I very much enjoyed this article. Just wanted to share.

 

I very much enjoyed this article. Just wanted to share.

It's good to be an older man so you don't have to worry about this social conditioning tripe. Why is the universe violent?

 

It's good to be an older man so you don't have to worry about this social conditioning tripe. Why is the universe violent?

What's the subject of the photo?

 

What's the subject of the photo?

Supermassive black hole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_A
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150124.html
http://images.nrao.edu/110

 

Very interesting article. I can just imagine the reaction it would get in many circles today for some of the things he dares utter.

But one thing that is almost universally left out of articles that talk about evolution and how females choose males is that humans didn't survive because of big aggressive males; it survived because of intelligence. In actuality, both played a key role and humans likely would not have survived without adequate numbers of both, but if it could have had only one, then it's odds would have been far superior with relatively weak intelligent people than with relatively strong idiots. Pit twenty of the biggest males against a pack of lions and the outcome is pretty predictable. Pit twenty scrawny guys with spears and knives against a pack of lions and the outcome is a lot less certain. Of course, pit the lions against the twenty big guys armed with the spears and knives invented and made by the scrawny guys and the odds start tilting noticeably.

Also, the article claims, reasonably, that individuals with desirable traits were more attractive to females and hence passed those traits on. But it uses this to explain why modern females are attractive to aggressive males. Yet human evolution has NOT favored physically strong, powerful males -- they are the exception rather than the rule. But it has strongly favored increasing intelligence to the point that human babies are born premature relative to other species and even at that the brain size at birth is a threat to the life of the mother during childbirth. So it would seem that, historically, females found intelligence to be disproportionately attractive. But why not now? I think it's because what females find attractive is less genetically programmed than it is based on the evidence before them. In the past, females could easily see that the smart guys were the ones that were most responsible for their group's survival and well-being. Today, that reliance is far less visible and so the rather illusory notion that physically imposing and aggressive males offer the most value in this regard takes hold. Emphasizing this is that in the past the survival of the individual female and her offspring couldn't be separated very far from the survival of the group and so females were aware, even if subconsciously, that what is good for the group is good for me. But today that tie has pretty thoroughly been shredded and smart males are more strongly tied to the survival of the group and big brutes are more strongly tied to the survival of the individual.

 

Very interesting article. I can just imagine the reaction it would get in many circles today for some of the things he dares utter.

But one thing that is almost universally left out of articles that talk about evolution and how females choose males is that humans didn't survive because of big aggressive males; it survived because of intelligence. In actuality, both played a key role and humans likely would not have survived without adequate numbers of both, but if it could have had only one, then it's odds would have been far superior with relatively weak intelligent people than with relatively strong idiots. Pit twenty of the biggest males against a pack of lions and the outcome is pretty predictable. Pit twenty scrawny guys with spears and knives against a pack of lions and the outcome is a lot less certain. Of course, pit the lions against the twenty big guys armed with the spears and knives invented and made by the scrawny guys and the odds start tilting noticeably.

Also, the article claims, reasonably, that individuals with desirable traits were more attractive to females and hence passed those traits on. But it uses this to explain why modern females are attractive to aggressive males. Yet human evolution has NOT favored physically strong, powerful males -- they are the exception rather than the rule. But it has strongly favored increasing intelligence to the point that human babies are born premature relative to other species and even at that the brain size at birth is a threat to the life of the mother during childbirth. So it would seem that, historically, females found intelligence to be disproportionately attractive. But why not now? I think it's because what females find attractive is less genetically programmed than it is based on the evidence before them. In the past, females could easily see that the smart guys were the ones that were most responsible for their group's survival and well-being. Today, that reliance is far less visible and so the rather illusory notion that physically imposing and aggressive males offer the most value in this regard takes hold. Emphasizing this is that in the past the survival of the individual female and her offspring couldn't be separated very far from the survival of the group and so females were aware, even if subconsciously, that what is good for the group is good for me. But today that tie has pretty thoroughly been shredded and smart males are more strongly tied to the survival of the group and big brutes are more strongly tied to the survival of the individual.

Not just I intelligence but collaboration between all members of early societies in full. We do not seem to be capable of that anymore. Collaboration has been replaced with endless competition. I will not even comment on how preferences for a "mate" are being artificially constructed.

 

Masculinity is not violence but there seems to be a tendency to use aggression as a solution to problems when Masculinity is threatened. As this culture reduces masculinity as a desirable trait (men into passive, commodified bodies) in young boys I expect to see more violence by culturally outcast young men against targets that promote (in the criminals mind) the loss of masculine self-esteem in the future.

