Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Politically Incorrect Observations About Human Nature 613

gsa writes "Why do men prefer blonds? Why are most suicide bombers Muslim? Psychology Today analyzes some of these non-politically-correct questions in this essay about ten politically-incorrect truths about human nature. It turns out there may be an evolutionary or psychological explanation for all of these observations. For example, 'Sociologists and demographers have discovered that couples who have at least one son face significantly less risk of divorce than couples who have only daughters. Why is this? ... There is relatively little that a father (or mother) can do to keep a daughter youthful or make her more physically attractive. The continued presence of (and investment by) the father is therefore important for the son, but not as crucial for the daughter. The presence of sons thus deters divorce and departure of the father from the family more than the presence of daughters, and this effect tends to be stronger among wealthy families.'" Update: 07/08 05:51 GMT by Z :Removed sentence that misquoted article.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Politically Incorrect Observations About Human Nature

Comments Filter:
  • References? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Glowing Fish ( 155236 ) on Saturday July 07, 2007 @11:21PM (#19785525) Homepage
    I could go through this and try to argue with the reasoning of all the assertions about "human nature"

    Instead, I will just say "References, please?"

    I have noticed that Psychology Today, as a magazine, is notoriously short on scientific data, either theoretical or experiential, and long on tossing around "the common wisdom". If I want stereotypes and dimestore philosophy, I am sure I can find someone on the back of the bus to repeat them to me.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Vicissidude ( 878310 )
      None of this is particularly new information. It's more of an accumulation of knowledge that's been out for a while. For those of you who want evidence, either wait for the book to come out or do an internet search for the original studies.

      That said, the claim that polygamy is only part of the problem of male/female in imbalance in Muslim countries [geohive.com]:

      Bahrain - 134 males/100 females
      Kuwait - 150 males/100 females
      Oman - 126 males/100 females
      Qatar - 203 males/100 females
      Saudi Arabia - 122 males/100
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Re:References? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Vicissidude ( 878310 ) on Saturday July 07, 2007 @11:49PM (#19785725)
          Honor killings, as I tried to say.

          Combined with polygamy, this gender imbalance creates a whole underclass of men who will likely never get married or even have sex over their entire lifetime. Promised 72 virgins by manipulative terrorist recruiters, they'd gladly give up a poor life that only offers celibacy.
          • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

            by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday July 07, 2007 @11:55PM (#19785773)
            Comment removed based on user account deletion
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Vicissidude ( 878310 )
              There's only 4,380,439 people in the UAE - 2,966,118 men and 1,414,321 women. By those numbers, over a quarter of the population would have to be male laborers to get that kind of imbalance. More likely is that you have the combination of male laborers and honor killings.
              • Re:References? (Score:5, Informative)

                by chrisG23 ( 812077 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @12:20AM (#19785959)
                There's only 4,380,439 people in the UAE - 2,966,118 men and 1,414,321 women. By those numbers, over a quarter of the population would have to be male laborers to get that kind of imbalance. More likely is that you have the combination of male laborers and honor killings.

                From The World CIA Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world -factbook/geos/ae.html [cia.gov]

                note: 73.9% of the population in the 15-64 age group is non-national (2007 est.)

                Why so many non-nationals? If I remember I read an article about how effing rich they are and how they are in the middle of a huge economic boom as they shift the basis of their economy from oil to catering to the super rich of the world. Their standard of living for citizens is very very high so they import laborers to do the dirtier work. Mostly from the Philippines iirc.

                Also they are not a very fundamentalist Muslim nation. One of the United State Military's favorite places to hang out during off time in the region is Dubai http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai [wikipedia.org] in the UAE because they are so western friendly. (Friends of mine that have been their say it is like one big American shopping mall). So, you may need to rethink part of your assertation, at least in regards to the UAE.
                • Re:References? (Score:5, Insightful)

                  by cullenfluffyjennings ( 138377 ) <c.jennings@ieee.org> on Sunday July 08, 2007 @01:03AM (#19786201) Homepage
                  Thank you for adding some sanity to the conversation.

                  I note that http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/worldguide/html/1 052_people.html [intute.ac.uk] has the Male to Female ratio at birth as 1.05 in the UAE and that the life expectancy at birth of males is 73 years while it is 78 for females.

