men do as bad.
You have some bizarre notion that feminists are going to be intellectually checkmated if they make the "mistake" of saying "See, this study found that men are war-like".
Not sure what you mean by this. Yes, feminists will never admit to being checkmated. All I care about is that the vast majority of people reject feminist policy prescriptions. The vast majority of non-feminists I know readily admit that males are inherently more aggressive and overtly violent than females and it doesn't lead them to think that men are any more bad thann women. Again, your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Your real, hidden premise is that aggression and violence are not inherently bad - in fact, nothing is inherently bad.
Feminists will be checkmated, they just won't know or accept it.
Like everyone else in the world the feminists will adapt the findings of science when convenient, and reject them when inconvenient.
Um, no. All autonomy theory rejects inherency. Any biological inherency is, BY DEFINITION, inconvenient to autonomy theorists.
Your idea that they will now be compelled to accept "the biological inherntcy{sic} of traits" as YOU understand them is farcical.
Lol, I don't care what feminists accept. I just care what everyone else accepts, and whether or not they advocate feminist policies.
They already believed that men are biologically rotten.
Lol, no they don't. They believe that men have freely chosen their evilness. The problem is with the concept of free will.
Can you give the timestamp of the post where you answered the question "Which particular conclusion of this "study" is at odds with feminism?"
Any theory that finds biological inherency in traits is, BY DEFINITION, antifeminist. Feminists hold that male aggression and badness is a result of free will. Men are not evil, because of their nature, that would be a contradiction in terms because something not chosen cannot be evil.
Your problem is that you don't understand the intellectual underpinnings of feminism, which is autonomy theory.
For the fifth time, any study, no matter what the conclusion, that includes biological inherency of behavioral traits is, BY DEFINITION, antifeminist. A study could find that all men are hardwired to beat all women to a bloody pulp and that would be an antifeminist study, since it implies biologial inherency.
I'm not particularly interested in what you think of this conversation, because you are so grossly ignorant of them.
What is "them" in that sentence? Is English your native language?
I am correcting you so that your ridiculous positions do no infect anyone else.
What "ridiculous positions" do you imagine I have, and on what basis do you imagine I have them?
"Which particular conclusion of this "study" is at odds with feminism?"
The study purports to find inherent differences between males and females, in behavioral traits.
You're a very deranged person. It's as if I asked "What is the capital of Finland?" and you angrily responded with "The sun is ninety three million miles from the Earth!"
Any study, no matter the finding, that concludes any biological inherency of traits is antifeminist.
Because feminists do not currently believe that men are biologically inferior? Is that what you're trying to say? If it is, you're a moron. Feminists most certainly do believe in the "biological inherency of traits". It's the core of their belief system.
Now, in some cases they are confused about what "biologically inherent traits" each sex has. In other cases they are correct about the traits, but they make the mistake, in my view, of assigning a high value to female traits and a low value to male ones. But that the traits exist is not something which feminists are unaware of.
Again, you're just demonstrating your gross ignorance of evolutionary selective pressures.
Again, you are simply skipping the whole process of making rational arguments and instead making an "argument from authority". Not only that, you are using yourself as the authority.
Saying "evolutionary selective pressures" over and over does constitute an argument.
That you do not comprehend selective mechanisms just demonstrates your gross ignorance of the topic. You're talking about a subject from such a basis of gross ignorance that every single thing you say about it is wrong.
Men and women, clearly, have different instinctual bases for behavior. If you disagree with the premise that the source of those differences is sexual selection then it is your responsibility to come up with an alternative explanation.
You are a very stupid person. None of the beliefs which you are trying to attribute to me are ones which I actually hold. I've been telling you this for hours now and it somehow never sinks in.
I take solace in the fact that "evolutionary selective pressures" make it probable that your genes do not have much of a future.
>Can you give the timestamp of the post where you answered the question "Which particular conclusion of this "study" is at odds with feminism?"
Any theory that finds biological inherency in traits is, BY DEFINITION, antifeminist.
That may perhaps be. Though I don't think it actually is. But set that aside for the moment.
