Found this interesting article. It's loooong but it's worth the read.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...622-000002.xml
Found this interesting article. It's loooong but it's worth the read.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...622-000002.xml
Last edited by Deadfire; Tue, 07-10-2007 at 09:28 AM.
That is the biggest load of bullshit I have heard in a long, long time.
There are some articles you read which you know are talking crap, but you read them anyway to indulge yourself in the theories of other people. This is perhaps the first one I have read ever that didn't fall in to this category.
I can't believe this was written by someone with a PhD. Even though I disagree with most of the point, I could have come up with better crap to justify them than the authors. Sad, sad people.
I think most of them are quite spot on. Could you say what you don't agree with, 'cause most of these points seem natural to me and make perfect sense.
#4 and #6 cracked me up. Im going to keep #10 in mind just incase I'll need it in the futureOriginally Posted by Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature
that was an interesting read.
I first thought it was someone trying to be funny, but as I continued reading I realised the article was serious in what it was saying.
Although some points (and I say some just to give the authors the benefit of the doubt on something) may be interesting observations, the idea that any of these is true due to the reasoning used is preposterous.
I mean take the first thing about Men being genetically pre-disposed to liking blue eyed blondes with a small waist, large hips and big breasts. Taking my own preferences out of this discussion for the sake of impartiality, this is just wrong on so many levels. I'll get straight to the point on this one, and say read this article. Clearly its people's concepts which dictate what kind of things they like in life, not some genetic code.
I won't go on to the other points, as the stupidity in this one was brain damagingly large. The article completely lost credibility with me by the time it got to talking about why men like blue eyed women.
If you ask me, seeing as one of the authors seems to be japanese I would say we got some heavy cultural bias going on here towards blue eyed blondes.
Dammit it's so annoying that you can't edit your own thread titles. Could a pretty mod please edit the title so it says "incorrect" instead of "pncorrect"?
As with any scientific study this is based om generalisations. So you can't expect it to apply on every single isolated event.
Have you heard the phrase "attraction is not a choice"? Basically it is hard coded in to you what type of woman you should be looking for. Do you choose to get an erection when you se a hot woman? Of course social conditioning will get in the way of what your really attracted to in some cases.
For example a guy might be extremely attracted to fat chick but thinks that it's wrong. On the other hand som guys might think that blond bombshells har hot just because others think they are hot. Of course there are some guys who deny that they think blond bombshells are hot just because they think that they will never be able to get them and come with excuses like "she's probably a bitch anyway, I'm better off without her".
Do not underestimate the power of our genetic heritage.
Last edited by el_boss; Tue, 07-10-2007 at 01:19 PM.
Dude... this isn't scientific! At best its a correlation (and I use the word loosley here) of some observations. There is no control sample, no repeated results, no controlling of surrounding conditions, no varying of one variable whilst controlling others etc etc etc. You can't analyse something like this scientifically.
Besides, even if we were to agree on this being a generalisation, the article is still wrong as it is asserting this the norm worldwide. Thats like saying condition x applies to everyone in the world, except anyone who does not live in a certain town in a certain state in a certain country. Its absurd.
El_Boss you keep on spelling everything wrong. Its "underestimate" not "inderestimate"
Fun read. I thought you misspelled "pncorrect" on purpose, kind of like "pwned".
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
I don't get where you get your reasoning from. The article adresses human as a species, not each individual person. You are still human regardless of what country/town you are from.
Dammit... but that can be fixed though.El_Boss you keep on spelling everything wrong. Its "underestimate" not "inderestimate"
I shouldn't have said anything :P
Science is the process of making observations, deriving theories from those observations, and testing those theories. Sometimes it's possible to verify or falsify a theory without experimentation, and sometimes it's functionally impossible or unethical to verify a theory with experiment.
The underlying statements in this article are, in general, observations. Observations don't need to be tested, they simply are. "Most men like blond, blue-eyed women with big breasts" is an observation that's quite valid in the west and in places where the west intersects substantially (personally, I prefer brown or red hair and midsized ...). They follow up the observation with a suggested explanation that's an application of already-tested theory.
So it's not so much "doing science" as "applying science to explain observations".
Fair enough. Not everyone loves blondes. But how many cultures are there out there that like a flat-chested girl (excluding the lolicon subculture)?Besides, even if we were to agree on this being a generalisation, the article is still wrong as it is asserting this the norm worldwide.
Some of the points are dumb but it is still an interesting read. A few are definitely Eurocentric.
I've taken enough science, psychology, and cultural science courses to notice a lot of controversial points that the article brings up. For one thing, not all cultures share a common preference to female qualities. I still have the book that depicts this more specifically...I can dig some stuff up on it later. When looking at cultures that are isolated from outside influence, you can see drastically different behaviors in relationships between men and women.
10/4/04 - 8/20/07
I can only speak for my yellow brothers, but they tend to "prefer" blondes because they are tired of the same black-haired brown-eyed Asian girls they've seen around them their entire lives, ie they are bored of the samee samee. I still prefer my yellow sisters, but honestly will take whatever as long as she's breathing.
Psychology/sociology or whatever you want to say this article is addressing is a somewhat inexact science anyway. Yes we can draw conclusions from observations, but those conclusions will be biased because people behave based on so many different influences and variables. It's not like true science where the numbers and facts match exactly.
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
