tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post6231333660455506883..comments2024-03-02T02:26:00.928-05:00Comments on bleakonomy: Men are animals!tetracontadigonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04604381739383227553noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-91525716305576002672009-05-31T19:54:44.260-04:002009-05-31T19:54:44.260-04:00I answered your question about chimpanzees. Human...I answered your question about chimpanzees. Humans diverged from the ancestor of common and pigmy chimps about 4 million years before the common and pigmy chimps speciated. Ergo, we are equidistant from both species in an evolutionary sense. Dr. Diamond gives the background to this result in TTC.<br /><br />Two hints. Try the decaf, it is just as tasty. And verbing weirds language.Johnv2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-89002928572437615222009-05-30T19:19:41.324-04:002009-05-30T19:19:41.324-04:00oh and I just misspelled psychology myself in the ...oh and I just misspelled psychology myself in the first sentence. I do this because I know you are snotnosed enough to mention it. Oh it is Turing not Toring (like I am thinking of enough person? good lord are you a tool). If everyone knows who you are referring to, let us say I spell it Einstien by mistake, the polite thing is not to say, Oh you mean Einstein as in Albert Einstein (aren't I clever?) No, you are just a tool. Oh and you spelled the wrong in The third chimpanzee, ha ha (I am mocking you for your correction, obviously I know it is a simple spelling mistake, but again I have to repeat it like you are a ten year old)<br /><br />CharoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-11854238618902284412009-05-30T19:14:39.773-04:002009-05-30T19:14:39.773-04:00I have one spelling mistake so crucify me, did I n...I have one spelling mistake so crucify me, did I nail you for youm mispelling of pyschology? <br />You have zero rebuttal, nothing. Why don't you even try? The freaking point about Bonobos and Chimps is that many early evolutionary psychologists were heavily influenced by Chimpanzee research. Much of the crap you wrote above is based on that old line of thinking, I am not saying it is catergorically wrong, just that it is both boring and not definitive. And please, don't throw out famous names that you just wikied. It is not like Guns, germs, and steel is not mandatory reading in many college curriculums. <br /><br />Now I will explain it to you like I am talking to a 10 year old, maybe then it might sink in. The crap you wrote above is in no way relevant to Bonobos. And since at least you are aware that we share a common ancestor (I am almost shocked you are not a creationist) you should know that evolutionary psychologists examine traits we share in common with our nearest genetic relatives. A question has arisen as to how much bias has chimp research influenced evolutionary thought. Your simple minded posts above shows exactly that stale kind of thought.<br />But you have no rebuttal to this, instead you will just throw out some other name you will wiki now, and some other irrelevant fact not germane. 3 million, 7 million years? That is a rebuttal? When it not the argument, the argument is how has it influenced our behavior. Next you will write the earth goes around the sun.<br /><br />This is useless. I don't think you have the capacity to understand, the willingness to learn, or the ability to admit you are wrong (as I did by copping to my spelling error)<br /><br />charoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-62782817568643566332009-05-30T01:40:07.726-04:002009-05-30T01:40:07.726-04:00First, the name you are looking for is "Turing," a...First, the name you are looking for is "Turing," as in Alan Turing.<br /><br />Second, humans diverged from the common ancestor of the bonobo and chimpanzee about seven million years ago. Bonobos and chimpanzee diverged from a common ancestor about 3 million years ago. We are genetically the same distance from bonobos and chimpanzees as they had not yet evolved from their common ancestor at the time humans diverged to a different evolutionary path. If you are curious, read Jared Diamond's "Teh Third Chimpanzee" for the details.Johnv2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-54549747880560650792009-05-29T21:55:17.971-04:002009-05-29T21:55:17.971-04:00john, we are talking about how evolutionary psycho...john, we are talking about how evolutionary psychology manifested itself throughout society, it is only the past generation that children have become a "resource suck" as you so insanely refer it, which is simply not enough time to have an impact on our own evolution.<br /><br />As to the rest, I am simply observing that you are a truly pretentious writer. To think we can resolve issues such as how evolution has affected human development in a few trite paragraphs is utterly laughable, I simply brought it to the personal level. Really, did you even read what you wrote? It is trite and simple minded (as it would be if you try to analyse millions of years of evolution in a few paragraphs). <br /><br />Do you really want me to utterly destroy your banal and often incorrect postings?