Can evolutionary biology explain the human impulse to create?

#21
(Dec 19, 2017 03:24 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Dec 19, 2017 01:34 AM)Syne Wrote: See, that's a good comparison of the last two posts.

Men appreciate things in and of themselves, for many reasons that have little to do with people. Women tend to appreciate things for their usefulness to people.

Maybe you should read the book, too, because you always tend to presume a separation of subject from object.

It reminds me of It's a Man's Man's Man's World.

But did you know that Betty Newsome said that she came up with that song and James Brown did sort of danced around her claim.  She said that she thought about after reading Genesis.  After god supposedly created everything, it was all worthless without a woman.

You’re right, though, when I create something, I always try to put myself in another person’s shoes.  

So I'm right, but somehow also wrong? Dodgy
Or do you just favor Descartes' somewhat solipsistic view, that objects don't have "real' existence without a subject, over Russell's view, that equates objects with facts, independent from subjective beliefs?

Isn't that an odd juxtaposition for an atheist?

Quote:I’ve designed and built a couple of homes and I always ask myself, how will they feel when walking through the front door?  Will they feel welcomed, safe, and comfortable?

I just took a short trip with some friends in their new Tesla.  The onlookers seemed impressed, but the passengers, not so much.  The ride was rough, uncomfortable, and the car came with impressive but unnecessary accessories.  

Yeah, we need more women engineers.

So what I said was right, but it "ought to be" otherwise?
There aren't more women engineers because they aren't as interested in things.
Just like there aren't more male social workers because they aren't as interested in people.

Quote:Maybe the article was right.  Perhaps men like models because they don’t want to face the possibility of failure and controlled creativity is made possible with a kit.  Maybe that’s why men like 'objects' because they’re accessories that they can control.

My father should have told me that I was just an add-on.  Undecided

No idea, as I've never built a model. But I'm an artist, so perhaps that is like paint-by-number or coloring books for the less creative.
Reply
#22
social work salary. seperating myth from money


[Image: sfr205_chart_2.gif]



[Image: dlhe_1112_chart_10.gif]



[Image: Pys_Salaries_1.png]


who employs social workers ?
= The Government !

us census bureau

[Image: men-over-women%20(1).png]
Reply
#23
(Dec 19, 2017 04:28 PM)Syne Wrote: So I'm right, but somehow also wrong?

Usually.  

Syne Wrote:Isn't that an odd juxtaposition for an atheist?

No. I don't see it that way at all.

I’m not good at stonework.  I’m looking to be an intern.  I like the way it makes me feel, the pathways, the stone walls, fireplaces, arches, etc. They’re just rocks but they become an experience.  

Like I said, you really should read the book.

Syne Wrote:So what I said was right, but it "ought to be" otherwise?

No.  

Syne Wrote:There aren't more women engineers because they aren't as interested in things.

I think you're wrong about that.  They're not encouraged. No one has shown them just how interesting some 'things' can be.

(Dec 19, 2017 01:23 AM)confused2 Wrote: Cars - I can't be bothered to go there myself. If you'd read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance you'd know about Quality.

BTW, when I got my learners permit, I was so excited.  I got all dressed up and told my father to hop in.  I couldn’t wait for all my friends to see me driving.   Not so fast, he said.  He handed me a pair of old coveralls.  If you’re going to drive it, you have to learn how to fix it.  It was an older car.  Those days are over.  Well, at least I know how to change a tire, but even that will become obsolete…along with driving the vehicle itself.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyc4Apyk2Rc
Reply
#24
(Dec 19, 2017 06:03 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
Syne Wrote:Isn't that an odd juxtaposition for an atheist?

No. I don't see it that way at all.

So an atheist can believe all facts are dependent on subjective belief?
Curious why you would so scorn the beliefs of others then.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:There aren't more women engineers because they aren't as interested in things.

I think you're wrong about that.  They're not encouraged. No one has shown them just how interesting some 'things' can be.

All the studies on the subject to the contrary.
You shouldn't buy into the fictitious feminist narrative of no inherent differences between the sexes. But maybe your penchant for Descartes is motivated by your desire to deny actual facts. I can see why you get along with MR so well.

(Dec 19, 2017 06:03 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Like I said, you really should read the book.