                  It also points out that 50% of the population is South Asian and that only 19% of the population is Emirati. I think it is relatively clear what is going on here has a lot more to do with a large group of foreign workers and the statistics don't provide much support one way or the other for anything to do with honor killings.

                • Re:References? (Score:5, Insightful)

                  by dysfunct ( 940221 ) * on Sunday July 08, 2007 @04:04AM (#19787171)

                  Why so many non-nationals?

                  The situation is even worse in other rich countries like Qatar. They have only very few inhabitants in relation to their wealth. About every family has at least one maid from the Philippines and nearly all work is done by Indians. The state pays for nearly everything (being married brings you free land to build on, having a child about $5k/month) and natives get only good jobs in high positions that are well paid and require hardly and work (i.e. being head of the local museum, with an assistant who does all your work).

                  Yet to keep the entire infrastructure running, many non-national workers are required since there are none or too few native inhabitants who would be willing to perform those duties.

                • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                  And this is why I started this long post, which I think has had more of a discussion than any other comment I've ever posted on Slashdot.
                  Its all in that one word "references"
                  The CIA world fact book is certainly not exactly esoteric fact digging, but just by reading things like that, you can look through some of the more flippant statements that people are making. If people are going to be making sociological statements about complicated issues, they should be doing research of all sorts of journals and work
              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by tempestdata ( 457317 )
                umm as someone who have lived in the UAE for over 18 years, Let me tell you that yes male laborers could quite easily make up that ratio of people. You need to visit the UAE before you accuse the people of that country of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of kids. Your ignorance would be amusing if it wasn't so frightening. The UAE has a visa system for immigrants that denies them the ability to bring in their spouses to live with them unless they prove that they are earning above a certain amount. Also th
            • That the imbalance is exacerbated by migrant workers is definitely a possibility (of course, if the male/female statistics are based on the number of births in those M.E. countries, than it's probably unrelated), however, I think that leads to the question of "where are the migrant workers coming from, and what are their homes' sex ratios like?"

              Things are definitely not any better in Asia. Whether as a result of sex-selection abortions, infanticide, disease / selective access to medical care, or some other reason, the male/female ratios in Asia are even further off than in the Middle East. (There are a lot of references on this, because it's obviously a big problem to any one in India...here's one [businessweek.com].)

              So if Oman, Saudi Arabia, and other M.E. countries are "male heavy" as a result of migrant workers (which, again, is only true if you're looking at adult statistics, which I'm not sure is the case) than that means the male/female ratio in whatever areas these workers are coming from -- presumably Asia -- even more dire, since their absence is serving to cover up the problem.
              • by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @02:05AM (#19786535)

                So if Oman, Saudi Arabia, and other M.E. countries are "male heavy" as a result of migrant workers (which, again, is only true if you're looking at adult statistics, which I'm not sure is the case) than that means the male/female ratio in whatever areas these workers are coming from -- presumably Asia -- even more dire, since their absence is serving to cover up the problem.
                Why make guesses when all the numbers you need are right there?

                UAE - ~4M - imbalance of roughly 1.5M
                Saudi Arabia - ~28M - imblance of roughly 2M
                Jordan - ~6M - imbalance of roughly 300K
                Syria - ~19M - imbalance of roughly 400K
                Oman - ~3M - imbalance of roughly 300K
                Yemen - ~22M - imbalance of roughly 440K
                Qatar - ~900K - imbalance of roughly 270K
                Pakistan - ~164M - imbalance of roughly 3.3M
                Iran - ~65M - imbalance of roughly 800K
                Iraq - ~27.5M - imbalance of roughly 300K
                Tunisia - ~10M - imbalance of roughly 72K
                Libya - ~6M - imbalance of roughly 156K
                Algeria - ~33M - imbalance of 267K
                Morocco - ~34M - imbalance of roughly -100K

                Total Population: ~422.4M
                Total imbalance: ~10M
                Average ratio is 1.048:1

                That's right in line with the ratio of 1.064:1 for the nearby and predominately Hindu India.

                Additionally, the entire 10M difference could easily be swallowed up by immigrant workers coming from areas of higher population - India's got 1.12B people, Indonesia 235M, Thailand 65M, Philippines 91M, etc. So over-all there really ain't anything to see here.
                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by tomhath ( 637240 )
                  There is something very important to see here.