<br /><br />I will take just your initial sentence to show you complete vapidity:<br /><br />Humans are born helpless (wow, what an amazing observation Sherlock) and remain a huge resource suck for years (beyond my already destroying the logic, it is also a horrendously composed sentence). Someone has to spend the effort on them. (again, what an utterly trite and obvious statement, you mean we can't just hang them up in the closet)<br /><br />And you go on without a single interesting or orignal thought. I am starting to think you have no passed the Toring test but are nothing more than a computer algorithm composed by second rate College republicans.<br /><br />Of course humanity fails to live up to ideals, that is why we have ideals in the first place, and why things like the Bible were written, so that as a species we can overcome our own primitive nature, but ascribing everything to pre-programmed evolutionary biology is just too limited for my tastes.<br /><br />Now we could also go on to debate tons of aspects regarding evolutionary psychology, for instance do we share more common traits with Chimpanzees or Bonobos? How has the prevalence of Chimpanzee research influenced our own take on evolutionary psychology as opposed to research on the far less common Bonobos? But of course you never chose to write something that was in any way interesting. <br /><br />Be honest, is not that question a tad more original than all of this blatherskite? (and I include myself in it just as much). The only remotely interesting question and observation is the one I just posed above. But I truly believe you have nothing interesting to add to that type of discussion, and I have long ago come to my own conclusions on this matter.<br /><br />charoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-7787064383317164372009-05-29T15:55:02.097-04:002009-05-29T15:55:02.097-04:00Hi charo. I regret you had difficulty reading my ...Hi charo. I regret you had difficulty reading my post with comprehension. I'll try to be more clear, but you need to read what I write, not what you imagine I'm writing.<br /><br />I don't dispute that humans have brains, and that our conscious self can override our subconscious. However, the subconscious influences our behavior in profound ways. I'll refer you to Steven Pinker's writings (I find them interesting) on evolutionary phychology. And I'll simply observe that we do in fact see humans fail to live up to the lofty standards that you espouse, and that sex snares even the best of us, and this has been going on for a very long time (the Bible addresses these primitive urges, for example). Dr. Pinker's views are a better explanation of the human condition than yours, for you do not explain how our weaknesses came to be and why they are universal.<br /><br />And, I'll note that children are indeed a resource suck. If yours aren't, someone needs to report you to the Child's Advocacy Agency in your State.Johnv2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-14307151527087799642009-05-28T21:12:36.183-04:002009-05-28T21:12:36.183-04:00One last twist of the knife into the pretentious t...One last twist of the knife into the pretentious twaddle that is John, Children are not resource sucks, and are not viewed that way not even in primitive societies. It is only in modern postindustrial societies where the expenses outweigh the benefits, that coupled with reduced infant mortality has led to a dramatic drop in the amount of children people have. They were viewed, to some degree, as resources to be exploited, working on the farm, taking care of the parents in the old age, elemental aspects of survival which supercede the impulse to spread genes. On Pohnpei it was common for there to be adoption across blood lines. To state there is something inherent in our nature that comes from our monkey brains which overwhelms our other faculties is simply childish.<br /><br />I also found the phrase hundreds of thousands of years of evolution amusing(what, you mean we were not created 4004 BC?). I dunno John, but evolution has been going on for more than hundreds of thousands of years. Try picking up a textbook sometime, or easier for you, just wiki it. I should really stop this, picking on John is liking taking candy from a baby.<br /><br />charoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-82552328539548936302009-05-28T20:51:16.908-04:002009-05-28T20:51:16.908-04:00Nowhere in these postings is there evidence that M...Nowhere in these postings is there evidence that Man has a brain, and (gasp) feelings, including such ones as love and empathy. I am married, have 3 children, but will never cheat on my wife, and it is not only because I don't want to hurt my wife but because I also have no desire to hurt myself. Yes, there are animalistic men like John, who view children as a resource suck (pray to God he has no children), but as for myself I simply have no desire to risk falling in love with another woman, and worse impregnating her and going on my merry way, whatever supposed evolutionary advantages he imagines it possesses.