1 of 3
1
I have a theory and I’m pretty sure it’s accurate…
Posted: 23 January 2012 12:19 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2012-01-23

I have come across what I think is the most profound idea that humans have come up with for the process of world peace and I’m having the damndest time being heard on it, I even have a theory as to WHY!!!


You’ll want to plug this statement into your brain: The leading cause of war, poverty and environmental degradation is HOW we sexually select each other as a species.


It is our aggregate mating ritual that is causing all these problems.  It is our aggregate mating ritual to do these things.


Quite simply, women as a gender choose with the behavioral reward system of sex (aside from the biological evolution argument) more socially aggressive behaviors in men as an aggregate over less aggressive behaviors, this is particular mostly to heterosexual selections.  Most people are heterosexual, so this has the most impact on the species.  This repeated selection of more aggressive behaviors over less aggressive behaviors for social aggression has topped into physical aggression, this phenomenon has been taking place so long that one gender is actually more physically aggressive than another gender.  I actually figured out simply as a behavioral reward system, aside from any biological evolutionary arguments, that the way we sexually select actually determines the population levels we have, how we distribute resources with one another, the amount of aggression we should expect to encounter as an aggregate in the species to affecting such aspects as innovation and particularly our cognitions.  Remember, these are just the non-reproductive sexual selections, simply the behavioral reward system. Even though men are actually more violent than women, women are actually the more aggressive gender in an aggregate sense.  Everytime, a sexual selection positively reinforces a more aggressive male over a less aggressive male in a population it is an act of aggression, and in terms of the seriousness of the aggression is on a par with something as severe as rape itself.


Aggression itself is detected by observing those who tease, humiliate or abuse others, brag, engage as participants and/or spectators with aggressive competitions and games such as most if not all sports (cooperation always works better than competition for species), clothes themselves in aggressive mental pollutants and surrounds themselves in their environment with aggressive mental pollutants.  If these things are detected, you should not have sex with them.  Specific rules for heterosexual situations (homosexual selections can simply refer to the above rules) are men should never approach women even for dates, women should always reject men who do this and women should actively seek out and sexually select the kindest men in the field of men they have to choose from.  These last three rules have more to do with the current cultural and genetic drift. If these last three rules are violated, it adds aggression to the current culture.  Since I’m trying to keep this brief, I won’t explain why this is so.


If these rules for sexual selection are taught before puberty sets in, we will literally eradicate aggression from the species over the course of several generations.


The reason why it’s so hard to be heard on this idea is because the species is so damn aggressive, and I actually figured out that since falsity is an act of aggression particularly for something as lucid as this, that there’s actually a higher sexual selection value for disagreeing with it.  Memetics based on what has the highest aggregate sexual selection value.  Women in denial and men who will be sexually selected for agreeing with them.


I have stores of knowledge on very basic sexual ethics, for example, I have figured out that like asexuality, heterosexuality, homosexuality and bi-sexuality that there is a different metric of sexual orientation, polysexual or monosexual, and like bi-sexuality, polysexuality exists on a continuum.  Monosexuality is “One partner at a time” polysexuality is “multiple partners at a time”.  These are sexual orientations, which goes a long way to explaining human behavior.  I also discovered that well, it should be obvious, arranged marriages are unethical… why?  Because you could marry people who have different sexual orientations.  Also, I figured out that in terms of species aggression it is actually unethical to take a vow of celibacy and chastity.  What I think happened is people intuited that there was a lot of aggression around sexuality, so they came up with a rule that it is highly ethical to abstain from it, but in terms of how the species works, unless you are sexually oriented as asexual, it is actually counterproductive to the very cause it’s proporting to set out to do, which is reduce the amount of aggression in the species.  You effectively have kind people not only taking themselves out of the reproductive system, you have them removing themselves from the reward system as well.


To see the world through my eyes is to see that how we sexually select determines our social stratification structures, poverty and starvation around the world, our levels of innovation and what people believe.


