|
On April 12 2015 07:17 excitedBear wrote:Saying that humans have overcome all biology and can operate on purely cultural terms is just as ridiculous as saying that all humans still operate like apes. The truth is probably somewhere in between, in that some behaviors were imprinted after 1000s of years of evolution and cannot be completely overridden by 'culture' and therefore still come to the surface. This may not be apparent on an individual level, but may present itself on the level of the population. Differences in male and female sexual preferences are real as the study above shows. Females value status while males value attractiveness when choosing mates (also see Human Mating Strategies). The question is how in our culture the display of innate behaviors like male competition is affected/modified.
This is such backwards thinking its an insult to the male gender.
Individual actions correlating to statistical phenomena does not mean the individual actions act in reference to the statistical phenomena.
We live in a culture that tells men to value attractiveness above all. So when we make a scientific study, it will be tainted with the cultural bias of the population being studied and hence does not inform us objectively anything about the behavior of the population assuming the absence of that culture. To make assumptions that biological processes informs the culture and not the other way around is a complete fabrication without evidence. Unless we have a 100% non-cultured subject to test we will not be able to say one way or the other whether "animalistic" human biology overrides or is overridden by culture.
Which is the problem with evolutionary psychologists. They get all freud about the most random shit as a way to validate how they feel men should be allowed to treat women. Its outright barbaric.
|
it's not affected nor modified; just suppressed/inhibited based on culture .
Edit:To make assumptions that biological processes informs the culture and not the other way around is a complete fabrication without evidence.
psychopaths can do that. they can read the bio processes disregarding the culture.
|
Social status is already the basis for mate selection in most other social mammals. The mate selection is biased toward the pack leader, but the struggle for dominance in the pack is not a strictly sexual behaviour. Males struggle for dominance amongst themselves to be the leader; getting the most females is a side effect. In some species, the competition is fierce enough to deny females the possibility of a choice (lions/gorillas where the pack only contains a single adult male).
Cultural elements in the choice of mate is rarer, but has been seen in chimps.
Main biological difference in humans is the hidden ovulation and the fact that females are sexually active all year long and not specifically for reproductive purposes. This creates separate behaviours for short time and long time mating. Cultural factors on long term mate selection clearly outweigh biological ones. On short term selection ... depends on the alcool available I guess.
Biologically, the closest species would be bonobos, with multiple males allowed in packs, complex social structures and split male/female social dominance. The fact that females get up to 8 different males during oestrus makes the "mate selection" a difficult notion. Most human females show more restreint than that even when given the opportunity.
Another point that makes us human is that even if a male clearly dominates all others, a female can still make the choice not to select one at all.
(luckily for our survival, it is not systematic either)
|
On April 12 2015 07:17 excitedBear wrote:
Saying that humans have overcome all biology and can operate on purely cultural terms is just as ridiculous as saying that all humans still operate like apes.
The truth is probably somewhere in between, in that some behaviors were imprinted after 1000s of years of evolution and cannot be completely overridden by 'culture' and therefore still come to the surface. This may not be apparent on an individual level, but may present itself on the level of the population.
Not what I said, and looks like a generic response to an expected answer. Yes, there are biological differences between men and women. They come to mean less and less as a society becomes less advanced.
On April 12 2015 07:17 excitedBear wrote:Differences in male and female sexual preferences are real as the study above shows. Females value status while males value attractiveness when choosing mates (also see Human Mating Strategies). The question is how in our culture the display of innate behaviors like male competition is affected/modified.
Yeah, statistical averages mean nothing when applied to individuals. Sure, lots of women care about their partners status. Lots of men care about their partners looks (attractiveness is the wrong term here). But lots of men are very status-conscious too. Lots of women are very into looks. And the scale is a hell of a lot more complicated than that, or even than an expanded version. The usual idea here is that women want stability, earning potential, and status. But there's a lot of other things you can find attractive than this.
And in an advanced society, there's less to worry about with things like "will we starve?" I'm consciously going into a low-income, not all to terribly high status (anymore) profession despite having plentiful other options because I want to help people and feel a sense of calling. My girlfriend knew this and selected me over other options at our elite school, despite knowing most of our friends were going to make a great deal more money. Why? She digs the sense of mission and drive. Where the fuck is that on your scale? Where's the fact that I picked her in part because she's really witty? Where's the part where people like other people because of similar interests?
