Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Post Reply New Topic

http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto ... 000002.xml

I don't agree with everything on the list (I am given to understand that in societies in which polygeny is allowed, it isn't actually that common due to the cost of multiple mates, which seems to throw a wrench into their descriptions, for example), but I think we can save a lot of heartache if we understand the underlying psychology of relationships from an evolutionary perspective. I think especially people with AS (and the socially clueless in general) could benefit quite a bit from recognizing that human relationships have a certain flow not due to the arbitrariness of people, but due to the selective pressures of the human lineage. But I suppose this is only easy to swallow for heartless curmudgeons like myself.

I especially like #10, just because it is such a refutation of feminists that is so in keeping with common sense.

Gold!

Interesting what they said about the third world and polygamous cultures. Thats something I guess I'd never thought of but in the end it probably has at least a degree of truth (though when religion or blood-feuds are involved I'd imagine its more part of the fuel rather than cause).

Evolutionary Psychology provides lots of amusing and potentially useful insights into how all those weird things like emotions and instincts work.

It seems rather more relevant and useful than the work of that guy who liked to wrap his lips around a cigar while insulting other peoples' sexuality.

In his case I have a feeling he might have been projecting himself on the world.

Meh, I'm inclined to disregard most of these articles that describe every facet of human experience in terms of sexual competition. Since it's certainly not the case for me, and many scientists and creative types can produce their work just for the creativity...

When I get obsessed over mathematical trees and how they relate to Algebra, I'm not thinking about how it will help me score with chicks.

Perhaps I'm so outside 'normal' that these considerations don't apply to me... and perhaps my "reproductive failings" is specifically because my whole life isn't focused on doing whatever I can possibly do to mate. It would explain my lack of competitiveness...

Personally, I'm more inclined to believe that AS is, in fact, a representation of being more highly evolved (especially neurologially), as most people with AS (unless it's a mild case) do not perform every action as a means to attract as many women as possible. I didn't go to a tech school (with a 4:1 male to female ratio) in order to attract women, I did it so I could eventually earn enough money to afford living expenses in this day and age. If attracting women was my top priority, I would have gone to a college with more women around. Granted, it would still be nice to find a woman of my own (I even have a specific one in mind), except I would only like one, and such things still take a back seat to being able to survive in this world...

It would be interesting to get inside the mind of a 'normal' guy and how much of what he does is for an attractive woman. I guess according to this article it's a healthy amount of any guys day to day activities is just to get a girl.

It also explains why socially I'm behind, since I didn't push myself to do 'whatever it takes' to be with a girl growing up. I was interested sure, but very few girls were so beautiful I had to make a move or anything like that.

In fact, if a beautiful girl walks into a room... I notice her... but I usually find what I'm doing much more interesting. My mental thought process is more like, yup she's attractive... eh so what...

Also, specifically with the article... I know I mentally don't really like the look of blondes. Physically... just purely natural response... I like brunettes more. So whatever "evolutionary" advantage this attraction may have, it does not exist in me.

I find the use of the word 'truths' in the title rather ludicrous. I think 'overblown generalizations based on extremely limited research into a very narrow social grouping' might have been slightly more appropriate, albeit still a weak introduction to the ensuing babble.

#4 looks like some mix between conspiracy theories (Muslims' polygame => suicide bombers) and "Muslims have no life" sort of stuff.

#6 rather than truth looks like a very far fetched theory, it could be true but we are some studies away of calling it so.

#7 makes me worry, I may be running out of time...

Wise words written but soon will be forgotten



It is very scientific; shame you fool stupid fools will forget it

MAN ALIVE!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !

half of this stuff I didn't even work out myself.

This is all part of my theory that aspies are evolution in progress... aspies have mostly risen above many of the concepts that the article brings up. Humans aren't bound to the herd mentality for survival anymore... it is another remnant of the pre-sapient species humans evolved from. Aspies are the first evolutional step of discarding those biological remnants that are no longer needed after sapience is achieved. A sentient species is less dependent on members being physically stronger, as individual thought and ingenuity allows for a wide range of solutions to any problem. Look at how humans, who are well below average in terms of strength, speed, or stamina when compared to other species, are the species that is dominating the earth. We have found a way to permanently ward off and dominate nearly everything that could be considered a natural predator (the only "species" that can still prey upon us are certain viruses).

Anyway, one of evolution's core concepts is based on what is best suited to the environment. Traits that are necessary for survival tend to become more pronounced in later generations, while those that are no longer needed (in this case, many of the "biological imperatives" that the article spells out) dissipate and eventually vanish entirely. Granted, while these biological imperatives are no longer necessary, they are still present in most of the population at large (hence the reason this article exists). However, aspies are the population of humans out there where it has started to diminish, which is where I reach my conclusion that aspies are one step further on the evolutionary scale (not necessarily "superior", just further along...)

Mr. T is the vanguard of science. Mess with science, and your messing with him!

I'm inclined to agree with that cynical outlook on human behavior. We are robots , human all too human.

Hate to be the devil's advocate but there's still a reason why natural eugenics takes precedent no matter how soft and cushy the world gets in these regards - its still integrity of the gene pool and the ability to fight off human predators. I don't get off on thinking like that, just that I've seen where this is all deeply entrenched in our thinking for a reason.

That's also why I think the 46 chromosomes in our bodies are the ultimate evil source of all evil in this world. A lot of the evils not caused by sexual competition are caused by more secondary forms of competition that we may have disassociated from the need to mate but they're still there. Religious fanaticism happens for instance because, by the drive of our genes, self-actualization can never truly stop for a lot of people and that very need to have some lofty purpose is I think a much bigger part of why suicide bombers blow themselves up or would much rather believe they're heroes in some great cosmic war of good and evil rather than just face the fact that they're nothing particularly special against 6 billion other people.

In otherwords is just a nasty reality that we live in, there's not much we can do about it. As people with AS we've done our best to make the most of our potential and what we have but we have to face the facts that the gene pool doesn't give a damn what we think or feel. If we're a result of genetic decay things just are what they are.

The thing about suicide bombers is pretty suspect because anyone who claims to have studied the psychology and history for suicide bomber would know that al qaeda and other Islamist groups are greatly influenced by the *Hindu* nationalist group LITE (Tamil tigers) in Sri Lanka. They copied their techniques down to the letter. LITE had used subside belt long before they were used in the middle east. they also did suicide attack by driving the car into a barrier them blowing themselve up. Also the gunfire/rpgs them blow themselves up. They have a history of modifying munition to make bombs as well as other improvised devices. They even recently smuggled in a kit plane on one of their pirate ships (they make money from piracy and extortion on families abroad/kidnapping/protection) then adapted it to drop bombs on an air base. Making it the first terrorist organisation (not a state) to have an air force. Basically they invented much of modern asymmetric warfare.