I hope you understand what I’m saying here and can appreciate what this truly is,

Jason

[ Edited: 11 February 2012 09:31 AM by 0username0]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 January 2012 11:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2012-01-23

I just wanted to add that if I were to give myself the overwhelming name of “doctor species”, this would be my prescription…
Take this and call me in the morning.  I actually think this is the most important thing people can be talking about right now.
The idea that the leading cause of war and poverty is how we sexually select each other as a species is how I believe it has always worked for humans and will always work for humans.  If I were to go after a single topic that’s causing the most aggregate suffering in the world, perhaps even in the universe, this would be it.


I was also thinking just as random thoughts, that flirting is actually also an act of aggression, it’s sort of under the banner of teasing… it’s appropriate to ask someone out to something you think you both might enjoy, but flirtatious build up is actually aggressive IMO, and I have pretty sharp instincts on aggression for some reason.  I was also thinking about something I read in Buddhism.  This was that we are not entitled, that the sense of entitlement is a bad thing.  I’ve also heard lots of speech around selfish craving.  What about unselfish craving, the craving for civil rights, the feeling of entitlement that you should not be discriminated for example based on the color of your skin.


This is perhaps preaching to the choir in this group, but I loathe the “coexist” bumper stickers that have the word written in all the religious symbols.  These religions will NEVER coexist peacefully.  I also loathe the “celebrate diversity” stickers.  I hate people who add aggression to the species and I do not celebrate them.  I wish people had much higher levels of consciousness than they seem to have as an aggregate, but they don’t.  I hope that changes.


As far as an ethical use of what is considered the infinite with respect to concepts like heaven and hell assuming it even exists, I actually believe that people who misuse their power should become disempowered (like the way we send people who enact severe aggressions to prison), not tortured or punished (although often our prisons do exactly that unfortunately). We remove their freedoms until they see the error of their ways, but not torture or punish them.  If there is an afterlife and an ethical afterlife, this is how I see it.

[ Edited: 11 February 2012 09:28 AM by 0username0]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 January 2012 03:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2821
Joined  2005-04-29
0username0 - 23 January 2012 12:19 PM

You’ll want to plug this statement into your brain: The leading cause of war and poverty is HOW we sexually select each other as a species.

And the leading cause of difficulty while plugging your solution into my brain has been that you make no mention of how you’ll be able to conduct a transformation of what is sexually appealling. Do you know how a person arrives at his/her sexual attractions? Such arrivals might be something worth studying, unless you already feel that you thoroughly understand them.

0username0 - 23 January 2012 12:19 PM

. . . I also discovered that well, it should be obvious, arranged marriages are unethical… why?  Because you could marry people who have different sexual orientations. . . .

But isn’t that the point of procreation-inclined people who get married?


Congratulations are in order, by the way. Your 2 posts above, 0unsername0, make up the most confoundingly confident essay I’ve ever seen on this forum.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 January 2012 06:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2012-01-23

I believe that if you explain to people in very simple language, that sex is a behavioral reward system and if you reward this behavior over this behavior people will keep doing it, that people, with such information will actually make better choices than the default.  I believe the aggregate instinct is askew, maladaptive.  Education can change this.  People as they age and grow wiser make these decisions already, unfortunately they are working against the momentum of what they caused when they were younger, I bet all of them would say, “I wish someone had taught me that when I was younger.”.

To address your question of what is sexually appealing, we have plenty of studies suggesting that this is all over the map, what’s important are the larger aggregate truths, while not all women are attracted to aggressive men, as an aggregate men who are more aggressive than men who aren’t are receiving more sexual selections from women.  This has been historically precedent from the evidence that men are actually a more violent gender than women are, and, I believe is still the current situation.  This is our species momentum.  I think the only way to get at it is early education.  It’s an uncomfortable truth, but it is our uncomfortable truth.

[ Edited: 24 January 2012 07:04 PM by 0username0]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 January 2012 07:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2821
Joined  2005-04-29

Okay, but keep in mind that some of our strongest sexual attractions and proclivities arrive not long after onset of puberty. Messing around with such matters would equate to child abuse in the eyes of modern people.


Also, you seem to be highly creative in your categorizing of aggression, user. In fact, you at times sound as dedicated to your cause as a 1980’s radical femnist. That’s not necessarily a good thing at all. If you define aggression creatively enough, every human action aside from overt affection becomes what is seen as aggressive. Anger at times is a crucially important emotion, as without motivation it can provide, we might just sing sweet sounding songs rather than take action against unfairness, cheating, manipulation, con artistry, and laziness.