Sorry, I don't generally take reading suggestions from someone who seems to deny facts.
Maybe you're reading the wrong books.
Reply
#25
(Dec 19, 2017 07:18 PM)Syne Wrote:
(Dec 19, 2017 06:03 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
Syne Wrote:Isn't that an odd juxtaposition for an atheist?

No. I don't see it that way at all.

So an atheist can believe all facts are dependent on subjective belief?
Curious why you would so scorn the beliefs of others then.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:There aren't more women engineers because they aren't as interested in things.

I think you're wrong about that.  They're not encouraged. No one has shown them just how interesting some 'things' can be.

All the studies on the subject to the contrary.
You shouldn't buy into the fictitious feminist narrative of no inherent differences between the sexes. But maybe your penchant for Descartes is motivated by your desire to deny actual facts. I can see why you get along with MR so well.

(Dec 19, 2017 06:03 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Like I said, you really should read the book.

Sorry, I don't generally take reading suggestions from someone who seems to deny facts.
Maybe you're reading the wrong books.

neurologists have proven a difference in brain chemistry between genders & sexual orientation.


gender roles in functional community paradigms have been consistant around ability to manage non modernised living.
modernised living is modern...

if you wish to look at conventional roles defining gender than you can clearly see
gay men have had signifigant representation on the stage and have done so for thousands of years.

there was some research called "Gay Science" which goes into the differences of gay men being in the scientific field, there is also some vague suggested data around bi or gay women being scientifically minded to propel them toward the male dominated field of science.

considering equality between the sexes in non discrimination of legal access to jobs & professions has only been around for no more than 20-ish years functionally.
we still see a gender gap in wages which continues to been miss represented as mean wage rates accross all fields.
i do wonder if mean wage/salarys is used to try and play down the lack in increase in average mode wages for genefic fields.


i do not think social work is good example to use for gender equality balancing because of the newness of the field relating to the family unit.
the family unit needing psychological help from domestic violence from men has been best delivered by women.

the level of domestic violence and conservative religous culture which still tends to dominate the family unit are very much still in play.

what i do think is very encouraging is the advancement of millitary being LGBTQ because as millitary men expect equality for their daughters they themsevles will drive the culture forward to a more equitable position as a primary culture.

bi-partisan deviciveness of government pay scales to drive the salarys as low as possble for the bulk of coal face workers like social work and nursing is quite an issue.
more soo a bit of a cluster-F_ck in the usa as it is enabling the private sector to ligitimise paying women less than men in female dominated roles.
all be it deemed as culturally acceptable by many.

its a slow change.
laws need to come first, then role models
we are only just starting to finish the laws.
SOME role models are now coming out. male role models are the key because they morally and ethically mentor young teen boys who take their lead from these sports men by how they treat women.
female sports has been socially unacceptable up until only recently.
it takes around 3 generations to get a good sports team up and running into a world class competitive base frame work.
that is barely coming into the 3rd generation now.

as attitudes around mating change and men loose their fear of women being muscley then female sport will really take off. as will equality in all fields.
it will probably dominate online viewing within a few years time once the milenials children fill the ranks of the young hopefulls for the next world games etc...
Reply
#26
(Dec 19, 2017 08:36 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: bi-partisan deviciveness

Bipartisan means working together. You know, the opposite of divisiveness.

The word you're looking for is "partisan".
Reply
#27
(Dec 19, 2017 07:18 PM)Syne Wrote: So an atheist can believe all facts are dependent on subjective belief?
Curious why you would so scorn the beliefs of others then.

We were talking about 'things', Syne. You know, inanimate objects.

An inanimate object can induce emotions but it doesn’t have intentionality.

A stone is an inanimate object and its existence doesn't depend on my subjective belief. I love rocks but they don’t love me. They’re useful, though. They can be used as a gift or a weapon.

Male penguins present them to females because they use them to build nests.

It’s all about intentionality, Syne.

A falling or thrown rock could harm a person but you’d hard pressed to find someone who’d blame the rock.

"Man is not the source of all things, as the subjective idealists would say. Nor is he the passive observer of all things, as the objective idealists and materialists would say. The Quality which creates the world emerges as a relationship between man and his experience. He is a participant in the creation of all things. The measure of all things—it fits."

(Dec 19, 2017 01:23 AM)confused2 Wrote: I don't do Quality myself. Elegance, yes.