"Any theory that finds biological inherency in traits is, BY DEFINITION, antifeminist" is not an answer to the question "Which particular conclusion of this "study" is at odds with feminism?"
Do you comprehend the difference, the distinction, between a "theory" and a "conclusion"?
Is English your native language?
Just as the sciences in times past were interpreted through the prism of religion (God's work, etc.), modern science is interpreted through the prism of political correctness.
In other words, just as scientists in the past could not question the existence of God, modern scientists cannot question the inherent awesomeness of "victim groups" (i.e., everyone but white males).
Political correctness has simply replaced Christianity as the west's leading religion.
Asher you give too much integrity to feminists.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/25/dangerous-masculinty-everyone-risk
"The culture of masculinity costs all too much to ignore
If men committed as little crime as women it would help pay for the deficit. They can change: testosterone need not mean violence"
The radfem hub of course don't couch it in statistics to make it look more palatable.
@ Q
Because feminists do not currently believe that men are biologically inferior? Is that what you're trying to say? If it is, you're a moron. Feminists most certainly do believe in the "biological inherency of traits". It's the core of their belief system.
No, they don't. They believe that collective male evil is the result of freely chosen actions. Your premise is simply incorrect.
You're a very deranged person. It's as if I asked "What is the capital of Finland?" and you angrily responded with "The sun is ninety three million miles from the Earth!" ... What "ridiculous positions" do you imagine I have, and on what basis do you imagine I have them? ...
It only looks that way to you because your core premises are incorrect, which I have pointed out numerous times.
You are a very stupid person. None of the beliefs which you are trying to attribute to me are ones which I actually hold. I've been telling you this for hours now and it somehow never sinks in.
No, you have one belief, which is that feminism is predicated on the inherent biological inferiority of men. This belief is 100 percent incorrect. Feminism if predicated on the freely chosen inferiority of men, as they see it. All your intellectual error flows from this fatally incorrect premise.
I take solace in the fact that "evolutionary selective pressures" make it probable that your genes do not have much of a future.
Desiring ill outcomes isn't exactly the mark of a charitably-spirited person.
Any theory that finds biological inherency in traits is, BY DEFINITION, antifeminist. ... That may perhaps be. Though I don't think it actually is. But set that aside for the moment.
You can't set aside the premise that makes all your conclusions fundamentally incorrect. The fundamental premise of feminism is that male evil is the body of freely chosen evil that has built up over millenia. That isn't just A premise of feminism but the ONLy fundamental premise of feminism. All other concepts in feminism spring from that one fundamental theorem. It would be like discussing theoretical physics and setting aside sub-atomic particles.
Do you comprehend the difference, the distinction, between a "theory" and a "conclusion"?
It's a practical distinction. You start with a theory. You test that theory. You come to a conclusion. That conclusion becomes a basis for a better theory.
Q:
Please stop dominating every single comment thread. Thank you.
what happened to my guardian 'testosterone is evil' and the earlier oxytocin comments?
@ Q
The fundamental theorem of feminism is that male badness is the combined history of freely evil males choices that have built up over millenia. They call this patriarchy. This is why feminists are always talking about awareness.
If they thought male inferiority were biological they'd be pushing to breed a better strain of male.
Your entire conversation here is infected with the fundamental error that feminism is predicated on the biological inferiority of males.
No Sheila, you've summed it up well.
The intensity of experience is a good way to put it. The success, the friendships, the accomplishments, the knowing you do what other men will not or could not.
@Prof. Woland
This only works when the enemy is polygynous. Compare Khaybar with the Holocaust. If Hitler were polygynous, the Jewish women would be spared.
This explains why many women, feminists in particular, side with Muslims against Christians.
The fundamental theorem of feminism is that male badness is the combined history of freely evil males choices that have built up over millenia.
Oh, shut up, you pompous and ignorant jackass.
Please stop dominating every single comment thread.
Thank you. \
Please grow a brain and some balls.
Thank you.
Ok, you got yourself another troll.