                  The ratio of men/women is in line with other countries; but as the article states, the problem is with polygamy. For every man with two wives there's another man out there with no wife. And a well-off Muslim man can have up to four wives.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by erroneus ( 253617 )
            Celibacy is not the only option. Gay sex is an option. From what I have learned from some Turkish people I has been among for a few years, it's only "gay" if you are on the receiving end and like it anyway.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          There is a good chance that many of those are foreign workers come to work in the oil business.
        • by daeg ( 828071 )
          CIA World Factbook: [cia.gov]

          15-64 years: 78.5% (male 2,558,029/female 932,617)
          note: 73.9% of the population in the 15-64 age group is non-national (2007 est.)

          Read further down and you will also see that 50% of the foreign population are from South Asia. Read that as cheap imported South Asian labor. Men only. So part of the gender gap is entirely artificial in UAE's efforts to diversify away from oil in their grand construction and infrastructure development.

          Their birth rates are closer to the western medians, much
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by king-manic ( 409855 )
          Holy cow! Over twice as many males as females in the UAE? Where the hell are all their women going?

          -jcr


          The women aren't going anywhere. More precisely the women aren't coming . UAE requires a lot of skilled labor but still wishes to maintain a certain cultural purity. So it imports workers but does not provide a means to import a workers family. The workers required are skilled trades and dumb labor which is not often a womens thing and the risk of uprooting and moving tends also not to be a womens thing. T
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Holy cow! Over twice as many males as females in the UAE? Where the hell are all their women going?

          The women are not going anywhere. The real problem is that there are too many men hanging around. Thats why we need another world war, a real blood bath of a war that will slice off the excess male population and restore balance and harmony to the middleast & asia. The chinese are facing this problem... and the only solution is war. Thats why I would suggest investing your money in any stock t
      • by scheming daemons ( 101928 ) on Saturday July 07, 2007 @11:44PM (#19785675)
        Alaska... 5 males for every 1 female.

        Why aren't there large groups of angry young Alaskans commiting acts of terrorism?

        I'll tell you why. Because in Alaska, they get Comcast On-Demand porn.

        All we need to do it carpet-bomb the middle east with porn.

        Hell..... we're spending $12 billion a month on the Iraq war. At about $5000 each, we can purchase about 2.4 million anatomically correct dolls from realdoll.com [slashdot.org] and end the islamic terrorist problem with just one month's war cost!

        Just carpet-bomb the middle east with a bunch of naked "real dolls".

        Tell the muslim freaks that they're virgins being dropped from heaven by Allah.

      • You're too kind. (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by khasim ( 1285 )

        None of this is particularly new information. It's more of an accumulation of knowledge that's been out for a while.

        Not exactly. It's more of a cherry-picked collection of "studies" and "facts" that support their claims.

        Here, let's start with a good example:

        It is the combination of polygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivates many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings. Consistent with this explanation, all studies of suicide bombers indicate that they are significantly

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Vicissidude ( 878310 )
          Contradictory fact - women also become suicide bombers.

          The number of female suicide bombers is so small as to be a data anomaly.

          Contradictory fact - Japanese Kamikazes.

          You left out the first sentence of that section which frames the rest of the argument:

          Suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, but according to Oxford University sociologist Diego Gambetta, editor of Making Sense of Suicide Missions, when religion is involved, the attackers are always Muslim.

          And this article is
          • No. (Score:2, Informative)

            by khasim ( 1285 )

            The number of female suicide bombers is so small as to be a data anomaly.

            No. A "data anomaly" would be "left handed suicide bombers". Or "lesbian suicide bombers".

            A female suicide bomber DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS their cherry-picked "evidence" for their theory.

            A woman does not become a suicide bomber because she cannot find a mate. In most of those countries, there are more men than women.

            A woman does not become a suicide bomber because she wants the 72 virgins.

            And so forth.

            You left out the first sentence of tha

            • by lorcha ( 464930 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @02:18AM (#19786623)
              Excluding outliers is valid, as long as you know why you are excluding them. A lot of times a framework is developed to explain a general trend, but not intended to explain every situation.

              None of these 10 statements were meant to be universally correct. Wealthy parents more likely to have boys? How does that explain Paris and Nikki Hilton? I doesn't, but that isn't the point.

