Today in the Daily Telegraph they printed an insightful piece on the difference in attitudes to body image between men and women. For me it shed interesting light on some of the perfectionist attitudes that many here seem to have.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/stellamagazine/7725736/Women-and-body-image-a-mans-perspective.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/stellamagazine/7725736/Women-and-body-image-a-mans-perspective.html)
Women and body image: a man's perspective.
Ever wondered why a man can look at an advert featuring a six-pack and laugh, while a woman might look at a photograph of female perfection and fall to pieces? William Leith thinks he might have uncovered the answer
that article is soooo true
Isn't it just! So transwomen who are demanding aesthetic perfection aren't being difficult - they are just reacting in a totally typical female way. They simply bought into the programming! I have sooooo done that not going to a party because I didn't feel I looked good thing.
Interestingly as I have aged I seem to have managed to break out. I now have a more gender neutral attitude towards attractiveness - not yet as relaxed as a man, but not quite as perfectionist as a woman either, but maybe that is just what happens as we get a little older! We become less susceptible to social and biological pressures to perform.
It's an interesting article. Very Telegraph though.
It attempted to rehash selective parts of the human origin. Men natrually join peer groups to hunt, but more importantly, to position themselves relative to other men and ultimately to the alpha male.
Women naturally remain at camp, building nests and seeking to be available to the Alpha or failing that to choose a lesser.
The feminists hate this fundimental reality, of course.
The weight issue however is really quite different.
Up to the 60s, diseases associated with diet were very rare. Most people who developed one of these ended up in a long stay institution.
I recall, around 1970, there was a pop group made up of two girl singers and I think two or three male backers. Anyway, one of the girls was said to have become fat and risked losing her place. She ended up with some terrible wasting disease. Drs said it was all psychological. I recall a photo which appeared in a newspaper of this woman being take on a streacher to an airplane to get treatment in the US. What happened next I don't remember.
By the end of the 70s, that disease had a name, Anorexia Neverosa. It was all the talk in the press. A plague which could kill thousands. Wanna loose weight girls? try this new diet. Celeb lets herself go and loses her man.
I knew a young girl in 1979 who developed it. She ended up in a specialist unit of the psychiatric hospital being continually visited by consultants and students who were really only interested in seeing this unusual disease.
She had the classic background. Overbearing parents, quite old. Immature. Few friends. Pretty but no dress sense.
By the start of the 90s, there were entire hospital wings occupied only by these kids. I worked in one briefly. I didn't normally work with children. They require specialit training and skills which I don't have. But all of these kids were basically similar. The girls, even into their early 20s exhibited traces of a personality more associated with eight year old girls. Clingy, overly fresh and friendly with adult men. The boys were reminiscent of very spoilt five year olds. Temper tantrums, provakative behaviours, such as spitting at you and such.
By the start of the century, there are hospitals dedicated to these children.
I apologise if this seems to be rather missing the point. I suggest it is exactly the point. Our society is demanding perfection from everyone. Perfection has become normality.
Men look at images of these scantly clad women so their wives and girl friends will see that and become insecure. Divorce is so easy, no woman can ever feel secure. She must contunially work to meet the standards of these pornographic images or risk being cast aside.
yet still, or health authorities push message that losing weight is somehow healthy. They define and redefine over weight. Anything less than perfection is not just unhealthy, it is socially wrong.
Where this goes next will be interesting.
The evolutionary psychology in this reeks of... a certain type of bovine manure to me, but then again, it is inherently un-empirical so I'm fussy about it.
But as someone who has grown up female-bodied and presenting as female, I have to say that a lot of this does ring true with me. Not exactly the breakdown stuff, but more the intense pressure and the message that you need to be perfectly beautiful (which means what?) to be successful. Men are certainly objectified, of course (war is reeeeeeeally good at that), but I think that women tend to be sexually objectified in a rather different way-- what they were touching on with the "thousand years of being portrayed" thing is this recurring theme: women are supposed to be the objects and men are supposed to be the subjects, and that's how it's always been.
I'll accept your doubts about the social development of humans.
It's a non-argument for me I'm afraid. I spent quite some time studying it in the early and mid 70s, then continually testing it whenever I can since and it seems to fit .
I also understand your feelings about women bening objects while men are subjects. That, I'm sorry to have to say, in terms of human evolutionary psychology, is a reality.
Women build nests, they attract the best mate they can and they have babies.
Men join peer groups, they hunt and position themselves as near to the alpha as they can.