Hell, as the most fundamental objection to the "male-competition" theory, do you really think men are so incapable of choosing one woman among multiple options? Are they slaves to their sexuality to that extent?
|
Those individual differences can easily be explained as follows:
Only the 'fittest' females will get access to the 'fittest' males.
(Mind that fitness is a complex concept that incorporates a number of cues)
If a female is given the choice between a less fitter male and no mating at all, she will still go for the less fitter male.
The same is true for the males.
However, since the female does carry most of the weight of 'parental investment' (ovulation, 9 months of carriage), "male competition" is by definition distinctive from "female competition".
The females can afford to choose between the best males. In doing so they compete with other females.
Saying that this does not exist in humans is like saying humans are exempt from sexual selection.
It is a simple inductive step to conclude from the prominence of sexual selection in the animal kingdom and phylogenetic nature of biological traits that the same exists in humans. If someone claims that culture overrides all sexual selection, the burden of proof is on him.
Now we can discuss how the nature of this male competition changes once men increase their parental investment in our society.
We know for example some birds where males take over parental care. As a result, females compete with each other for male suitors. So it would seem that parental investment is the defining factor for sexual selection.
|
On April 12 2015 10:19 excitedBear wrote:
Those individual differences can easily be explained as follows:
Only the 'fittest' females will get access to the 'fittest' males.
(Mind that fitness is a complex concept that incorporates a number of cues)
If a female is given the choice between a less fitter male and no mating at all, she will still go for the less fitter male.
The same is true for the males.
However, since the female does carry most of the weight of 'parental investment' (ovulation, 9 months of carriage), "male competition" is by definition distinctive from "female competition".
The females can afford to choose between the best males. In doing so they compete with other females.
Saying that this does not exist in humans is like saying humans are exempt from sexual selection.
It is a simple inductive step to conclude from the prominence of sexual selection in the animal kingdom and phylogenetic nature of biological traits that the same exists in humans. If someone claims that culture overrides all sexual selection, the burden of proof is on him.
Now we can discuss how the nature of this male competition changes once men increase their parental investment in our society.
We know for example some birds where males take over parental care. As a result, females compete with each other for male suitors. So it would seem that parental investment is the defining factor for sexual selection.
I'm sorry, so you're saying that in culturally egalitarian societies, where men and women share care of child, this difference will vanish and also that women will in fact compete for men in lots of situations? I think we're on the same page.
My real objection is to the notion that there is a single dimension of "fitness" that all men or women respond to. Some guys like big butts. Some don't. Is big butts a positive fitness value? Kinda depends.
|
On April 12 2015 01:37 excitedBear wrote:Here is my question: 'Male competition' is an aspect of courtship behavior in the majority of animal species. Females usually have to choose the best male among competing males for reproduction (See Sexual selection). Do you think that 'male competition' is an innate human behavior or can culture override this behavior? In our modern world where gender equality has been established, do men still compete against each other for women?
Is it innate? Yes, ofc. Do you need to ask? 
Can culture override it? Yes, ofc, at least to some extent. Just look at different cultures, and see how it is much more prevalent in some than in others. Just comparing within western Europe, I see a huge difference between Sweden and Italy in this. I don't think anyone will claim that this difference is genetic.
Gender equality is far from being established in the modern world.
And yes, ofc men still compete for (the attractive) women. To some extent, and in some cultures more than others, women compete for (the attractive) men as well. These days, the competition is mostly not a matter of physical fighting, but more of courting and grabbing the attention of the women (man).
|
On April 12 2015 10:43 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2015 10:19 excitedBear wrote:
Those individual differences can easily be explained as follows:
Only the 'fittest' females will get access to the 'fittest' males.
(Mind that fitness is a complex concept that incorporates a number of cues)
If a female is given the choice between a less fitter male and no mating at all, she will still go for the less fitter male.
The same is true for the males.
However, since the female does carry most of the weight of 'parental investment' (ovulation, 9 months of carriage), "male competition" is by definition distinctive from "female competition".
The females can afford to choose between the best males. In doing so they compete with other females.
Saying that this does not exist in humans is like saying humans are exempt from sexual selection.
It is a simple inductive step to conclude from the prominence of sexual selection in the animal kingdom and phylogenetic nature of biological traits that the same exists in humans. If someone claims that culture overrides all sexual selection, the burden of proof is on him.
Now we can discuss how the nature of this male competition changes once men increase their parental investment in our society.