              Regarding the female suicide bombers, perhaps their rationale wasn't sex-related at all? Maybe they lost a family member or loved one in the fighting? Maybe they just really, really believe in the cause?

              So what's the use in a theory that doesn't explain the entire situation? Consider this: maybe if young Muslim males had more access to mates, there wouldn't even be a cause. It'd be too hard to find a steady supply of young, impressionable males to kill themselves and abandon their families. That females are willing to join the ranks of the males is irrelevant if the rules of the game are changed fundamentally.
            • by r00t ( 33219 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:46AM (#19787085) Journal
              A female suicide bomber doesn't disprove anything.

              In a psychology problem, you just accept that there will be bits of random noise in the data. The world is complex. Maybe the female suicide bomber felt transgendered, maybe she felt sorry for her brother, maybe she smoked too much pot, maybe she was promised that her family would be cared for (Hamas does this), maybe she was told she'd be tortured if she didn't... whatever. It is merely noise in the data.

              There is a bit of math that applies though. It seems you haven't studied statistics, particularly the idea of confidence. Obviously the numbers won't be in an article intended to summarize things; that would make for hundreds of boring charts.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by westlake ( 615356 )
            Contradictory fact - Japanese Kamikazes.
            You left out the first sentence of that section which frames the rest of the argument:
            Suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, but according to Oxford University sociologist Diego Gambetta, editor of Making Sense of Suicide Missions, when religion is involved, the attackers are always Muslim.

            But religion was - profoundly - a part of the Kamikaze experience. The "Divine Wind." The Last Notes of the Kamikaze Pilots and the Japanese View of Death and A [berkeley.edu]

      • by hjf ( 703092 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @01:10AM (#19786225) Homepage
        My algebra class: 80 males and 3 females (6 actually but the other 3 are really ugly).
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      I don't need to ask for references, because I already know that half of this stuff is just false.

      Men like blond bombshells (and women want to look like them)
      I don't. I much, much prefer black hair. The author tries to make it seem like preference for blond hair is universal -- then argues that blond hair developed in northern Europe. Supposedly, blond hair evolved in that cold climate as an alternate means to advertise youth, but how would the men from the rest of the world know that?

      Most suicide bombers ar
      • Re:References? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by kripkenstein ( 913150 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @02:46AM (#19786749) Homepage

        The author tries to make it seem like preference for blond hair is universal
        Furthermore, the problem is that sociobiological theory can be used to argue against itself: If being blond is indeed a factor that makes women more attractive, why is it not more prevalent? In fact, why isn't it ubiquitous?

        Some might say that it is because men are less attractive with blond hair, so the trait tends to reach a balance. Perhaps; yet I have never seen evidence for that claim, and in fact, sociobiological theory generally claims that appearance is more important for women (whereas power, authority and resources/money are more important for men). Given that, we would expect to see blond hair in more than half of the population - at least given enough time. Thus, the only defense left is that not enough time has passed for the trait to spread. Perhaps. Yet research seems to show people with blond hair appearing in sizable numbers 10,000 years ago in Europe [timesonline.co.uk] - quite a long time indeed. Not enough...?

        Blond hair does seem like an attractive trait these days. But we can't tell if that is a cultural matter (which, in turn, can be either long-lived or just a fad) or something biologically-based - or both. Sociobiological theory cannot quantify the effect of biology on social behavior, and therefore is somewhat limited as a science.
      • Most suicide bombers are Muslim

        This means in no way that Muslims have any sort of monopoly on violence -- they're just willing to take their own lives.

        The existence of the Muslim suicide bomber is a relatively recent phenomenon. During the Iran-Iraq war of the early 1980s, Iran was getting severely beaten by the superior Iraq army. Waves of suicide bombers were used in the defense of their country. It was more a nationalist than a religious act.

        Prior to 1980, suicide bombings existed (for instance, am

    • by HanzoSpam ( 713251 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @04:32AM (#19787341)
      ...and here we have a rebuttal. [fredoneverything.net]
  • Uh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Safiire Arrowny ( 596720 ) on Saturday July 07, 2007 @11:22PM (#19785531) Homepage
    Please don't make Slashdot turn into a bunch of speculative blog posts about random topics.

