Fiannan Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xmlTen Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature:Why most suicide bombers are Muslim, beautiful people have more daughters, humans are naturally polygamous, sexual harassment isn't sexist, and blonds are more attractive. While the authors seem to find their foundations in evolutionary psychology I have to admit that, while I believe our basic nature derives from God, that much of what they point out seems accurate. What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixpacktr Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 Fiannan, I found it very interesting, and wondered how some of the fems and libs will take it. We are hardwired for certain things, mainly physical attractiveness. I love my wife, and love being with her, but if I wasn't a member of the church and therefore trying to change my "carnal man", if Heidi Klum came to the front door and said, "I want you", guess what? Well, you know what! Again, thanks. It was enlightening... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pushka Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 Points 9 and 10 are particularly interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Yediyd Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 I read e whole artical and I don't buy most of it!!!! Alot of psyco babble if you ask me....and you didn't, but I don't buy into all that psy. mumbo jumbo!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanstress70 Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 Interesting article... I agree with a lot of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 This article was fun. The research was somewhat broad, but not at all deep. There may be some truth in all the points, but I sure wouldn't base policy on these observations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiannan Posted July 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 Points 2, 3 and 4 are a bit simplistic I believe. I do believe that many women are attracted to power and if polygamy existed in a socially acceptable context then you would have many rich males with several wives. However, one portion of the equation overlooked is that many women are attracted to males with charisma, spirituality and deep intellect. In a polygamist-friendly society I think you'd find more ministers with multiple wives than guys at the country clubs. Look at some of history's more notorious examples. Charles Manson led what was essentially a polygamist lifestyle as did David Koresh. Now while former was a criminal psychopath, and the later merely an essentric victim of the Clinton administration neither commanded vast fortunes but still had an aura that attracted females in droves. Gregory Rasputin was also incredibly popular with females -- even before becoming popular with the tsar's family and he never had much money since he gave it all away to the poor. Many polygamists today (and I am speaking of the freelance ones that just start taking more wives, not ones who live in communities with arranged marriages) are just regular guys but seem to have a high degree of intellect and spirituality as well. They also are willing to stand for something -- quite the opposite of a modern-day metrosexual male. So from these researcher's evolutionary psychology perspective polygamy would increase the amount of genes produced by wealthy and succcessful males as well as intellectually superior males (although quite introspective and even essoteric). It would breed out the genes of the weaker and the dumber males and lead to more intellect overall in the society -- just as screening practices of sperm banks in the USA tend to insure superior stock gets magnified into the next generation). And overall, women would indeed benefit from polygamy while males in the lower end of the gene pool would not. The muslim thing I did not buy into so much because only a fraction of males in Palestine practice polygamy and, as for Iraq, due to several wars the female population outnumbers the male there. Suicide bombers may look forward to Heaven's countless virgins for them but I doubt their ranks are primarily made up of lonely guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elphaba Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 I found it very interesting, and wondered how some of the fems and libs will take it.I suspect "fems" and "libs" will take it seriously, as we are always open to understanding the dynamics of human nature that causes behavior that is oppressive to women.For example, the article said: The quid pro quo types of harassment are manifestations of men's greater desire for short-term casual sex and their willingness to use any available means to achieve that goal. Feminists often claim that sexual harassment is "not about sex but about power;" Browne contends it is both—men using power to get sex. "To say that it is only about power makes no more sense than saying that bank robbery is only about guns, not about money."If it is indeed both, then feminists want to know that. Understanding the deep, psychological reasons men are motivated to sexually harrass women in the workplace gives both the men and the women the insight to create tools to prevent that behavior. You actually provide the perfect example when you write: We are hardwired for certain things, mainly physical attractiveness. I love my wife, and love being with her, but if I wasn't a member of the church and therefore trying to change my "carnal man", if Heidi Klum came to the front door and said, "I want you", guess what? Well, you know what! Because you DO love your wife, you will control your behavior. That seems very reasonable, and responsbile, to me.I don't know one feminist who isn't interested in truth, even if that means we have to rethink old beliefs, and use new data to better address feminist issues, such as sexual harrassment.I also believe the better men and women understand our "hardwiring," the better we can accept each other's POV, especially when it comes to sexual issues. I read "Men are from Venus, Women are from Mars," seven years ago. As I recall, it had the same kind of information and I found it very enlightening.Thanks for the article Fiannan.Elphie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimA. Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 That was interesting. I wonder if polygny is human nature and human nature is something we are suposed to rise above, how is it that polygyny is taught as I higher or celelstial principle by some in the church? Does not seem to fit with the ideal of everyone being equal somehow to me. Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiannan Posted July 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 That was interesting. I wonder if polygny is human nature and human nature is something we are suposed to rise above, how is it that polygyny is taught as I higher or celelstial principle by some in the church? Does not seem to fit with the ideal of everyone being equal somehow to me. TimKinda depends on the context it is taken. There are people who are critical of Christianity in general and point to the sacrament as a form of ritual cannibalism´-- something we generally associate with decadent civilizations or primitive tribes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanstress70 Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 I love my wife, and love being with her, but if I wasn't a member of the church and therefore trying to change my "carnal man", if Heidi Klum came to the front door and said, "I want you", guess what? Well, you know what! So, if you weren't LDS, you'd cheat on your wife? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixpacktr Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 <div class='quotemain'>I love my wife, and love being with her, but if I wasn't a member of the church and therefore trying to change my "carnal man", if Heidi Klum came to the front door and said, "I want you", guess what? Well, you know what! So, if you weren't LDS, you'd cheat on your wife? Shan,It's Heidi Klum, for heaven's sake! As I said, the temptation would maybe be too great. And to be honest, I'm not sure, I'm really not. I probably wouldn't, but without the anchor the church has given me, well....And let's be honest here. Who wouldn't be tempted? And who hasn't thrown their marriage away for a lot less? (now, don't stone me for that, I'm just saying that some have thrown their marriage away for a Roseanne Barr instead of a Heidi) All I'm saying is that we are hardwired in some ways, the reproductive urge being almost as strong as survival, and perhaps moreso, and the world today has made the satisfaction of that urge more important than anything...I'm glad that I have the church, that's all. And so if Heidi showed up at my door, I think I'd be more like Joseph in Egypt than David the King... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanstress70 Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 I understand what you're saying. I just don't know why the LDS church has much to do with it. My church also says that you shouldn't cheat on your spouse... and it's just the decent thing to do. I'm pretty sure my husband wouldn't cheat on me with a supermodel, even though I know the temptation would be great. I don't think that it would make a difference whether or not he was LDS. I would not cheat on my husband, and I'm not LDS. Unless it was Vince Vaughn... JK!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixpacktr Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 I would not cheat on my husband, and I'm not LDS. Unless it was Vince Vaughn... JK!!!I knew there had to be someone! To be honest, I don't think I'd be a church goer at all if I wasn't a member. My father wasn't at all before he joined (when I was young), and my mother was an extremely inactive member, so that is where I am coming from. I know that the LDS church isn't the only one teaching faithfulness to one's spouse, what I was saying was that I probably would be completely "non-church going" and wouldn't have any sort of anchor...And again, IT'S HEIDI KLUM! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.