Reconsidering that Wrodpress or mod option?
men created civilization to impress women.
I’ve never thought that was the only reason men created civilization. Men also built it (and conquered other’s civilizations) step by step to impress other men, and to have power and influence and status over other men, and the wealth which flows from such things in hierarchical, large civilizations. Men like these things in and of themselves, as well as for its helping men to attract and continue to impress the most desirable women.
Yes it may be the reason why those human male instincts for amazing power, status and wealth came about (evolved) was because men who had them more attracted more desirable young, fertile and liable to remain in good health, early human babes, but that doesn’t mean those instincts for many men wanting power, status and wealth don’t independently exist.
evolutionary speculation "undoubtedly true." Serously?
"If Hitler were polygynous, the Jewish women would be spared."
Plenty of young, attractive Jewish women did survive the Holocaust. Jewish women do tend to be ethnocentric(not necessarily a bad thing), which may be why many of them were still seen as a threat.
The primary shortcoming of evo-psych is its inability to explain things like epiphanies, revelations, hallucinations OR self-annihilation. It can't explain these things because they are unique one-time phenomena whose causation will always be a fundamental aspect of the human behavior that necessarily follows. Evo-psych can only explain redundant, repeated and thus measureable phenomena. This is why evo-psych gives "life" a mechanical taint. In reality, there are higher "mechanics" at work when one NEEDS to explain not the redundant human behavior, but unique and mind-boggling human behavior.
For instance, evo-psych can't explain the individual who self-annihilates or the one who strives towards Supremacy.
I think its fair to say that evolutionary psychology is antifeminist because all science is antifeminist, being based, as it is, on observation and logic, both of which are completely rejected by feminist theory. A little thinking on that subject HERE by Ex-Army.
revelations, hallucinations OR self-annihilation. It can't explain these things because they are unique one-time phenomena whose causation will always be a fundamental aspect of the human behavior that necessarily follows. Evo-psych can only explain redundant, repeated and thus measureable phenomena. This is why evo-psych gives "life" a mechanical taint.
I just ate teriyaki pork. It was a unique, one-time experience. I will never be eating that same teriyaki pork, wearing the same clothes, in that same posture ever again. Not only that, but every single time anyone has ever eaten teriyaki pork they have had the same unique, ont-time experience, therefore, eating teriyaki pork cannot be measured and is not subject to rational analysis.
The only question that remains is whether eating teriyaki pork falls under the category of epiphany, hallucination, revelation OR self-annihilation. Being unable to do so would be an ...
abomination!!! hahaha
Anything that exists is measurable. My wife's mother is a paranoid schcizophrenic, and I assure you her hallucinations are measurable.
Another way to witness the shortcomings of evo-psych is
on the question of "conception." Almost to a tee, if you asked an adherent of evo-psych at what point does uniquie human life begin, he will almost invariably say EVERYWHERE except at "conception." Again, the evo-psych adherent knows how to explain "reproduction," but he is at a loss to explain "conception." He literally CAN'T SAY that UNIQUE human life begins at conception. And he must stay at a loss if evo-psych is to stay atop as his exclusive way to "see" the world.
Asher,
The essence of quantum theory is that the universe is a perpetual series of infinitely unique ONE TIME material configurations. It is this understanding that allows for ANY REALITY based on some probability.
So yes, your every instance is a unique one time IMMEASUREABLE event, but you "eating pork" is a redundant, repeated and measurable event.
Ok, you got yourself another troll.
Reconsidering that Wrodpress or mod option?
Moderation is not an option. And switching over to Wordpress - I've put too much into the blog at Blogger to do that. Plus, Wordpress has absolutely no freedom on designing templates.
I could get Disqus, but I haven't looked into it yet.
@Lara
Your point Lara? Feeding exterminationists like Alex Linder and Kevin MacDonald?
http://awaitingtheprotectorate.blogspot.com/2011/06/was-there-islamic-genocide-of-hindus.html
"In antiquity, such partial genocide typically targeted the men for slaughter and the women and children for slavery or concubinage."