    Seriously, I saw this artical on Digg the other day and that's where it should have stayed.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 07, 2007 @11:37PM (#19785617)
      Attention editors: There's no point in trying to keep up with Digg.
      • You can't keep up with Digg because Digg has 100-200 front page articles/day, while Slashdot has 10-20. But know this: that's how we like it. And we don't even mind having slow news days where there are only 5 front page articles. If there's no news, don't add filler.
      • We read slashdot for intelligent articles, not the mindless crap found on digg. If you're going to insist on posting crap, we'll just go read the same crap elsewhere a few days earlier.
      Seriously, mod parent up. Let's keep this crap off Slashdot. Tag the story "stupid", "notslashworthy", and/or "seenondigg".
  • by Virak ( 897071 ) on Saturday July 07, 2007 @11:25PM (#19785549) Homepage
    I don't. Perhaps you'd like an adjective to go with that sentence?
  • by khasim ( 1285 )
    It seems that they've picked examples of whatever they want to claim and then claimed that those examples are the norm.

    Long before TV--in 15th- and 16th- century Italy, and possibly two millennia ago--women were dying their hair blond.

    And ... ? Was it a fad / fashion? I don't remember seeing many representations of that in the art from that period. And speaking of that art.

    Women's desire to look like Barbie--young with small waist, large breasts, long blond hair, and blue eyes--is a direct, realistic, and s

  • by scheming daemons ( 101928 ) on Saturday July 07, 2007 @11:26PM (#19785553)
    Everything every adult man ever does... whether consciously or subconsciously... is all about getting laid.

    Spending hours playing Quake? Deep down, somehow, it's all about getting laid.

    Watching football on Sunday? yep.... about getting laid.

    Posting on slashdot? yeah.. well... this is a tough one. Okay, nothing anybody has ever posted on slashdot has ever led to someone getting laid.

    ...but we keep doing it... because deep down, we all think that there MUST be some hot chick out there saying to her girlfriend on a Saturday night as they're perusing slashdot, "I'm going to have sex with the next guy that posts a comment with a rating of 3 or higher."

    Well... whatayaknow.... that's me!

    hehehe

    • by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Saturday July 07, 2007 @11:42PM (#19785655)
      Sports and other competitive games are forms of play, which, from an evolutionary standpoint, is training for the sort of activity required to feed oneself and one's family (at least, back in caveman days). The ability to feed one's family is a selection criterion for females choosing mates, so males which are more capable of doing so are more likely to mate. Therefore, there is an evolutionary pressure to encourage play in males throughout life, and thus, there is an evolutionary pressure for a neurological reward for play, namely that it is fun.

      So, males play Quake, watch football (i.e., vicariously play football), and post to Slashdot (the eternal dick-waving contest) under the subconscious motivation that it will (indirectly) get you laid, not because females observe this behavior and are attracted to it, but because in a more primitive society, similar activities serve as practice for the capabilities that females are attracted to. In other words, it will get you laid.

  • OH RLY? (Score:5, Funny)

    by eebra82 ( 907996 ) on Saturday July 07, 2007 @11:27PM (#19785555) Homepage
    Why do wealthier people have more male children, and poorer people have more female children?

    That's absurd. I'd love to explain why, but I am in a rush to apply for some new credit to my daughter.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 07, 2007 @11:32PM (#19785579)
    The hip to waist ratio theory was pushed by the "soft" sciences (sociology and psycology). But shortly after was shot down by hard science (anthropologist) who simple tested the theory globally and found tribal cultures that did not like the supposedly perfect 0.7 ratio.

    I think it's safe to assume the rest of the article is filled with similar bullshit.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by FleaPlus ( 6935 )
      But shortly after was shot down by hard science (anthropologist) who simple tested the theory globally and found tribal cultures that did not like the supposedly perfect 0.7 ratio.

      Do you have a citation for that? The publications I can find [google.com] all seem to confirm the cross-cultural universality of the 0.7 waist-hip ratio.
  • by tinrobot ( 314936 ) on Saturday July 07, 2007 @11:34PM (#19785599)
    The surprising answer is that Muslim suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam or the Quran (except for two lines). It has a lot to do with sex, or, in this case, the absence of sex.

    So they're bombing us so that they can go get laid in heaven with those 72 virgins.