Or maybe you have a solution to those problems, too?

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 January 2012 07:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2012-01-23
nonverbal - 24 January 2012 07:41 PM

Okay, but keep in mind that some of our strongest sexual attractions and proclivities arrive not long after onset of puberty. Messing around with such matters would equate to child abuse in the eyes of modern people.


Also, you seem to be highly creative in your categorizing of aggression, user. In fact, you at times sound as dedicated to your cause as a 1980’s radical femnist. That’s not necessarily a good thing at all. If you define aggression creatively enough, every human action aside from overt affection becomes what is seen as aggressive. Anger at times is a crucially important emotion, as without motivation it can provide, we might just sing sweet sounding songs rather than take action against unfairness, cheating, manipulation, con artistry, and laziness.

Or maybe you have a solution to those problems, too?

I hardly think anyone would think it is child abuse to suggest to people that sexual selection is a behavioral reenforcement system in the species, to teach what basic aggression actually is and to suggest that we choose not to behaviorally reenforce it with our sexual selections.  I actually consider it child abuse to not teach these things.

Anger can be an appropriate emotion or an inappropriate emotion.  For example, take the idea of pacifism.  Imagine if everyone in the world were a pacifist except one single person, and this one single person decided with their life that they were going to rape and torture as many people as they could.  It would be unethical for us to allow them to do this, we would be using aggression against them, but in an aggregate sense it is the opposite of aggression.  This is using the principle of “That which elicits the most joy and least suffering for all beings.”.

Aspects of unfairness, cheating, manipulation, con artistry and laziness (though I’m not really fond of the word, it suggests that all life is about is work, work, work) are directly correlated to how we sexually select each other, we can combat it while also approaching it preventatively.

Anger as an appropriate emotion occurs when peaceable boundaries are violated, anger as an inappropriate emotion occurs when you’re angry that peaceable boundaries aren’t being violated.

For example, anger at someone because they cheat on their spouse is not an appropriate emotion, as this is actually a sexual orientation, it’s like being angry at someone (from the heterosexuals point of view) for not being sexual with you because you like them, they like you and they are the opposite gender but happen to be homosexual instead of heterosexual.  It’s irrational.  It is however appropriate to be angry with someone if they slept with someone who is meaner than you are.  So much crap happens in relationships because people aren’t taught that monosexuality and polysexuality are actually sexual orientations.  I’ve seen people try to be swingers and whatnot who just don’t feel right doing it.. it’s because they’re banging up against a sexual orientation, they are actually monosexual, I’ve seen people try to be “faithful” who can’t, because again, they’re banging up against a sexual orientation, polysexuality.

[ Edited: 25 January 2012 09:26 AM by 0username0]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 January 2012 11:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2012-01-23

I said earlier that these religions will never co-exist peacefully together.  I actually want to explain why.  They have crappy rules.  Even the ever so cherished “golden rule” is a crappy rule.  If you want to be tortured and mutilated by others you should torture and mutilate others, not exactly divine inspiration.  If you want people to have sex with you who don’t want to have sex with you, you should have sex with people you don’t want to have sex with.  Let’s face it, the golden rule sucks.  The best rule, and mantra is “That which elicits the most joy and least suffering for all beings.”  The rest of life is trying to figure out what this means.

The only thing I do concede to religion is the idea of repentance, to change ones heart, mind and behaviors to align with the rule, “Do that which elicits the most joy and least suffering for all beings.”  And forgiveness for true repentance.  I’ll give religion some credit on that one.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 January 2012 05:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  147
Joined  2011-05-06

Education can change this.

\


smirk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 January 2012 01:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  147
Joined  2011-05-06

The problem with what your’e saying, at least the overall problem, is the parts of the brain responsible for sexual behaviour are not much amenable to the parts of your brain that is talking like this.


Actually, you’re making the same type of mistake that fundies do when they try to “fix” gay people, right? You’re saying “hey, I have this conception of how we ;should feel sexually… now let’s all hold ourselves to it.