Kevin MacDonald is just an anti-semite, not an exterminationist. I've just noticed that a lot of Holocaust survivors were young women at the time. I'm sure their youth and good health was a big factor in being able to endure hardship. I also wonder if they did sometimes get special breaks because they were young women.
This study is soft science at best.
Assumption 1: Men are violent
Assumption 2: "Women evolved to resolve conflicts peacefully."
Assumption 3: Men's sex drive is bad.
Study: "in all cultures and throughout history, men have sought to get their way by initiating violence" [forget about trade, negotiations or cooperation - we've not talking about those men]
Conclusion: men's sex drive leads them to violence. Women are so nice, that, we need to let them run the world and lead until we can all sing kumbaya together and hug the cute babies they give us.
Don't confuse evolutionary anthropology with evolutionary psychology. Anthro departments are simply a way for Liberals to push their agenda and take over the minds of the young. Credentials at such departments are basically military ranks in an army built for mind warfare.
@ thordaddy
Things like epiphanies, revelations, human life, etc. are metaphysical mumbo jumbo. I don't think they're worth discussing, at all. I'm not sure why you hold it against people looking for testable knowledge for not discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Basically, since evo psych can't tell you how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ev psy isn't a real field of study.
I much prefer the clinical "homo sapien" to "human" and try as much as possible to avoid the latter.
@ cul de sac hero
Um, wrong on all counts. Men are more violent, that's not an assumption. The arguments are over the reasons for that reality. Not sure why you think violence is necessarily a bad thing, which is your assumption.
Women tended to be more concerned with intra-tribal relations and men inter-tribal ones. The two contexts require considerably different strategies.
Yawn... just your typical evidence-free question-begging storytelling extravaganza. Will evolution ever evolve beyond its 19th-century roots in the Great Chain of Being?
It's time for Darwinists to cut it out with the blithe storytelling and start showing their work: demonstrate base-pair by base-pair in DNA how the whozit evolved into the whatzit, or how the whatzat evolved its thingamajig.
Otherwise evolution remains, as it was in the 19th-century, nothing but an atheist creation myth based on the Great Chain of Being sans angels and God.
prawnster
Thordaddy said:
"Evo-psych can only explain redundant, repeated and thus measureable phenomena. This is why evo-psych gives 'life' a mechanical taint."
Sure, evolution explains anything you want. But evolution never demonstrates anything. Thus, it isn't science.
The explanations provided by evo, psych or otherwise, exist solely in people's imaginations or in computer graphic simulations (or, in the past, charcoal drawings). Fantasy and computer simulations are not observation and are not evidence.
But, like any other religion/faith, feel free to believe in evo-psych, because it is utterly unfalsifiable.
prawnster
@ prawnster
You seem to be equally contemptuous of both religion and the notion of evolution.
What's your explanation for the current array of life we see on this planet.
Oh, and science is simply the best available theory that fits the facts. Do you even have a theory?
@ prawnster
We see large-scale behavioral patterns over the course of long periods of time and in many different places. What is the source of those patterns? God? Free will? An alien experimment?
oneSTDV...
Interesting that this place is filled with anti Darwinist now.
How many Stndrd deviations to the left would they be? [sarc]
As for the conclusion "[chicks are peaceful]"... That would be the zeitgeist (feminism) speaking through the study.
Females have instincts to antagonize males. Ie Females are the root cause of the "competition" (incl war).
Eg female deer twitching tail, female lion wandering off territory, human female gossip, teasing/pirouetting*/complaining/boredom. And etc: all female behavior in all dimorphic species.
[*private joke]
These instincts to antagonize are created by modules. Out of all modules that have ever formed-- compelling females down all different paths--the antagonize/challenge/tease the males ones have simply been selected more often than others.
How?
...The sister who has a module that compels her to do things which prod the males into competition, breeds with a stronger-than-other male more often than a sister with other modules/compulsions.
Breeding with a strong male causes her own genes--eg the ones that generate the antagonize compulsion--to survive into the future more often.