    I guess we need to start some sort of global escort service to stop terrorism.
    • by fermion ( 181285 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @01:37AM (#19786359) Homepage Journal
      Ob South Park

      Let's all look at why Muslims are upset:
      First of all, in the Muslim religion, you're not allowed to have what?
      Sex. Good.
      There's no sex until marriage in the Muslim world.
      Now, this would be fine except that in the Muslim religion you also can't, Anybody? Jack off.
      Okay, jacking it is strictly forbidden in the Muslim religion. And what do we know about the places Muslims live? They live in? Good, sand.
      Now put yourself in the shoes of a Muslim. It's Friday night, but you can't have sex, and you can't jack off. There's sand in your eyes and probably in the crack of your ass, and then some cartoon comes along from a country where people are getting laid, and mocks your prophet. Well you know what? I'd be pretty pissed off too!

      You know, i realize that these hacks are just trying to sell a book, and are probably laughing all the way to the bank at all the ignorant people who actually take it seriously, but given that they have a PHD, they might try to make it bit more convincing that South Park. Not to degrade South Park, it is one of the most insightful shows on TV. And it gains points because it admits it basic worthlessness rather than trying to wrap itself in the facade of respectability.

  • by flaterates ( 659792 ) on Saturday July 07, 2007 @11:38PM (#19785637)
    My little girl was all I cared about. My son did very well. Guys are alive today just because I knew that murder was illegal.
  • by suv4x4 ( 956391 ) on Saturday July 07, 2007 @11:42PM (#19785657)
    Those aren't just "politically incorrect observations". They're just incorrect observations.

    It's a poor "mix-and-match" mixture of poorly carried out studies, wrong assumptions, "facts" pulled out of thin air, and just plain pseudo-science.

    All of the reasons why we prefer one or another physical trait in each other is dumbed down to "it makes you look healthier". But we actually knew thus far, thank you very much. The actual reasons are usually way more subtle and related to the way our brains have evolved to process information, and the resulting perception we have for the world around us.

    But why not - let's dumb it all down. The condescending tone doesn't help either.

    To top it all, after you've done reading the article, this online magazine offers a handy form:

    "Find a therapist near you"

    I suggest you check it out, since after you're done with this article, you'll need it.
  • WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Saturday July 07, 2007 @11:49PM (#19785727)
    This article is just bad in every conceivable way. It's a bunch of psuedo-scientific explaination to justify stereotypes. That, and the 'facts' they use to back up their psuedo-science are wrong.
    • Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Saturday July 07, 2007 @11:58PM (#19785795)
      The great logical fallacy of the 1990s was that stereotypes are always incorrect by sheer virtue of them being stereotypes. It's so heartwarming to see that fallacy continued even today.

      By the way, at least the article managed to put forth some conjectures, even if they don't cite any studies. Your "nuh-uh" rebuttal leaves something to be desired.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by big4ared ( 1029122 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @12:04AM (#19785843)


    Do you ever wonder what really drives guys to spend the time working on open source software? According to #7:


    Both crime and genius are expressions of young men's competitive desires, whose ultimate function in the ancestral environment would have been to increase reproductive success. ...

    Men have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them.

  • Beware The Source! (Score:5, Informative)

    by aldheorte ( 162967 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @12:05AM (#19785853)
    Psychology Today is a pop-culture magazine not respected by any professional psychological association. It is essentially a tabloid and should be considered in the same class as the '10 ways to tell if your boyfriend thinks you are fat' magazines. If you want actual, scholarly articles on human nature, check out the many publications of the American Psychological Association [apa.org].

    Linking to Psychology Today is embarrassing.
  • Lucifer (Score:5, Informative)

    by kryzx ( 178628 ) * on Sunday July 08, 2007 @12:06AM (#19785867) Homepage Journal
    For a deeply researched and most excellent collection of ideas, evidence, and conclusions along these lines, but perhaps argued more persuasively, see "The Lucifer Pricipal" (available here [amazon.com]) by Howard Bloom. It is revolutionary, and a revelation. It's an excellent work, which changed my thinking.
  • by ChrisMaple ( 607946 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @01:06AM (#19786215)
    Blondness increases the amount of sun hitting the skin, thus increasing the amount of the essential vitamin D. Northerners get less sun; blondness is more of an advantage for them. Once fully grown, bodies don't require as much vitamin D for bone health, hair can turn darker.