 

Very interesting article. I can just imagine the reaction it would get in many circles today for some of the things he dares utter.

But one thing that is almost universally left out of articles that talk about evolution and how females choose males is that humans didn't survive because of big aggressive males; it survived because of intelligence. In actuality, both played a key role and humans likely would not have survived without adequate numbers of both, but if it could have had only one, then it's odds would have been far superior with relatively weak intelligent people than with relatively strong idiots. Pit twenty of the biggest males against a pack of lions and the outcome is pretty predictable. Pit twenty scrawny guys with spears and knives against a pack of lions and the outcome is a lot less certain. Of course, pit the lions against the twenty big guys armed with the spears and knives invented and made by the scrawny guys and the odds start tilting noticeably.

Also, the article claims, reasonably, that individuals with desirable traits were more attractive to females and hence passed those traits on. But it uses this to explain why modern females are attractive to aggressive males. Yet human evolution has NOT favored physically strong, powerful males -- they are the exception rather than the rule. But it has strongly favored increasing intelligence to the point that human babies are born premature relative to other species and even at that the brain size at birth is a threat to the life of the mother during childbirth. So it would seem that, historically, females found intelligence to be disproportionately attractive. But why not now? I think it's because what females find attractive is less genetically programmed than it is based on the evidence before them. In the past, females could easily see that the smart guys were the ones that were most responsible for their group's survival and well-being. Today, that reliance is far less visible and so the rather illusory notion that physically imposing and aggressive males offer the most value in this regard takes hold. Emphasizing this is that in the past the survival of the individual female and her offspring couldn't be separated very far from the survival of the group and so females were aware, even if subconsciously, that what is good for the group is good for me. But today that tie has pretty thoroughly been shredded and smart males are more strongly tied to the survival of the group and big brutes are more strongly tied to the survival of the individual.

You went to a different high school than I did. The girls were definitely not interested in intelligence.

 

Collaboration has been replaced with endless competition.

Tell me of a time when humans were more collaborative than competitive.

 

Sorry, I couldn't find that clip from the 1932 Island of Lost Souls.

 

No!

 

Tell me of a time when humans were more collaborative than competitive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caral

No trace of warfare has been found at Caral: no battlements, no weapons, no mutilated bodies. Ruth Shady's findings suggest it was a gentle society, built on commerce and pleasure. In one of the temples, they uncovered 32 flutes made of condor and pelican bones and 37 cornetts of deer and llama bones. One find revealed the remains of a baby, wrapped and buried with a necklace made of stone beads

kv

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caral


kv

I'm thinking they were coked up all day. The lack of warfare with other tribes, chiefdoms and fiefdoms seems to be to unrelated to being competitive or even normal human violence.

 

I'm thinking they were coked up all day. The lack of warfare with other tribes, chiefdoms and fiefdoms seems to be to unrelated to being competitive or even normal human violence.

29 minutes in, 34 minutes in you begin to see more how the surrounding villages co-operated to form Commerce.

kv

 

29 minutes in, 34 minutes in you begin to see more how the surrounding villages co-operated to form Commerce.

kv

Even if it's true they were totally a totally non-competitive culture, which I doubt because that missing evidence is about warfare, it's an aberration in the history of mankind.

 

 

Who is correct about Caral? BBC stating it lasted 4000 years of the info at wiki that states it was 600 years?

I can believe the current evidence shows it was a peaceful city ... known to indulge in a few vices, enhanced by lime and coco.

I know, both are true because you can't put anything false on the internet.

 

You went to a different high school than I did. The girls were definitely not interested in intelligence.

I didn't say that they are in today's world. Quite the reverse.

 

Tell me of a time when humans were more collaborative than competitive.

It's not a one or the other thing. You can certainly be both at the same time. Any time humans came together to form any kind of a group/tribe/clan/whatever, it was primarily driven by the need to collaborate to succeed, but that doesn't mean that competition didn't go one both within the group and between groups.

Then look at most countries, particularly first-world countries, today. Think of all the interactions you go through during the course of a typical day. Most of them fall pretty strongly on the collaborative side of the scale. When you think about it, the "free market" is really driven by collaboration far more than competition. What is it that it accomplishes? The collaborative distribution of labor to meet society's needs for goods and services far more efficiently than if each person (or smaller group) had to be self-sufficient.

 

A boy.

A man.

A pilot