What’s the difference between Quality and elegance?
Reply
#28
(Dec 20, 2017 12:09 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Dec 19, 2017 07:18 PM)Syne Wrote: So an atheist can believe all facts are dependent on subjective belief?
Curious why you would so scorn the beliefs of others then.

We were talking about 'things', Syne.  You know, inanimate objects.

An inanimate object can induce emotions but it doesn’t have intentionality.

A stone is an inanimate object and its existence doesn't depend on my subjective belief.  I love rocks but they don’t love me.  They’re useful, though.  They can be used as a gift or a weapon.

Male penguins present them to females because they use them to build nests.  

It’s all about intentionality, Syne.

A falling or thrown rock could harm a person but you’d hard pressed to find someone who’d blame the rock.

So the Descartes/Russell comment was completely lost on you. So what were you really trying to say here:
(Dec 19, 2017 03:24 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Maybe you should read the book, too, because you always tend to presume a separation of subject from object.

To my knowledge, aside from grammar, the subject/object dichotomy is pretty specific to the epistemological question of how independent "things" are from our awareness of them. That's central to whether you believe objective fact exists. Sounds like you're saying that was just some throwaway snark from you.

I was originally only talking about how men don't necessarily require any intentionality in their appreciation for things, e.g. appreciating things "in and of themselves." So it would seem that you've demonstrated my point. From a woman's perspective, intentionality is what it's "all about."


How on earth did you read into that anything even approaching "blam[ing] the rock"?! O_o
Is that what happens when you don't "presume a separation of subject from object"? Rolleyes
Reply
#29
SS Wrote:What’s the difference between Quality and elegance?
We may have to accept that some of my posts might have benefited from the guidance of a superior person had one been available at the time of posting. It is also many years since I read Zen and the Art. so some (or all) of the meaning of it may have been lost (or simply wasted) on me.
As a trivial answer your FLOTUS springs to mind.
In the context of my post...
The Cutty Sark model is being built to sail. The Cutty Sark didn't have (or need) a deep keel. To sail the model must have a deep keel. So my model has a keel that will drop down when the boat is in the water and slide back out of sight when the boat is removed from the water. So it's a trick. An honest scale model wouldn't have the deep keel and an honest sailing model would have the keel honestly displayed. My guess is that I need about 3kgcm righting moment - as a result of lack of attention while some glue was setting I can only get 2kgcm. I can't make this good without ripping the hull apart and if I do I don't think I could get the hull back together and look as good as it does now ... so, elegance over quality, I'm going to carry on with 2kgcm. If it turns out that 3kgcm (or more) is needed then I will (with great reluctance) rip the hull apart and take the consequences. Ultimately (maybe?) Quality takes precedence over elegance because without Quality there is no elegance.

As it happens, I live in a house I designed - maybe another time and another thread...
Reply
#30
(Dec 20, 2017 12:34 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Dec 20, 2017 12:09 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Dec 19, 2017 07:18 PM)Syne Wrote: So an atheist can believe all facts are dependent on subjective belief?
Curious why you would so scorn the beliefs of others then.

We were talking about 'things', Syne.  You know, inanimate objects.

An inanimate object can induce emotions but it doesn’t have intentionality.

A stone is an inanimate object and its existence doesn't depend on my subjective belief.  I love rocks but they don’t love me.  They’re useful, though.  They can be used as a gift or a weapon.

Male penguins present them to females because they use them to build nests.  

It’s all about intentionality, Syne.

A falling or thrown rock could harm a person but you’d hard pressed to find someone who’d blame the rock.

So the Descartes/Russell comment was completely lost on you. So what were you really trying to say here:
(Dec 19, 2017 03:24 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Maybe you should read the book, too, because you always tend to presume a separation of subject from object.

To my knowledge, aside from grammar, the subject/object dichotomy is pretty specific to the epistemological question of how independent "things" are from our awareness of them. That's central to whether you believe objective fact exists. Sounds like you're saying that was just some throwaway snark from you.

I was originally only talking about how men don't necessarily require any intentionality in their appreciation for things, e.g. appreciating things "in and of themselves." So it would seem that you've demonstrated my point. From a woman's perspective, intentionality is what it's "all about."


How on earth did you read into that anything even approaching "blam[ing] the rock"?! O_o
Is that what happens when you don't "presume a separation of subject from object"?  Rolleyes

so what nature a women who paints ?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)