    The third and fourth sources for claims of sexual harassment come from women lying for malicious reasons (money, revenge, political gain, etc.), and from women who are loony. I've seen it happen. I don't doubt that some men engage in sexual harassment as the article describes, but I've seen many more cases of women claiming harassment and discrimination when they should be looking at their own deficiencies.

    Why on earth does anyone believe anything from Psychology Today?

  • soft science (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fermion ( 181285 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @01:26AM (#19786305) Homepage Journal
    This is the problem with soft science. One can come up with a hypothesis, even a mechanism of why the theories might be true, but there is often little means to prove the model as the best one to predict future outcomes. This, in science, is the key. Can it be used to make reasonable predictions of what will happen given certain initial values.

    What a real scientist does is not only come up with personally preferred models, but also comes up solicits competing models, and searches for deficiencies in the preferred model. This is why at the end of so many peer reviewed finding one sees the list of disclaimers and the need for future work. In this case, for instance, what might be the other reasons for differences noted in the gender ration based on income. A real scientist does not whine that no one agrees with hypothesis, at least not in print. They wait to the to gloat one they win the nobel prize.

    Here is the point. There is nothing wrong with ideas stated in the article. The PC angle merely identified Pych Today as the pop culture tabloid that it is. It exists to sell advertising, and has little positive scientific or social value. I recall my psychology teacher specifically banning it from the reading list, and such a statement from such a soft science is significant. The issue is that these are presented as stipulate truths rather than works in progress, and have no critical thinking attached. For instance, while it is true that certain body shapes in women do have easier time delivering babies, it is likely untrue that anything other than age is a general predictor of fertility. As many boys have discovered, there is no one more fertile than a teen aged girl. Many of them get pregnant just looking at sperm. And as many a delivery nurse will tell you, those babies tend to pop out of the girls, no matter what the shape.

    So what we have here is a collection of ideas that people wish were true, and to some extent are. However, just stopping at these "truths" limit the discovery of deeper and more complete truths. Is the big breasted girl really the ultimate treasure, or is more than a mouthful a waste? Do certain income ranges foster certain genders, and if so, why do I know so many wealthy families, at least in developed countries, with all girls? Are frat boys who engage in innocent date rape just following their evolutionary calling, or are they just socialized to be assholes?

    To complicate matters, we also have the issue of how much of science is objective, and how much is created by the researcher. On interesting thing I find in my reading is the more I see the word "truth" used, the less objective the science is. My hypothesis is that this happens because in softer research where "truth" is acceptable, the research is cherry picking data and studies to support a pre existing notion. The outcome of the "research" is a foregone conclusion, and any negative input is ignored. OTOH, in harder research, while most of the time may be spent trying to prove a preexisting idea, there is at least the realization of other points of view, so the outcome is more of a defensible argument for rationality rather than a truth.

    And because so many cheap shots were taken in this article, let me end with another. I expect very soon to be reading why dark skin people are not evolutionary suited for television or film or high level executive positions. or why women, which much research has shown to be stronger workers, caring for babies, and the fields, and the mate, are nevertheless the weaker sex.

    In the end this appears to be cherry picked research with no attention paid to the statistical contribution of other factors. I am sure that if any of the writers ever had a methods course, the slept through it. In the end, these appear to be hacks trying to sell a book, capitalizing on the neocon movement I can see it now, some guy wants to divorce the wife who put him through school, and marry some young girl, goes to court and says judge, it is not my fault, my first wife never gave me any boys, how could I possible lover her? And to add to that, she was not a naturall blonde and her boobs were fake. I was entrapped!

  • Barbie (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ChrisMaple ( 607946 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @01:42AM (#19786387)
    FWIW, if you've ever bothered to actually measure a Barbie doll (even the old ones, before Mattel added some politically-correct belly fat), you'd find that it is not large-breasted: a B cup at most. What it does have is an extremely tiny waist, about 17" if scaled up to the size of an average adult female.
  • Shallow Article (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pooua ( 265915 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @01:46AM (#19786423) Homepage
    I saw a reference to this article on another forum I visit. I haven't had much respect for "Psychology Today" for about 13 years. Didn't some weird publication buy them out, some porn magazine or something? I think it was "Playboy" or something. The magazine was already a joke before that happened; that sale certainly didn't help it gain any scientific credibility.