We know for example some birds where males take over parental care. As a result, females compete with each other for male suitors. So it would seem that parental investment is the defining factor for sexual selection. I'm sorry, so you're saying that in culturally egalitarian societies, where men and women share care of child, this difference will vanish and also that women will in fact compete for men in lots of situations? I think we're on the same page. My real objection is to the notion that there is a single dimension of "fitness" that all men or women respond to. Some guys like big butts. Some don't. Is big butts a positive fitness value? Kinda depends.
Also assumes a binary sexual preference.
Do lesbians compete with men for women's attention?
Do gays compete with men for men's attention?
What about post operations individuals? Do they just not have enough/too much testosterone/estrogen?
Its a very old-world western-christian ideal that assumes the absence of non-masculine ideals in courtship. For example, assuming that courtship is Male chasing Female and not a collaborative work between male and female.
Evolutionary Psychology is something normally pushed by old fashion theists and misogynists for the most part.
|
On April 12 2015 10:43 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2015 10:19 excitedBear wrote:
Those individual differences can easily be explained as follows:
Only the 'fittest' females will get access to the 'fittest' males.
(Mind that fitness is a complex concept that incorporates a number of cues)
If a female is given the choice between a less fitter male and no mating at all, she will still go for the less fitter male.
The same is true for the males.
However, since the female does carry most of the weight of 'parental investment' (ovulation, 9 months of carriage), "male competition" is by definition distinctive from "female competition".
The females can afford to choose between the best males. In doing so they compete with other females.
Saying that this does not exist in humans is like saying humans are exempt from sexual selection.
It is a simple inductive step to conclude from the prominence of sexual selection in the animal kingdom and phylogenetic nature of biological traits that the same exists in humans. If someone claims that culture overrides all sexual selection, the burden of proof is on him.
Now we can discuss how the nature of this male competition changes once men increase their parental investment in our society.
We know for example some birds where males take over parental care. As a result, females compete with each other for male suitors. So it would seem that parental investment is the defining factor for sexual selection. I'm sorry, so you're saying that in culturally egalitarian societies, where men and women share care of child, this difference will vanish and also that women will in fact compete for men in lots of situations? I think we're on the same page.
Female competition and male competition are not exclusive. The models expect female competition to be more present when males have a larger role in parental care, whether it can be derived from a local cultural situation ... is an interesting field of study.
|
On April 12 2015 18:09 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2015 10:43 Yoav wrote:On April 12 2015 10:19 excitedBear wrote:
Those individual differences can easily be explained as follows:
Only the 'fittest' females will get access to the 'fittest' males.
(Mind that fitness is a complex concept that incorporates a number of cues)
If a female is given the choice between a less fitter male and no mating at all, she will still go for the less fitter male.
The same is true for the males.
However, since the female does carry most of the weight of 'parental investment' (ovulation, 9 months of carriage), "male competition" is by definition distinctive from "female competition".
The females can afford to choose between the best males. In doing so they compete with other females.
Saying that this does not exist in humans is like saying humans are exempt from sexual selection.
It is a simple inductive step to conclude from the prominence of sexual selection in the animal kingdom and phylogenetic nature of biological traits that the same exists in humans. If someone claims that culture overrides all sexual selection, the burden of proof is on him.
Now we can discuss how the nature of this male competition changes once men increase their parental investment in our society.
We know for example some birds where males take over parental care. As a result, females compete with each other for male suitors. So it would seem that parental investment is the defining factor for sexual selection. I'm sorry, so you're saying that in culturally egalitarian societies, where men and women share care of child, this difference will vanish and also that women will in fact compete for men in lots of situations? I think we're on the same page. Female competition and male competition are not exclusive. The models expect female competition to be more present when males have a larger role in parental care, whether it can be derived from a local cultural situation ... is an interesting field of study.
By that logic, competition is based purely on culture not biology. Especially if the models can conveniently be changed at will.
|
On April 13 2015 01:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2015 18:09 Oshuy wrote:On April 12 2015 10:43 Yoav wrote:
I'm sorry, so you're saying that in culturally egalitarian societies, where men and women share care of child, this difference will vanish and also that women will in fact compete for men in lots of situations? I think we're on the same page. Female competition and male competition are not exclusive. The models expect female competition to be more present when males have a larger role in parental care, whether it can be derived from a local cultural situation ... is an interesting field of study. By that logic, competition is based purely on culture not biology. Especially if the models can conveniently be changed at will.
How so ? Your model is the framework in which you work. It does not have to be changed unless your data contradicts it. And no, there is nothing to indicate that mate selection is based purely on culture. Cultural factors are part of the local fitness evaluation, of course, but biological ones cannot be denied.