Females are not self aware when they antagonize. Eg wimmins might just say "I'm attracted to this but not that, okay --you can't control what you're attracted to*, okay-- you misogynist?".
(*Nonsense distraction tactic/argument drift/female-missing-the-point demonstration.)
Males are also not self aware for their part. Eg males don't "build civi" to "impress females"; males don't do anything to impress females...
Males do things unwittingly, just like females. Out of all the possible things to do, the compulsions that get past other males and through the bottle neck of "female sexual value" have passed on more often.
...Organizing group vs group flanking attacks, tools, internal-group coup d eta intrigues, religion, art, civilization, lofty political and religious rhetoric about love and peace and being above nature (ie all the base status grab/reproduction techniques), space flight are symptoms of that battle through the bottleneck.
It is all there to "impress" females but not wittingly. It's all just "nervous twitching" that gets selected more often than other twitches.
...For a little while. (Ie in my estimation the neo cortex[the thing that causes man's specific twitichings] is becoming extinct as a group-defining trait. ...A couple of spots on some leopards here and there demonstrates that the leopards-- as a breed -- have indeed `changed their spots.)
-----
Females are not passive. Feminism fought to prove females are not passive for simple self empowerment reasons but feminism white washes and distracts from the implications: Females are catalysts for contingencies liberal culture / Christianity deems bad --eg violence, greed etc. The males who don't perform well in those categories will not breed: and importantly the human females WOULDN'T HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY. (Feminism also over simplifys/en-`passivizes male role; eg spins males as 2D wall paper of female-creature centered narrative.)
The study is pro feminism in the regard that it white-washes/ignores female "bads" but anti feminism in that it continues a general train of thought which feminists/liberals despise: humans as creatures of biology, objectively measurable. (Liberals/feminists and Christians are the same in that very relevant regard.)
-----
Go to my blogspot website and read; LEARN.
My brother told me about a study wherein men and women were told to simulate bombing raids. When they knew they were being watched, the women were gentler and tried to miss on purpose more often. But when it was done anonymously, the women were found to be more vicious than the men.
Evo-psych has its uses, but telling us why the white man is self-annihilating is not one of them. So in practical terms, it's essentially useless. But the reason evo-psych is so speechless on the question of why the white man is self-annihilating is because EVO-PSYCH is very much a facilitator in this self-annihilation. What does evo-psych say about the homosexual, the most self-evident and indisputable example of self-annihilation that one can see AS A PATTERN?
For the evo-psych minions, I have two questions.
When does unique human life begin? At conception or elsewhere?
and...
Does homsexuality EQUAL self-annihilation? If not, why not?
These questions will tell us more about WHY the evo-psych acolyte sees and believes what he believes he sees in "life."
Asher,
I was simply pointing out the bias in the study's premise. anthropologists usually start with a conclusion and interpret their findings a such.
First, they start out with a fallacy. Certainly men are more violent than women, but that does not mean that women are peaceful. Sure, women seek to resolve conflict peacefully - i.e. a tribal woman might want to have a contingency in case her tribe is taken over violently by another by giving the other tribe's members reason to believe they may have fathered some of her children.
Anthropology is a feminist pseudoscience. It's the contingency for when feminist studies finally revealed as a complete fallacy. When this happens, anthro will be bring out all of the studies that show that women are better than men anyways.
This is a branch of feminism
@ thordaddy
The question of "what is human life", by definition, cannot be answered scientifically. Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments for us. It would be like asking a physicist to provide a scientific answer for whether or not apples are better than oranges or whether or not God exists.
Questions like these are simply beyond the scope of science to answer, and any evo psych who claimed to have the answer is not acting in the role of a scientist.
It is a metaphysical not empirical question as "what is human life" cannot be tested.
Asher,
Let me translate...
Unique human life DOES NOT begin at conception or we can't really say that "it" does.
But like I said... Evo-psych gives us a LIMITED view on life. It only gives us a "mechanical" understanding. It can tell us about survival and reproduction but not about conception and self-annihilation.
Corvinus:
My brother told me about a study wherein men and women were told to simulate bombing raids...
