interesting article on human nature

[GQgeek]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...622-000002.xml

love #4,8,10

 

[dkzzzz]

I found 90% of it a complete, childish rubbish. They should publish "research" findings like these in Cosmopolitan.

 

[Gradstudent78]

2, Humans are naturally polygamous, is questionable. Yes most societies allow for polygyny, but the majority of men in most of those societies are not polygynous. More likely humans are naturally serialy monogamous, with some degree of polygamy.

Number one is questionable as well. Yes men like younger women and typically do like those with a certain waist/hip ratio. I'm not so convinced on the blue eye, blond hair, or even big breast part of it.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...622-000002.xml

love #4,8,10

Load of bullshit that mistakes cultural traits and even common wisdom and cliches for biological determination. I know it's not a scientific article but it should really be in Cosmopolitan, just before the article about star regimes and after the one on how to ******** that will make men go wild.

BTW I always wanted to work for those mags, after all you only need a repertory of about 10 articles and maybe 5 minutes each time you have to run a "new" one in (say switch the stars and products in your star makeup tricks).

 

[globetrotter]

we haven't evolved very much in the past 100,000 years, as much as we would like to believe it. trying to fight human nature, instead of trying to understand it is a mistake. we call each, as an individual, change our destiny. but human nature is human nature.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

we haven't evolved very much in the past 100,000 years, as much as we would like to believe it. trying to fight human nature, instead of trying to understand it is a mistake. we call each, as an individual, change our destiny. but human nature is human nature.

Maybe, but it's a generic philosphical statement that has nothing to do with this bad article and especially doesn't make the distinction between concepts such as "man in a state of nature" and inate caracteristics.

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Load of bullshit that mistakes cultural traits and even common wisdom and cliches for biological determination. I know it's not a scientific article but it should really be in Cosmopolitan, just before the article about star regimes and after the one on how to ******** that will make men go wild.

BTW I always wanted to work for those mags, after all you only need a repertory of about 10 articles and maybe 5 minutes each time you have to run a "new" one in (say switch the stars and products in your star makeup tricks).


I should have put amusing instead of interesting in the thread title although it should be evident by my remark under the link.

I've taken courses in evolutionary biology and more importantly behavioural ecology, so I have read a lot of research on mating strategies, fighting, and reproductive behaviour. I know what the real research looks like and am not trying to pass this off as hard science. As GS points out, some of it is really stretching, but other stuff is not so far-fetched. I'm not suggesting anyone take the article as proof of anything. I found it amusing more than anything else.

Generally speaking, it's an article written by psychologists (i'm assuming) writing outside their area of expertise, which is why their conclusions on polygyny vs. monagamy aren't quite correct imo. The reality is that often times weaker members of certain species find ways to trick females in to mating (fake rolexes

?), or else they find ways to piggy-back on the efforts of their stronger competitors. It's not a case of some getting all the females and others getting none.

For example, certain species of frogs attract females by their croaking. The louder and deeper, the bigger and more attractive the mate. The weaker males that can't croak as loud and deep position themselves between the male and female and attempt to intercept some of the females since they can't compete directly with the bigger male.

 

[globetrotter]

I read recently that 30% of bird matings are a result of **** - of a rejected male forcing himself on a female.

while this article may or may not be very well researched, I can't say. but I think that the results of scientific study of human nature will are sure to annoy some people.

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

I read recently that 30% of bird matings are a result of **** - of a rejected male forcing himself on a female.

while this article may or may not be very well researched, I can't say. but I think that the results of scientific study of human nature will are sure to annoy some people.

for sure, which is why I posted the article to a forum full of relatively well-off men.

I don't think you could say that 30% of all bird matings are a result of ****. Mating strategies, whether to be polygamous or monogamous, etc., varies widely by the ecology, which is why the study of this subject matter is called behavioural ecology.

Not all species of birds follow the same strategies. You have to look at each strategy within the context of their environment otherwise it's worthless. Everything comes it to play from population densities, to availability of food. You can't really make sweeping statements about birds in general.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

I read recently that 30% of bird matings are a result of **** - of a rejected male forcing himself on a female.

while this article may or may not be very well researched, I can't say. but I think that the results of scientific study of human nature will are sure to annoy some people.


There are lot of interesting studies and vulgarisation books concerning sociology and behaviorial/mating habits, which is what I assume you're interested in, I was just blasting this particular article and it's retread of tired common wisdom. By the way, it could be argued that **** is a social construct and only exists in societies where the idea of consent exist in a way or another, like human, some higher apes, dolphins and other smart critters (octopuses?, those are brainy and even playful).

 

[dusty]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

I read recently that 30% of bird matings are a result of **** - of a rejected male forcing himself on a female.

Damn

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

I read recently that 30% of bird matings are a result of **** - of a rejected male forcing himself on a female.

I'm just waiting for some poster from the UK to say that it means it's normal to **** a bird....

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

I'm just waiting for some poster from the UK to say that it means it's normal to **** a bird....

???

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

???

Bad joke about UK slang for girls (bird) that you're surely aware of. I wasn't trying to imply that they run around devastating birdcages or something of that nature.

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Bad joke about UK slang for girls (bird) that you're surely aware of. I wasn't trying to imply that they run around devastating birdcages or something of that nature.

doh. should have known that from the original alfie. his attitude actually wasn't so different.