As Woody Allen said, the heart wants what the heart wants. It’s THAT way and not YOUR way, or Islams’s way of the fundies way or whatever way. It is the way it is.


You aren’t going to change human sexual behaviour by talking women out of liking aggressive men.  I just read a study that showed that women respond sexually to the sound of a deep car engine roar. Hey those guys in high school knew what they were doing after all.  Great.


Point being, sure women prefer aggressive men. A kind of reverse Lysistrata. Men for their aprt like to be aggressive irrespective of how it effects women because evolution doesn’t rely on your being able to figure out what the opposite sex wants, it just hands it to you to make sure thing s go right. So even if women suddenly stopped liking roaring cars and aggressive assholes, men would still be aggressive assholes and drive roaring cars and just wonder why they never get laid.


If you want to change this level of human proclivity,  you’ve got to address it via genetic engineering and now we’re talking 300 years or more into the future, if we make it that far. 

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 January 2012 02:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2012-01-23
softwarevisualization - 26 January 2012 01:37 PM

The problem with what your’e saying, at least the overall problem, is the parts of the brain responsible for sexual behaviour are not much amenable to the parts of your brain that is talking like this.


Actually, you’re making the same type of mistake that fundies do when they try to “fix” gay people, right? You’re saying “hey, I have this conception of how we ;should feel sexually… now let’s all hold ourselves to it.


As Woody Allen said, the heart wants what the heart wants. It’s THAT way and not YOUR way, or Islams’s way of the fundies way or whatever way. It is the way it is.


You aren’t going to change human sexual behaviour by talking women out of liking aggressive men.  I just read a study that showed that women respond sexually to the sound of a deep car engine roar. Hey those guys in high school knew what they were doing after all.  Great.


Point being, sure women prefer aggressive men. A kind of reverse Lysistrata. Men for their aprt like to be aggressive irrespective of how it effects women because evolution doesn’t rely on your being able to figure out what the opposite sex wants, it just hands it to you to make sure thing s go right. So even if women suddenly stopped liking roaring cars and aggressive assholes, men would still be aggressive assholes and drive roaring cars and just wonder why they never get laid.


If you want to change this level of human proclivity,  you’ve got to address it via genetic engineering and now we’re talking 300 years or more into the future, if we make it that far.

You can’t know until you try.  I disagree that men like being aggressive irrespective of how it effects women, I believe they are aggressive because that’s what women gravitate towards consensually.  Besides, if people were taught this when they were younger, there certainly wouldn’t be any men who were aggressive wondering why they weren’t getting laid.  Change the reward system for sex and you change the entire culture and species dynamics.  I don’t think people like to starve to death, but people are starving to death, and the reason why they’re starving to death is because the type of culture that is reenforced with our current sexual selection process is causing the entire human structure globally of social stratification on the scale that it currently is.  It is how we sexually select that’s doing it.  I think if it is true that women don’t modify their sexual selections based on early education that human life is actually not worth living.  There will always be people born who suffer enormously because of it.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 January 2012 09:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  147
Joined  2011-05-06

You can’t know until you try.  I disagree that men like being aggressive irrespective of how it effects women, I believe they are aggressive because that’s what women gravitate towards consensually. 


Besides, if people were taught this when they were younger, there certainly wouldn’t be any men who were aggressive wondering why they weren’t getting laid. 

Change the reward system for sex and you change the entire culture and species dynamics. 


I don’t think people like to starve to death, but people are starving to death, and the reason why they’re starving to death is because the type of culture that is reenforced with our current sexual selection process is causing the entire human structure globally of social stratification on the scale that it currently is. 


It is how we sexually select that’s doing it.  I think if it is true that women don’t modify their sexual selections based on early education that human life is actually not worth living.  There will always be people born who suffer enormously because of it.

This sounds like something from the late 19th early 20th century. I say, jolly good arguments old chap!


Seriously, I understand what you’re saying. It’s *sort of * like Marxism in the sense that you believe that humankind’s impulses can be *shaped* towards society’s benefit “give me a child until he’s eight, and I’ll give you a Communist for life”. says Lenin.


Turns out.. mmm… not so much.  People just have the idea of personal property and you can’t get them to give it up.