Interesting. Can you provide us the name of the study so we can look it up?
"If they thought male inferiority were biological they'd be pushing to breed a better strain of male."
Which will get them termed as nazis. Rather just do away with men as Solanas says.
To say that society shapes us gives them power to change it, biological basis for differences between the sexes would have never led to the power grab and the ability to change/punish men's behavior to what they like.
http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2012/01/essentialism-and-constructivism-how.html
@ thordaddy
"human life" is in the category of metaphysics. I'm not much interested in metaphysics. Things like "revelation" or "epiphany" are also metaphysical, so, they're not very interesting.
Not sure what you mean by "self-annihilation". I'll assume you mean suicide. Humans hate excruciating pain and will end their lives, at some point, rather than endure more pain. Not sure how this is so mysterious to you.
Again, you are talking metaphysics, here. I don't find metaphysics very interesting. "Conception"? Also, metaphysical. Not very interesting.
@ cul de sac
*siiiighhhhhh*
No, the study finds what it finds. Maybe the reportage is biased, or you are biased toward the idea of "peaceful".
Any study that finds any biological inherency of behavioral traits is, BY DEFINITION, antifeminist, since feminism is premised on male evil being freely chosen, i.e. not biologically caused.
Sorry, you're just wrong.
Asher,
True, the Capital "F" feminists try to tell us that there is no biological difference between men and women. I believe that the proponents are either delusional or dishonest, because, it's so obviously a fallacy.
However, mainstream feminism, which is basically mainstream politics, is more subtle and soft on this issue. It waffles on the equal ability issue. "Women can do anything a man can do, " it says, "But on the other hand, women are more feeling than men so the world would be better off and more peaceful if they ran things." It's equally fallacious, but, disseminates more easily. It contradicts itself, but, that doesn't matter for the mainstream. It basically pedestallizes the female mind. This is the form that infests many scientific schools.
http://www.amazon.com/Female-Brain-Louann-Brizendine-M-D/dp/0767920090
The problem is, while the two heads of this hydra will fight each other, they both hate men. So, when you're fighting one, you fight the other.
Asher,
We aren't trying to find agreement. We already agree. Evo-psych has its uses, but telling us why the "white man" is self-annihilating is not one of them. And of course, there seems to be a link between "white man" self-annihilating and evo-psych's inability to say anything about "conception" either.
Imagine a discipline that asserts its knowledge about "life" being speechless about conception and self-annihilation? That's evo-psych.
Re "self-annihilation"
(One hears that all the time in the racist community.)
1)
Picture this:
Two men, both with holstered guns, are wrestling each other to the death on the sinking Titanic. [Allegory defined: the two men are liberal and conservative whites. (Try to keep up, will ya please [eye roll].)]
The most immediate thing to both men is holding on to the other guy's wrist so as to prevent him from grabbing his gun. That is more important than the _future_ tense concept that the ship is sinking LATER.
They also believe/hope that the sinking ship will swamp the other guy's position first.
2)
White men don't think they're "self annihilating." They're ignorant. Their cognitive dissonance in an assortment of categories and liberal propaganda monopoly keeps them that way. (That monoply will continue, so longs as the "conservatives" advocate the impossible nonsense about "freedom from state" and freedom of speech nonsense.)
--------
We can see both points one and two in you, yourself, thordaddy.
Take your [ilk's] anti abortion stance.
You don't process that keeping alive every runt that manages to worm its way out of a `hole is dangerous to your variation's long term thriving.
BUT keeping alive every variation guarantees the inundation of your cult's preeminence eventually.
All you know is liberals advocate abortion as it apparently empowers female infidelity and fickleness(things you instinctively feel or "know" can hurt you). Since you fight liberals as your immediate goal, stopping abortion is what you care about NOW not some abstract concept about your future "self annihilation" at the hands of all the freak variations you're keeping alive.
Cognitive dissonance --typical of your anti Darwinist ilk (and you specifically appear mentally ill which further polishes cog diss)-- keeps you from developing an abstract concept to an epiphany about the soundness of eugenics.