    A few thoughts on the article:

    "Men like blond bombshells (and women want to look like them)"

    He cites some examples of women attempting to look blonde long ago or in isolated areas. Eh, so what? But, at least they are facts, meager as they are. Much worse is the explanation of why humanity in general wants women to be blonde (pretending that 2 examples proves a universal truth for all time): Blondes look younger. Women in cold regions hide their slender, young, nubile bodies under thick clothes impenetrable to male gaze, and so evolved blonde hair to signify they are young. Eh? What am I to make of such a claim? Northern women never exposed their bodies for thousands of years of pagan rituals? Human mating season is only in Winter? The rest of the world is populated by nudists?

    "even though Judeo-Christian traditions hold that monogamy is the only natural form of marriage."

    The point in Christianity is not to be natural, but to be godly. Civilization is a highly unnatural state; humans are naturally savages. We like to have limited social groups, but we want all the resources we can get for ourselves. Monogamy was to reduce cruelty to women; despite the authors' claim that monogamy benefits women, because they could share a wealthy man, the reality is, this is not really a benefit.
  • Rule of thumb (Score:4, Informative)

    by BlueParrot ( 965239 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @10:04AM (#19789039)
    If it contains the word "truth" it is not science.
  • by Yinepuhotep ( 821200 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @10:29AM (#19789187) Homepage
    Their explanation of suicide bombers alone tripped my BS meter. Last I knew, the Tamil Tigers were not Muslim, and they're the group that invented suicide bombing. A more rational explanation, as I see it, is that suicide bombing is used by people (regardless of religion or politics) who believe that they are so hopelessly outnumbered by their enemy that even blowing themselves up is worth it, if it will just take a few of their enemy with them. That would make suicide bombing fit into the same mode of thought as the samurai who charged his enemy's castle, knowing he would die in the process, or the fighter pilot who, after being shot down, steered his plane into an enemy ship, knowing that he would die in the explosion.
  • by stewbacca ( 1033764 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @10:38AM (#19789265)

    The greater fitness variance among males creates greater pressure for men to compete with each other for mates. Only big and tall males can win mating opportunities.
    Me name Zog. Me zugzug your woman. Me big strong...me get laid, you not!

    Who came up with this drivel? The last time I checked, MOST couples are kinda fat, kinda ugly, don't have a lot of money, and are having way more sex with each other than that average looking guy trying to hook up with the hot woman. Ugly people need loving too, as do small people, as do geeks. Everyone has a match, and this concept of bigger man gets the action is lame. If only the biggest and prettiest people are mating, how do you explain, well, the American South, or England? (Ok, that was a joke, don't kill me).

  • Suicide Bombers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MrSteveSD ( 801820 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @09:02PM (#19794307)

    Why are most suicide bombers Muslim?


    It's a bit like saying "Why are most air-strikes which kill civilians carried out by Christians and Jews?" The answer has little to do with Christianity or Judasim and more to do with the fact that the US and Israel happen to have formidable air power and regularly use it. If the US did not have a huge well-equipped military and it wanted to attack in some way, it might well turn to using terror tactics (although would probably call it guerilla warfare). In fact on occasion it has indeed turned to terror tactics such as the Beirut car bombing in 1985, where air strikes were not really an option. If the Palestinians had jets, they would use them, as would Alqaeda.

    I think suicide bombing has more to do with circumstance and opportunity than Islam. If by accident of history the Middle East had become Hindu, you would today be asking why there is so much Hindu terrorism. It would stem from things like the Israeli domination of the once Hindu dominated Palestine, and the oppressive totalitarian regime in Hindu Saudi Arabia being supported by the west. Angry oppressed Saudi Hindus would hate the people who support their oppressors as much as the oppressive government itself.

    In the Middle East there is a lot of anger with the west over many issues, particularly the toppling of democracies and installing and supporting dictators and repressive regimes. Practices which continue to this very day. The channel for this anger happens to be Islamic fundamentalism, but without that channel it would find another. If we had been promoting democracy in the Middle East instead of supporting and installing dictators for the last 50 years, perhaps that channel would have been a lot less violent. I'm not excusing their behviour but all of this isn't coming out of a vaccum and it's not really due to Islam. Islam is just the channel.

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Working...