Now don’t take the Marxism comparison to be a pejorative- the right wing thinks exactly the same thing in just the opposite direction. “Give me a gay and I’ll straighten him/her out!”


It’s not that it’s a theoretically incoherent idea. It’s not that in the case of creating a egalitarian society,  goal isn’t noble. It’s that it’s just known to be wrong, that’s all. And nothing is worse than being factually wrong.


ESPECIALLY with sex.  You can’t run off into the world spouting this kind of thing and not lose all credibility amongst everyone who is not either as totally ignorant about the proven facts in this matter as you are or a crank, or both.  I am telling you this for your own good.


There is a ton of evidence that points directly to these tendencies being as hard wired into us as sexual preference is , I mean so much   evidence that to deny it puts you on the same level as evolution deniers and climate change deniers. No seriously, you have to come current with this since these ideas excite you. If you don’t , you’ll be wasting your life and energy on something we already know does not describe reality. What could be worse than that? Nothing. Not even coming face to face with the fact that evidence requires you to change your perspective on the world and the things that are important to you in it. 

 

This is not say that we’re all one way. My SO won’t have anything to do with aggression, with loud cars , loud people, even excessive self-promotion- it’s just a big, fat turn off. This is how it is for her. So we’re not all the same except in this one very important aspect- we’re all the way we are because of how our genes made our brains.


Just remember this- when you’re formulating plans to change everyone’s sexual preferences and aggressive tendencies through manipulating culture , you’re throwing yourself solidly in with the same lot as Sarah Palin and her husband, who “cure” gays. Sure, you’re probably to the left and they’re to the right but it’s wrongheaded and against the facts of science either way.

 

Supposing you’re not of the Sara Palin ilk leaves only the fact that your mind has not become acquainted with this evidence yet, and through no fault of your own. I’ts just ignorance. These books will cure you, and moreover you can’t consider yourself a serious intellectual -and no one else will either- without having understood the ideas and faced the evidence that they present in such a page turning , engrossing, riveting fashion. 


http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Desire-Revised-4/dp/046500802X/ref=pd_vtp_b_6

http://www.amazon.com/Murderer-Next-Door-Mind-Designed/dp/0143037056/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327639824&sr=1-1


http://www.amazon.com/Sperm-Wars-Infidelity-Conflict-Bedroom/dp/1560258489/ref=pd_vtp_b_47


http://www.amazon.com/Mating-Mind-Sexual-Choice-Evolution/dp/038549517X/ref=pd_vtp_b_36


http://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0060556579/ref=pd_vtp_b_4

 

http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Psychology-Beginners-Guide-Oneworld/dp/1851683569/ref=pd_vtp_b_52

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Virtue-Instincts-Evolution-Cooperation/dp/0140264450/ref=pd_vtp_b_14

 

 

 

 

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 January 2012 11:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  111
Joined  2011-12-28

Interesting dialogue from both of you, and thanks for the book recommendations. The change of our humanity will not necessarily occur through but one means, certainly neurology will play a significant role. A statement from the late anthropologist Leaky comes to mind, “CHANGE OR PERISH”. If anyone believes that the required change in our humanity is impossible he will be utterly without hope, and dialogue would be futile. The species is one thing, but of two aspects, women and man, co-relational development is self -evident. Perhaps the premise first introduced here simply does not go far enough, one cannot not ignore the principle of co-relation development but it should extend it to a concept of simultaneous arising—that which is consider in isolation, is NOT. There is also a theory of the organism-environment as but one system, an interesting development and not without credibility. Humanity needs at this point to entertain the concept of self-control, for without self-control there is in reality no control.

[ Edited: 26 January 2012 11:35 PM by boagie]
 Signature 

The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one.
David Hume

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2012 06:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  147
Joined  2011-05-06

Oh humanity needs to change to survive all right; climate change springs immediately to mind. But the question here is what is changeable and how can that change be effected?


I once had a conversation with a denier in which he asserted that since species always adapt, we;‘ll just HAVE to adapt to climate change, and that was that !