(All the NONSENSE about the '"rights" of the unborn' --and how "life cherishing" you are--is simply tactical on your part whether you know it or not.)
Same ignorance-of-furuter-abstract-in-favor-of-the here-and-now real-politk is true with liberals too: they aren't saying "gee all these Hispanics and Moslems aint just gonna fall for my propaganda trick of sappy horseshit the way the northern goy did for millenia; so I better put a stop to immigration and its pre req penumbra now." No. All they know is immigration policy is part of the big tent trick that helps them marginalize their acute enemy--norther goy-- here and now.
(Liberals are probably smart enough to catch on and will eventually try to 'stem the tide' once they believe their enemy's position has been inundated.)
Part two of the published "mail" article is the implied/unspoken old standard:
"females am more the peaceful --so theyba should be in the power now."
This develops off the bizarre utopian premise that "lions invent the bloodshed of the savannah" rather than the fact that the savanna simply selects for lion behavior [bloodshed].
Utopian bizarreness continues from the premise thusly:
"If we get rid of lions, there would be peace (since lions made it un peaceful)."
The intelligent know that getting rid of lions does nothing but cause the savanna to select for another champion who will perpetrate the same bloodshed. In the case of the modern African savanna, the apropos hyena will be ascendant. Apropos 'cause the hyena are female dominant.
The "bizarre utopianism" flourishes because of the anti-naturalism stubbornly placified nutjobs that make up the liberated feudal thralldom that is Europe's diaspora.
----------
Counter:
1)Human females will not remain peaceful if they get selected by leadership/dominance displays; the savanna/nature will select its champions to do what they must.
Note that the female dominant hives and hyena are not "peaceful".
2)wimmins (human females) appeared peaceful 'cause men _kept_ them unarmed/stunted. Fem hums were actually vicious terrors in the sergaglio--but they go under the radar of men who are focused on priority enemies: the other males looking to breed with "your" females.
Note most child abuse --not to mention the more complicated child "neglect"-- is fem parent.
Sean McClown,
If you believe your mother had an "inherent right" to kill you in utero then you are a self-annihilator. There is no need to go into all your future prognostications.
The question of whether blacks, Mexicans or jihadists embrace self-annihilation is an entirely different issue from WHY a "white boy" like you stands HAND AND HAND with the devout dyke and her radically liberal female allies in declaring Sean McClown's mother's "inherent right" to have killed him in utero AND then ignorantly or maliciously call this stance "feminism" (a "thing" ENTIRELY DEVOID of even a scintilla of the feminine)?
Inquiring minds want to know???
Sean McClown,
If both you and your "mother" agreed that she had the "inherent right" to kill you in utero AND IF SHE HAD done so she would have been exercising her "fundamental right" TO DO A GOOD THING, should either you or she have ANY SAY in the direction of our society?
Why should self-annihilators get any say in the direction of things when their CORE BELIEF is wholly destructive?
" MRAs will never be able to recruit a lot of Men of Color. . ."
I am aware of a great many "MRAs of color", so this statement doesn't map to reality very well.
Also, don't forget that MRAs are only one of many political tribes within the larger non-feminist uprising.
@ thordaddy
Jesus, man, you sound like a woman. Who said anything about inherent rights, at all?
Asher,
That's an interesting response. So the evo-psych advocate can't really tell us about conception and self-annihilation (as I predicted), but he can make conclusions about my "woman"-like response? How is my "woman"-like response any less "metaphysical" than conception or self-annihilation (two empirically-verified phenomena)?
Thordaddy's "woman like" response is that he built a strawman so as to avoid the argument actually made.
People shouldn't really talk to thordaddy.
Sean McClown,
Actually, I made the argument in the form of a prediction and the prediction is holding.
Evo-psych has LIMITED use. It can tell us that males fight over females, but it says NOTHING as to why the white man is self-annihilating and why the evo-psycho believes that unique human DOES NOT begin at conception.
Perhaps you can take a stab at it?