<br /><br />Placing impulse above consideration towards consequences of actions is simply a sign of immaturity as a human being, harkening back to the actions of bygone days is simply to give an excuse to not feel guilt or regret. Responsibilty, love, a desire to be good, these are not outlandish notions.<br /><br />Again John, nice bubble gum thinking, try getting out in the world. I lived on the island of Pohnpei in the South Pacific in what you would consider a primative society. I have seen people who are far more closely allied with what you would consider a natural state. Guess what, I found that people pretty much are the same everywhere, (I have also lived in Asia, Latin America, the US and Europe) that there is a far more powerful impulse than the sexual one, one that you did not even consider, that is the desire to love and be loved, and to break the essential isolation of our existence. Try getting out of your mothers basement and learning what humanity is really like.<br /><br />charoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-64844030990716212562009-05-28T14:48:53.203-04:002009-05-28T14:48:53.203-04:00I didn't claim that spending effort on your offssp...I didn't claim that spending effort on your offsspring doesn't matter. Humans are born helpless and remain a huge resource suck for years. Someone has to spend the effort on them. Parents have an interest in their genetic offspring because we are the result of hundreds of thousands of years of selection; genes that build brains which focus on genetic offspring more than the group offspring survive the tough times. Family relations are genetic ones normally, so uncles, aunts, grandparents, cousins all have a genetic interest in family survival and naturally tend to favor genetically related children. Human nature was shaped by which genes survived when the going was tough. This is another reason why marriage is such a powerful social bond -- it normally creates a genetic link, via the offspring, between two groups. This is why arranged marriages between powerful leader-families has been around as long as modern humans have existed.<br /><br />So, caring for your female partner is an evolutionary plus, but so is getting the cuckold husband to care for your genetic offspring. The trick, which evolution does automatically, is to balance the opposing forces.<br /><br /> So, yes, men want contradictory things; exclusive sexual access to (at least) one partner, and hidden sexual access to the partners of other men who will raise any offspring. As in all human qualities, the drives appear in different strengths in men. Too much Don Juan-ish genes will result in social rejection (not good for offspring). But no wandering eye is at a slight disadvantage, genetically speaking, to the guy who has the rare fling. Thus does Mama Nature shape human behavior.Johnv2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-591328060850511602009-05-28T12:09:48.422-04:002009-05-28T12:09:48.422-04:00I'm not saying they don't want to sleep around. I'...I'm not saying they don't want to sleep around. I'm saying they also seem to want something else.Elizabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09953173396955681485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-31593380170707082052009-05-28T12:08:22.943-04:002009-05-28T12:08:22.943-04:00Why spend effort at all your own offspring, if it ...Why spend effort at all your own offspring, if it does not matter? Why marry or care for any of the caretakers of your children? If it does matter, then spreading the seed around is not males' only priority.Elizabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09953173396955681485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-51819952375716586012009-05-28T11:54:35.385-04:002009-05-28T11:54:35.385-04:00If you are jealous of your mate, it means paternal...<I>If you are jealous of your mate, it means paternal care matters[...]"</I>No, it means that your genes don't want to spend effort raising other male's genes. The female is always certain her genes are present, so she has no reason to balk at providing her share of the enormous resources needed to raise her child. The male is never 100% certain (unless no other males are present on the island). The almost complete absence of polyandry in the wide range of human social organizations is telling. Men didn't evolve to spend effort on offspring that were not carrying their genes (although it is a laudable trait). Marriage is a social construct restricting sexual access of women to multiple partners. Steven Pinker has written about this topic, and I find him persuasive.<br /><br />Men's promiscuity results from our evolutionary history; a trivial amount of effort can radically increase the spread of a male's genes, so the urge to have lots of sex is an evolutionary plus. Sex is pleasurable for the same reason; humans who found sex a chore were outbred by humans whose genes coded for pleasurable sex.Johnv2noreply@blogger.com