The problem with that argument is that just because it’s true that species adapt doesn’t mean that any given species can adapt in arbitrary ways in order to save itself. There’s such a thing in this world as FAIL, as anyone on an internet forum, and Mr Darwin,  will gleefully remind you ....


Same thing here. It’s not that the dynamics this person is describing are incoherent, it’s that they’re the epiphenomena - the end expression- of an underlying dynamic over which we exert little conscious control.


The male of the species is designed by nature to “show off”  his genetic fitness, his wonderfulness,  for the purpose of attracting the female of the species. And what attracts the female of the species? Whatever set of behaviours or physical characteristics give its bearer a survival or fecundity advantage.


This principle - where girls choose which guys will win the right to pass down their genes-  to fuckywuckydoodle- that’s right, I said it… so stone me-  this principle has a name; it’s called “female selection”.


When women think that it’s the men who are able to choose amongst them, it’s only because women all want the same man, that is, they agree - without conspiring- that the tall dark handsome rich man is, well, tall dark handsome and rich, and those are fine and rare things indeed.


Under those circumstance, the male does choose and his choice is an interesting one- he chooses them all!  Congratulations, you’re a winner of the genetic lottery!  Step right this way ma’am, to the back of winner’s line and uh,  please take your number.


As a consequence we live in a world where perhaps one in 200 males currently living on earth is a descendant of Genghis Khan; that’s 8 percent of China’s population.


That’s right, Khan and his brothers sexed their way for years through Mongolia and the end result is today 1/2 of 1% of the world’s population can count them as a direct ancestor.


Considering that “consensual sex” was not an idea whose time had come yet,  you have to wonder if this is not as good an example of the folly of thinking that females incite males to aggression by selecting them for copulatory rights as is going to be provided. 


It seems that if fecundity and passing down your genes is the prize, then aggression is its own reward.


What’s to say here? The world was not always as we find it now . Men are aggressive because, however little women like or don’t like aggression it “works” as measured by this very narrow,  yet all important, metric.


And here we have to add another another twist to our sordid tale. If aggression works so well at ensuring that genes get passed down, then why not go with it? Females who mated with males who displayed aggressive tendencies because it turned them on were more likely to have the resulting offspring- who presumably have inherited those tendencies -  get more lucky, more often.


And this is also why some people - certainly not me and certainly not you, good sir ! - experience dirty sex as so “hot”. Because at the heart of dirty sex is a transgression against societal strictures, so called “transgressional sex” “I’m a slut! I’m a f***ing whore” is really a way of saying:


“Say there you Well Formed Formula, you may find it interesting to know that despite the strictures put upon me by those who have a vested interested in controlling who I will and won’t mate with, I am prepared to defy all that authority at a moment’s notice and run off to copulate with anyone I view as having been gifted with a bounty of genetically mediated physical characteristics which will likely lead to his offspring achieving differential success in the mating game. So let’s ditch this party for 20 minutes and swing an episode to yonder Starbucks bathroom. No one will be the wiser.


And there’s at least a 1 in 200 chance that such an approach will fall on the ears of the *right type* of person and bear fruit, as it were, and perhaps even a greater than 1 in 200 chance !


Holy Cow! Society is on the decline! What’s this younger generation becoming !!!!????


The theme is, what works works and we’re all descended from, and share the genetically mediated proclivities of,  people who preferred what works. 


So all this is the counter narrative to the social constructionist narrative the OP was offering. The original sin in that narrative is to think that people’s deepest, most fundamental behaviours are subject to evolutionarily significant manipulation via social forces.


Even if you did try to construct such a society, it would have to be something on the order of North Korea, and you’d still fail   Why? “I’m a slut”. That’s why. 

Oh and by the way, what do people who get into positions of power in such societies , like Kim Jong Il, spend their time doing? Apparently cruising the halls of middle schools and picking out for themselves their next “conquest”:


http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/Love_in_the_Workers_Paradise_Sex_in_North_Korea,201021145.aspx


That’s pretty much where societies with that kind of control over people end up, not that that’s anyone’s intention here.  It’s just that you’d pretty much have to achieve the 8th burkah level of play in order to even *start* to influence genetic outcomes via social engineering, and then you one night you’d wake up in a cold sweat, sit bolt upright in your bed   and be faced with the question “uh, what were we fighting for again?”. 