As far as I know, this self-initiated extinction is the first of its kind. This is why evo-psych is so self-evidently useless in our time. In many ways, it's a "discipline" that helps facilitate the white man's self-annihilation.
"You seem to be equally contemptuous of both religion and the notion of evolution.
What's your explanation for the current array of life we see on this planet.
Oh, and science is simply the best available theory that fits the facts. Do you even have a theory?"
Goddidit explains things just fine.
Above, I pointed out how evolution is a nonfalsifiable belief system, is metaphysics, assumes its truth and then interprets observable evidence via that assumption.
Interpretive metaphysical frameworks are not science, however. Science is the repeated observation of a phenomenon, leading to a thorough understanding of the phenomenen, allowing one to make novel predictions based, typically, on a mathematical equation or model.
In this regard, evolution utterly fails: it has never been observed, not even once; is typically defined in terms that make it unobservable; and since its progress is defined as random, then no novel, specific predictions about the future can be made, and no rigorous mathematical models nor equations are possible.
Thus, as I said before, evolution isn't science. And since evolution isn't science, it is a metaphysical belief system equal in irrationality to belief in Creation or the flying spaghetti monster or Vishnu.
OneSTDV referred to an evo-psych interpretation of people's behaviors as being rational. It is not, and it is not science.
But just as people choose to believe in fantastical beings to explain life, the universe, and everything, Darwinists are free to believe in a fantastical unobserved process to explain everything. It's just a matter of choosing which irrational belief system you prefer.
prawnster
@prawnster.
-----------
We see Natural Selection leading to so called 'micro evolution' (wolves to chuihuahua) happening all the time everyday. Why would anyone think Natural Selection is not the reason for so called macro evolution* (wolves and foxes _etc_) too? (*genetic speciation where the creatures can't 'recombine' genomes at the root chemical level.)
(Get the word 'evolution' --and all the strawmen with it-- out of your tiny redneck brain; "natural selection" is the key word/concept in all of this.)
How does 'godditit' theory have more evidence than science's 'natural selection' for explaining taxonomic diversity (ie speciation)?
So called macro evolution (genetic speciation) has been "observed" in "germs" and insects--ie quick breeders. (Quick breeding allows genetic change to accumulate quick enough that we can observe speciation on our human time scale.)
@throdaddy
As I explained in the posts that you ignored through your strawman about me 'granting wimmins "inherent rights" to abort me', white men don't think they are committing self annihilation". They think they are "sticking it to the man". (And they are being duped by 'alien "communist"[wink] who Are/were trying to systemically cull out white males and sure up their mote structure with ethnic and female allies.) Mass conformity(religion) and Stockholm Syndrome does the rest.
Also note that some people do commit suicide when covered in energy sapping parasites. Ie individuals think it is hopeless, cause it is. I have seen plenty of ill animals just give up and wait for death when ill.
Also Whiskey's "[white women are turned off by modern white male display [read: liberalism*] to the point of waiting for better man to settle for and make babies with]".
[*Democracy, liberalism, chivalry-to-falling-for-feminism: all the things that good conservative protestant white men --including race realists--hold dear as examples of the mighty white man and his achievements.]
-------
I don't know why you try to pin onus for explaining all thing[tm] on "evo psch" --it can barely explain properly the couple of things it does explore.
Evo psch generally does piss off feminists. But if it can't find support from the right it will make concessions to the left and the narrative will grow more and more twisted.
That is what has happened with all science in history: it starts out as ideas more equatable with the right(masculinity?, reason?) but then morphs over time to just another left-mouth piece CULT, 'cause it can't protect itself from the alliance of leftists and their cannon fodder Christians. (Christians are just conformist simple-minded leftists*.)
(*Conservatives by and large simply conform to the liberal revolution of 25 years prior [That revolution, 25 years later, is known as the "common wisdom".] That is the cycle of history over and over.
...It is like pulling a braying mule from tree to tree: the mule brays like it doesn't want to go, but it will come. Once tied to the new tree, it brays in the name of staying at that one--_even if you tried to drag it back to the previous tree it just brayed to stay at.)
Post a Comment