(one such example, humans mostly desire sexual intercourse with other humans and there could not be a culture built otherwise)
|
On April 13 2015 05:44 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 01:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 12 2015 18:09 Oshuy wrote:On April 12 2015 10:43 Yoav wrote:
I'm sorry, so you're saying that in culturally egalitarian societies, where men and women share care of child, this difference will vanish and also that women will in fact compete for men in lots of situations? I think we're on the same page. Female competition and male competition are not exclusive. The models expect female competition to be more present when males have a larger role in parental care, whether it can be derived from a local cultural situation ... is an interesting field of study. By that logic, competition is based purely on culture not biology. Especially if the models can conveniently be changed at will. How so ? Your model is the framework in which you work. It does not have to be changed unless your data contradicts it. And no, there is nothing to indicate that mate selection is based purely on culture. Cultural factors are part of the local fitness evaluation, of course, but biological ones cannot be denied. (one such example, humans mostly desire sexual intercourse with other humans and there could not be a culture built otherwise)
You say
"The models expect female competition to be more present when males have a larger role in parental care"
That is a cultural practice, not biological. Which means the models only represent cultural practices, based on your logic. How humans take care of babies is not biological. Babies being born from women is biological, how they take care of them and who takes care of them is not biological.
Also, lots of humans fuck animals. It is mostly cultural restrictions preventing it from being practiced more often. Similar to how cultural factors prevented the open practice of homosexuality despite the fact that a percentage of the population desired it.
Your logic only makes sense if you only believe in a binary sexual identity.
|
On April 13 2015 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 05:44 Oshuy wrote:On April 13 2015 01:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 12 2015 18:09 Oshuy wrote:On April 12 2015 10:43 Yoav wrote:
I'm sorry, so you're saying that in culturally egalitarian societies, where men and women share care of child, this difference will vanish and also that women will in fact compete for men in lots of situations? I think we're on the same page. Female competition and male competition are not exclusive. The models expect female competition to be more present when males have a larger role in parental care, whether it can be derived from a local cultural situation ... is an interesting field of study. By that logic, competition is based purely on culture not biology. Especially if the models can conveniently be changed at will. How so ? Your model is the framework in which you work. It does not have to be changed unless your data contradicts it. And no, there is nothing to indicate that mate selection is based purely on culture. Cultural factors are part of the local fitness evaluation, of course, but biological ones cannot be denied. (one such example, humans mostly desire sexual intercourse with other humans and there could not be a culture built otherwise) You say "The models expect female competition to be more present when males have a larger role in parental care" That is a cultural practice, not biological. Which means the models only represent cultural practices, based on your logic. How humans take care of babies is not biological. Babies being born from women is biological, how they take care of them and who takes care of them is not biological. Also, lots of humans fuck animals. It is mostly cultural restrictions preventing it from being practiced more often. Similar to how cultural factors prevented the open practice of homosexuality despite the fact that a percentage of the population desired it. Your logic only makes sense if you only believe in a binary sexual identity.
Now you just don't make sense. Nice try, but end of conversation until you reconnect to reality.
|
Where do I buy this decanter in particular?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2jLU1tk.jpg)
|
On April 13 2015 10:10 Djzapz wrote:Where do I buy this decanter in particular?
Your grandma's garage sale.
|
On April 13 2015 23:12 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 10:10 Djzapz wrote:Where do I buy this decanter in particular? Your grandma's garage sale.
Probably the closest you'll get without more than a fuzzy picture.
|
On April 13 2015 23:48 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 23:12 Acrofales wrote:On April 13 2015 10:10 Djzapz wrote:Where do I buy this decanter in particular? Your grandma's garage sale. Probably the closest you'll get without more than a fuzzy picture.
Theoretically, he can also bring the picture to a glass blower and pay him for a one time custom job.
|
 damnit.
It's Tyrion's decanter!
|
As a followup question to my "which american accent I should check out?"-questions:
While I checke out a bunch of accents on youtube, I sometimes stumbled across some actor who does accent X/speaks language Y and noticed there is quite a lot of fuss about actors who speak multiple languages. Is this just part of the show or is being multilingual really an exception in the USA? I believe that it isnt, but I still feel like asking just to be sure, since it doesnt sound that bad if a educational system isnt focusing on foreign languages while the native language is speaken all over the world.
|
Being mulitingual is the exception here in the US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