And that’s when you’d realize that you’re living through just the latest nightmare chapter in human history, and it’s ALL YOUR FAULT!


Don’t be that guy!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ Edited: 27 January 2012 07:03 AM by softwarevisualization]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2012 06:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2012-01-23

Well, that was a depressing.  I suppose that dictator cruising middle schools would run into the problem of the rule that men should never approach women, as in the current cultural and genetic drift this is actually an act of aggression.  If people selected with less aggression there wouldn’t be dictators, it’s a reflection of those sexual selection decisions.

So we’re at an impasse.  You believe that the aggregate fact that women choose more aggressive behaviors in men is a sexual orientation, I believe that it is something that can be modified with early education.  I believe that it is ignorance, you believe it’s a sexual orientation.  I really do think if you explain to people that sex is a behavioral reward system, you explain to them what aggression is, what resource distribution is (and sex is a resource that we distribute, one that affects as an aggregate how we distribute all the other resources), that people will actually make better decisions.  You believe it is a sexual orientation.  If that choosing of aggression for sex truly is a sexual orientation on the scale that it’s occurred in history and is still occurring, we are totally, totally, totally screwed as a species in terms of the future.  The suffering will only increase.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2012 06:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2821
Joined  2005-04-29
0username0 - 27 January 2012 06:38 AM

. . .

So we’re at an impasse.  You believe that the aggregate fact that women choose more aggressive behaviors in men is a sexual orientation, I believe that it is something that can be modified with early education.  I believe that it is ignorance, you believe it’s a sexual orientation.  I really do think if you explain to people that sex is a behavioral reward system, you explain to them what aggression is, what resource distribution is. . . .  The suffering will only increase.

Cognitive psychologists such as Pinker claim that one’s sexual orientation most likely arrives in one’s brain partly by way of neurological features we inherit, and partly by way of environmental factors we encounter. He estimates the split to be 50/50, if I remember correctly. So if you want to tinker with sexual preferences of boys and girls, the most you’ll probably accomplish is a half-assed job. On the other hand, you’d probably be sent to prison for a long enough time to be able to invent another tactic in your goal of solving all of the problems humanity suffers from.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2012 07:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2012-01-23
nonverbal - 27 January 2012 06:59 AM
0username0 - 27 January 2012 06:38 AM

. . .

So we’re at an impasse.  You believe that the aggregate fact that women choose more aggressive behaviors in men is a sexual orientation, I believe that it is something that can be modified with early education.  I believe that it is ignorance, you believe it’s a sexual orientation.  I really do think if you explain to people that sex is a behavioral reward system, you explain to them what aggression is, what resource distribution is. . . .  The suffering will only increase.

Cognitive psychologists such as Pinker claim that one’s sexual orientation most likely arrives in one’s brain partly by way of neurological features we inherit, and partly by way of environmental factors we encounter. He estimates the split to be 50/50, if I remember correctly. So if you want to tinker with sexual preferences of boys and girls, the most you’ll probably accomplish is a half-assed job. On the other hand, you’d probably be sent to prison for a long enough time to be able to invent another tactic in your goal of solving all of the problems humanity suffers from.

I do think sexual selection is the largest variable.  I didn’t used to think this, but I’ve hopefully become much wiser over the years.  I really don’t see the problem with teaching people what aggression is and allowing them to make more informed sexual decisions.  Handing out condoms to schools is tinkering with peoples sexual preferences, but it’s the right thing to do. Are you going to tell me that not wanting to use a condom is a sexual orientation and therefor we shouldn’t educate people on them and pass them out?  I don’t see people being sent to prison for it.  If someone is getting sent to prison for doing what it right, it speaks volumes about the society we’re in.  What’s the point of growing up and becoming wiser than our children, such as understanding that condoms prevent pregnancy and disease if we don’t actually teach these things to our children and provide them with tools to prevent it.  What’s the point of knowing all this stuff about sexual selection if we don’t teach it.  For that matter, what’s the point of teaching at all.  Let’s just send all the teachers to prison for informing people of things.

[ Edited: 27 January 2012 07:48 AM by 0username0]
Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed