Oh, well, you’re good at playing your role. We’ll just leave it at that. Why do you think I recruited you in the first place? A gadfly; a forum needs one.
Toodles
(Aug 16, 2018 08:37 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Oh, well, you’re good at playing your role. We’ll just leave it at that. Why do you think I recruited you in the first place? A gadfly; a forum needs one.
Toodles
From the real gadfly, who begs off any time she's asked to support any of her claims. Projecting again.
Quote:Men do not share the same concern over social reputation that women do
=Religious conservative psycho-sexual brain washing
mostly all religions preach this as "conservative values"
be it christian or muslim or practicing gender roles inside hindu-ism(though... hindu does not declare that women are unable to be leaders, powerful or magical unlike islam-ism or christianity-ism)
(Aug 17, 2018 12:19 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Men do not share the same concern over social reputation that women do
=Religious conservative psycho-sexual brain washing
mostly all religions preach this as "conservative values"
be it christian or muslim or practicing gender roles inside hindu-ism(though... hindu does not declare that women are unable to be leaders, powerful or magical unlike islam-ism or christianity-ism)
I swear, your brain works like a pachinko machine...where every single pin is a religious or political bias.
The female concern over social reputation is a natural result of evolution. Most scholars would say that the religious values are just the resulting social norm of this evolutionary psychology. Women's social reputation has nothing to do with being leaders. It's their irrationality/emotionality that breeds distrust of their judgement.
(Aug 16, 2018 08:11 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Of course not...it's in your DNA.
Are you trying to say that hypergamy is purely genetic without any environmental influences?
From what I understand behavioral traits have been in explained by factors that are not genetic, and any of the so-called underlying genes that might contribute to a particular behavior have come up empty.
Syne Wrote:I already told that Nietzsche's view on becoming the ubermensch was self-actualization.
I believe that’s Maslow's overman.
(Aug 17, 2018 06:48 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 16, 2018 08:11 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Of course not...it's in your DNA.
Are you trying to say that hypergamy is purely genetic without any environmental influences?
From what I understand behavioral traits have been in explained by factors that are not genetic, and any of the so-called underlying genes that might contribute to a particular behavior have come up empty.
Not so. Tests in mice have demonstrated that a conditioned fear response, for example, in one generation will be passed to the next. Evolutionary psychology exists because evolutionary pressures on survival do alter behaviors, and that prolonged generational reinforcement of those adaptive survival behaviors do become highly ingrained and subconscious.
The only modern environmental influences are the social norms built upon the evolutionary psychology. We know this because modern indicators of higher status do not provoke the magnitude of response that natural, evolutionary indicators do. This is why a guy flaunting his money (modern indicator of success) doesn't work half as well as his attitude and confidence (natural
honest indicators of high status).
Quote:Syne Wrote:I already told that Nietzsche's view on becoming the ubermensch was self-actualization.
I believe that’s Maslow's overman.
Maslow used the term "self-actualization", but Nietzsche describes the exact same thing.
(Aug 17, 2018 07:27 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Of course not...it's in your DNA.
When did we develop this genetic trait? When did female mate choice come into play?
Syne Wrote:Maslow used the term "self-actualization", but Nietzsche describes the exact same thing.
So, self-actualization-the realization or fulfillment of one's talents and potentialities, especially considered as a drive or need present in everyone completely describes Nietzsche's ubermensch, is that what you're saying?
(Aug 18, 2018 01:25 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 17, 2018 07:27 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Of course not...it's in your DNA.
When did we develop this genetic trait? When did female mate choice come into play?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7LN14IpVy0
It's a natural consequence of sexual selection. In some species, the male monopolizes the best mates and physically thwarts competitors, and in others, the female seeks mates with the best survival traits. We might naively assume that earlier women were completely at the whim of dominate men, but that would require us ignoring hidden estrus in humans. Unlike many other species, it's not externally clear when a women is at peak fertility. So even if largely monopolized, a single man cannot both maintain dominance and keep an eagle eye on his harem at all times. So even early human women could have some choice in mates. Granted, female mate selection back then would likely correspond to dominate males. So hypergamy was an adaptation to both the internal pressure to seek the best survival traits and the external pressure of dominate males.
True choice likely didn't come around until some degree of civilization and/or monogamy. But men were already just as adapted to female hypergamy (with their corresponding hypogamy), through the same dominance hierarchy.
Quote:Syne Wrote:Maslow used the term "self-actualization", but Nietzsche describes the exact same thing.
So, self-actualization-the realization or fulfillment of one's talents and potentialities, especially considered as a drive or need present in everyone completely describes Nietzsche's ubermensch, is that what you're saying?
It does where Nietzsche is talking about the ubermensch as a goal to strive for. He used the term in several senses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch#As_a_goal
(Aug 18, 2018 02:50 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]True choice likely didn't come around until some degree of civilization and/or monogamy.
How fast do changes occur through evolution by mate choice? What was the timeline and the regions in which we had a choice?
Syne Wrote:Maslow used the term "self-actualization", but Nietzsche describes the exact same thing.
No he doesn't.
I’ve said elsewhere that he uses 'woman' metaphorically for life.
It is a man that can to look into the abyss where he’ll see, not his likeness, but his image that was hidden, and all the images that came before him. It is a man that can understand all that it entails and can still love life, and would choose her again and again for all eternity—warts and all—amor fati. It is the will to live, which is our will to power.
"
Did you ever say yes to a single joy? O my friends, then you said yes to all woe as well! All things are chained together, entwined, in love. —If you ever wanted one time a second time, if you ever said, you please me, Happiness! Quick! Moment! then you wanted it all back! —All anew, all eternally, all chained together, entwined, in love, oh! Then you loved the world— —you the eternal ones, love it eternally and for all time, and even to woe you say: ―be gone, but come back!‖ for all joy wants—eternity!"
"I the master of the eternal return."
This is the
Ubermensch!
How much you will have to bear?
(Aug 18, 2018 04:21 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 18, 2018 02:50 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]True choice likely didn't come around until some degree of civilization and/or monogamy.
How fast do changes occur through evolution by mate choice? What was the timeline and the regions in which we had a choice?
Irrelevant. The adaptive pressures existed and created the evolutionary psychology long before civilization.
Quote:Syne Wrote:Maslow used the term "self-actualization", but Nietzsche describes the exact same thing.
No he doesn't.
Again, Nietzsche used the term in several senses. If you can't be bothered to read the link I gave you, that's your own laziness.
Quote:I’ve said elsewhere that he uses 'woman' metaphorically for life.
So this was a reference to "life" making friends?
(Aug 15, 2018 08:23 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]"Women can form a friendship with a man very well; but to preserve it, a slight physical antipathy most probably helps."—Nietzsche
Just more non sequitur nonsense from the gadfly.