My own objective was to find a postulate to explain the position of homosexuals and Transgendered people in this scheme. (Though, at the time, I didn't know what transgendered was and considered myself as just being weird).
I think I achieved that. Hence the tendency to bore the rest of you by continual references. :D
But I am as near to being certain as I think I can be,
Also, Men don't just laugh off the sixpack.
It affects us.
Cisgender or not.
Quote from: Miniar on May 24, 2010, 09:57:45 AM
Also, Men don't just laugh off the sixpack.
It affects us.
Cisgender or not.
This. What the article doesn't acknowledge is that men are under a tremendous amount of pressure to keep up a different kind of appearance - the appearance of not caring. While, of course, still being reasonably fit and attractive.
While it may be true that we are utterly baffled by
how to respond to women's body image issues, it's not necessarily true that we don't understand them or have our own. Gay men in particular, being sexually objectified by other men, have a whole complex about it - but straight guys aren't immune either. It's just that men are expected to have a "fix it or forget it" attitude, so that's what we do, and we don't necessarily have any idea how to talk to women about it because they deal with it in a completely different way that we don't understand.
Maybe it's a recent thing, but I've had numerous male friends who have body insecurity. I think the difference is that sort of the 'acceptable as fit/attractive' range is much narrower for women than it is for men. But for the men who fall outside of that range, the effect is pretty similar to women in the same position.
The article seems efficient in delivering contrasts between men and women, but we know very well that it's a kind of spectrum, too diverse in the real world. For example, jealousy exists for both men and women. Probably women tend to be more jealous with respect to their appearance, but men also feel the same way in some degree.
Oh. One thing certain is that they are mostly women who study carefully my appearance when I am in female mode. In occasional cases, they stare at me for > 30 seconds. When I am male mode, no so many people watch me: they just glance at me.
Barbie~~
Quote from: rejennyrated on May 23, 2010, 04:21:37 AM
So transwomen who are demanding aesthetic perfection aren't being difficult - they are just reacting in a totally typical female way. They simply bought into the programming! I have sooooo done that not going to a party because I didn't feel I looked good thing.
You are so right there, myself and boyfriend are getting married in August, but I'II probably feel the pressure more than Him, infact Im feeling it already and its 3months away, he'll hire a suit, if he doesn't get a new pair of shoes nobody will even notice, no effort needed.
But me being the blushing bride it will be completely different, all the attention will be on me, its 1day I will have to make a very big effort with the help and advice of my bridemaid, my dress has to be perfect, I'II probably get a hair stylist to do my hair, bridemaid has already booked a makeup artist (without even asking me lol) to do my makeup and false tan, nails hair and makeup, not forgetting flowers, all pressure to look gorgeous and beautiful on the day, men only see and want results, they don't see the stress and sheer hard work a girl has to go thru just to be a woman and to look pretty and beautiful for everybody else, but then on the day if I get nice complements, well what can I say, as you said yourself Jenny, yes ''Iv bought into the programming'' Im just reacting in a totally typical female way, as my boyfriend would say thats WOMEN for you, oh well, but I still love being a woman.
p
my ex and I would always wonder why it is the all the female models are these skinny little things, when 'real' women have curves. And it is all because of the hype of looking 'perfect'.
And yes I am being to 'buy into' the programming, at 56. But it is more for me, than a potential mate. And I think it is part of the second puberty. I know my mind react as I think a young teen girl would react. At least this teen girl.
I still would like the perfect hips and behind, for me.
I'm mixed here. Other than obviously female characteristics (which I definitely bother me greatly) I don't care all that much. That's just because I'm young and attractive though, we'll see how I am in the future.
Women do seem pretty preoccupied with their appearance though. Sometimes it seems ridiculous.
When evo psych stops relying on stereotypes, things like this might have more merit. As it is, it furthers certain sexist ideas.
But, anecdotally and often experientially, it certainly "feels" right.
Quote from: dyssonance on May 24, 2010, 07:20:50 PM
When evo psych stops relying on stereotypes, things like this might have more merit. As it is, it furthers certain sexist ideas.
But, anecdotally and often experientially, it certainly "feels" right.
I agree.
The biggest problem I have with evo psych is that the vast majority of it isn't empirical. The hypotheses that it posits are not testable. All it does is make up stories to explain the way people are today (not even the way people actually are, but stereotypes) with information that we have no direct access to (the way our ancestors behaved). And it's reported in terrible, unscientific ways. I'm fine with research that suggests that females tend to have better verbal skills than comparable males and males tend to have better spatial reasoning skills than comparable females. That is different than saying "men are better at navigating than women because they had to hunt in prehistoric times". You can guess at WHY we see these results, but you can't actually provide evidence for why.
Not to mention the fact that not all behaviors are genetically transmitted, and a different environment has monumental effects on the human brain. When will people finally get it that nature AND nurture make us what we are?
Not to mention that evo psych is what underlies the whole "trans aren't real" arguments of the blank born blank sorts...
Quote from: SilverFang on May 24, 2010, 06:25:17 PM
Women do seem pretty preoccupied with their appearance though. Sometimes it seems ridiculous.
That is so so typical how a guy thinks, you sound just like my brother lol!! yes Im am very much preoccupied with my appearance, every woman I know is preoccupied with something on appearance, my boyfriend sister wears fake nails, now I don't need fake nails, but I get manicures, Im preoccupied with my hair, if my boyfriend knew what I spend on my hair, he'd probably have a heart attack, maintenance shampoo, conditioner, perms, highlights, hair color every 6weeks, touch up color 3weeks, lots of setting hair spray, if I was to go out with my hair in a mess Id be mortified, expensive and thats just my hair.
Makeup, well a good size of my budget goes on beauty products, foundation, powder, lipsticks lip gloss, eye liners, creams for this and creams for that, anti ageing lol, boyfriend doesn't know the half of it, what he doesn't know will never hurt, it not ridiculous, it may seem ridiculous from a guy's point of view, guys just don't understand.
Yet when my boyfriend tells me on a Saturday night ''honey you look a million dollars'' it leaves me glowing, all the hard work, time and effort to be told, you look beautiful, gorgeous and pretty, its a lovely feminine feeling, maybe its a girl thing, guys just don't understand that, its ridiculous according to a guy
p
Quote from: brainiac on May 24, 2010, 08:18:26 PM
I agree.
The biggest problem I have with evo psych is that the vast majority of it isn't empirical. The hypotheses that it posits are not testable. All it does is make up stories to explain the way people are today (not even the way people actually are, but stereotypes) with information that we have no direct access to (the way our ancestors behaved). And it's reported in terrible, unscientific ways. I'm fine with research that suggests that females tend to have better verbal skills than comparable males and males tend to have better spatial reasoning skills than comparable females. That is different than saying "men are better at navigating than women because they had to hunt in prehistoric times". You can guess at WHY we see these results, but you can't actually provide evidence for why.
Not to mention the fact that not all behaviors are genetically transmitted, and a different environment has monumental effects on the human brain. When will people finally get it that nature AND nurture make us what we are?
I now understand your problem which you highlighted in #4.
I am attempting to write a rationale behind my references to human social evolution. It is going to take some time. And, surprise, surprise, it will be really long.
I will post it for your critial repost as soon as I can.
I'm sorry, after a lot of thought, I've decided I'm not prepared to do this
Spacial, that's why I kept my comments really brief, and really short.
Some days, it's just not worth it.
(and I say that with the notation that, ultimately, I disagree with evo psych in general)
This is very true and we do not understand why women would go through all this effort to look good. Plus, if you've already got a man why the effort to impress others? If he says you're beautiful then thats that. Why does my GF spend $90 on this little foundation compact thingy, when she could just buy a NEW PS3 game for me. Lol. I've noticed that women cares about their image no matter how old are they.
Quote from: accord03 on May 27, 2010, 08:22:06 AMPlus, if you've already got a man why the effort to impress others? If he says you're beautiful then thats that.
I find this kind of flawed. If you're asking why the effort to impress others, then that would include the boyfriend too, which I kind of agree with. You should be happy with how you look to yourself because you're never going to please everyone visually. There's always going to be someone not into your look, your face, your body, etc... people have different tastes, so you might as well just do it for yourself and gain confidence in how you look.
It bothers me when people say, "not all women like muscled men!" as if that's the reason why I work out. I'm doing it for myself, because I want to look good and I've always wanted this. It gives me confidence because I'm happy with that look. You hear some women talk about how feeling sexy is liberating and gives them confidence, I think it's the same thing. It might just be the same reason why some women will think they're ugly no matter what you say, because it's not about you, it's about them.
Thank you dyssonance.
It isn't evo psych or whatever. It human social development.
Consider this.
Imagine, tomorrow morning, news came out that an Island had just been discovered in the Pacific Ocean. It has never been spotted before and has, until now, been utterly isolated.
All that was known at this time comes from a few pictures which show lush vegitation and a number of people.
Now, using what you know about people, what can you reasonably say about them with a high degree of probability and what sort of questions can you reasonably ask about them?
Well, I'm a sociologist. And, ultimately, a social psychologist. And that tends to take me in a very differnt formative direction.
That island? Yes, I know exactly what I would ask, the way in which I would ask it, and primary aspects of how I would let them make the descriptions of their world, not me.
My own field deals in social human development. And it comes to some remarkably different conclusions because it allows for an understanding of cultural variance that is often absent from materials that are based on evolutionary psychology (which is where the men are hunters and women are gatherers comes from).
As to the reason why women put so much effort into looking good, some notes:
1. It is not a universal that they do that. Not all cultures have women who do such -- some, in fact, have or currently have (and some one day will, no doubt) have men doing the same things.
2. In Eurocentric "western" cultures, the basis of that is found in Gender roles -- one of the primary gender roles that women have is to *attract*. One of the primary roles that men have is to *provide*.
How it got that way (evolutionary psych) is entirely separate from the simple fact that it is that way in our culture (it's often fairly different within matrilineal cultural bases).
Me, I'm just terribly femme, but as I write this I need a mani-pedi and I'm wearing a dirty old ugly top and jeans that have seen better days, lol.
Perhaps if you had paid a little more attention to the question I posed than to defending your academic status.
I'm sorry -- I wasn't aware that I was defending any academic status.
I was just making some observations in general.
QuoteThat island? Yes, I know exactly what I would ask, the way in which I would ask it, and primary aspects of how I would let them make the descriptions of their world, not me.
How would you manage this from a photograph?
Especially when you know nothing about them other than the image
THe same way I would ask questions of them. I'd find out where the island was and go to it.
Anything else is *strictly* guessing, and subject to logical fallacies and irrelevant conclusions. Unless you can interact with the culture, you cannot describe it effectively without placing your own cultural norms over it.
Thus the problem.
Quote from: dyssonance on May 27, 2010, 07:09:54 PM
THe same way I would ask questions of them. I'd find out where the island was and go to it.
Anything else is *strictly* guessing, and subject to logical fallacies and irrelevant conclusions. Unless you can interact with the culture, you cannot describe it effectively without placing your own cultural norms over it.
Thus the problem.
That, however, is interference and hardly giving people opportunity to make decisions. :o
In any case, the question I posed was at the point of first discovery when all we know of what is on the island is that which appears on the photograph.
As for strictly guessing I beg to differ.
Since the island is in the Pacific we can be pretty sure these people are dark skinned and have dark hair.
Since they are an isolated Island culture, we can be pretty sure they exist in small co-operative groups, rather than the more complex societys typical of, for example of many of the larger indigeneous societies of Eurasia and the Americas
In what way is it interference to let them describe themselves and their culture and their ways?
"Pretty sure" is not certain -- pretty sure is still guessing. One could say that one is pretty sure that Mongolians are darker skinned and have dark hair, and yet, not all Mongolians have such.
We can say the odds are pretty good that such is true, but we cannot say such for certain until we have the opportunity to go to them and see.
A photograph is merely a single glimpse, not a full representation.
We might think that feathers as decoration imply some sort of meaningful symbol of status, when they could just be there to look pretty.
Japan is an isolated island culture. Ireland, Sri Lanka, Hawaii -- they didn't posses the small cooperative groups systems you describe -- and they are not aberrant.
Indeed, the act of describing them as aberrant and "outside the nrom" requires that one establish a norm -- who's to say that they aren't the norm and others are the aberrance?
It's guessing. It's not empirical, it does not follow the scientific method.
Every major human haplogroup genetically can be traced back to one of two particular strands at present. What was the culture of those people? What were the rituals and symols and languages and ideas that drove them?
Those are the questions that Evo psych asks. It's not that the discipline is a bad one, it's that it hasn't established much of a track record for logical consistency. Hell, as someone who often wanders into social psychology, I can say that social psychology doesn't have that great a record for it, either, but it's still got more than evo psych.
Anthropology has many of the same problems, and seeks to use much more empirical analysis at this point than it did in it's earliest times.
A while back I described a particular set of causative ideas that are very much along the lines of evo psych. It can be read here: http://www.dyssonance.com/?page_id=158 (http://www.dyssonance.com/?page_id=158)
It uses many of the same notions, the same ideas. Can you spot the guesses and the potential logical flaws there?
I'm afraid it is interference. You are introducing your version of the concept of self determination. This is an entirely European notion which was exporeted to the US. I happen to believe, as you probably do, that it is the highest point of civilisation to date. Though, of course, you will probably be applying the US version which is understandable.
It brings to mind an incident back in 77 when I was in the French Alps. I was with a group of very educated Americans and we were looking at some particualrly tacky tat in a shop window. I mentioned that it was garbage where-upon one of the Americans put me down for criticising another culture. I pointed out to him, falsely I should add, that my culture is that I should interfere in other cultures so his criticism of me interfering was an attack upon my culture! :D
Mongolian people live in a huge area of the globe, from the artic to the tropics. We are refering to a hypothetical, small isolated community living of an Island in the Pacific. Mongolian people are one of the most successful human groups. They have been superceeded by the Europeans of course.
I can also assure you that each of those societies did indeed have small, co-operative cultures. Ireland is a case in point, as along with the rest of the original inhabitants of the British Isles, they were described by the Romans.
As a socioligist or social psychologist you use tools to understand your subject. These involve assumptions and preconceptions, as all intellectual tools do.
Other socioligists use different tools. You will almost certainly be coming to very different conclusions than they. This is evidenced by the enormous diversity of opinions.
The tools you and anyone else uses are designed to look at the perspective you are interested in.
I am simply using a different set of tools from you because my objectives are different. My tools and conclusions are no more and no less valid than anyone elses.
But I must point out, with great respect, and I do have a lot of respect for you, even if you don't necessarily feel in right now, that when any of us fails to understand the limitations of our tools, we invariably fall into a trap of dogmatism.
Quote from: spacial on May 28, 2010, 02:07:07 AM
I'm afraid it is interference. You are introducing your version of the concept of self determination. This is an entirely European notion which was exporeted to the US. I happen to believe, as you probably do, that it is the highest point of civilisation to date. Though, of course, you will probably be applying the US version which is understandable.
Incorrect. Self determination in inherent already -- they exist, they do as they please, and it's not within my purview to *make them answer*.
Indeed, all I would be doing is translating, in a sense, their cultural mores and terms and ideas into a format that is understandable and relatable to those outside.
Incidentally, I do not think that western civilization is the highest point of it to date. I don't think of *any* civilization or social culture as hgiher or lower than any other. Doing that is called ethnocentrism, and is a form of prejudicial bias that sociologists spend a great deal of effort and energy expunging when they do ethnographic work because it creates things like, well, racism (which is ethnocentrism based primarily on skin color).
Quote from: spacial on May 28, 2010, 02:07:07 AM
It brings to mind an incident back in 77 when I was in the French Alps. I was with a group of very educated Americans and we were looking at some particualrly tacky tat in a shop window. I mentioned that it was garbage where-upon one of the Americans put me down for criticising another culture. I pointed out to him, falsely I should add, that my culture is that I should interfere in other cultures so his criticism of me interfering was an attack upon my culture! :D
Your culture values the putting down of other societal forms, and you think that's a good thing? Odd -- I have to ask what culture this is you come from, since it's notably outside the purview of the cultural expectations found in western cultural normative patterns in the present day and age. Except some of the Slavic areas. So yeah, I guess that's possible.
If you mean that thinking your culture is better than someone else's is a part of your culture, then yeah, you are correct -- that's typical for most people, especially in the current structure of nationalism that has created the ongoing problem of ethnocentrism I mentioned above.
You want to know what an advanced culture looks like, it does not contain ethnocentrism.
Quote from: spacial on May 28, 2010, 02:07:07 AM
Mongolian people live in a huge area of the globe, from the artic to the tropics. We are refering to a hypothetical, small isolated community living of an Island in the Pacific. Mongolian people are one of the most successful human groups. They have been superceeded by the Europeans of course.
I'm just gonna let this one slide since your interpretation of mongolian and mine differ -- yours is racial, mine's cultural. Incidentally, mongolian as a racial characteristic is sorta, um, way, way outdated.
Next you'll be saying that Europeans are Caucasians, and that caucasians have superseded mongolians. Please don't. FOr both our sake. Even if you genuinely and honestly believe that.
Quote from: spacial on May 28, 2010, 02:07:07 AM
I can also assure you that each of those societies did indeed have small, co-operative cultures. Ireland is a case in point, as along with the rest of the original inhabitants of the British Isles, they were described by the Romans.
You confuse tribalism with "small" and "cooperative". It is not small, and it is not always cooperative.
Quote from: spacial on May 28, 2010, 02:07:07 AM
As a socioligist or social psychologist you use tools to understand your subject. These involve assumptions and preconceptions, as all intellectual tools do.
You are correct: we start from a philosophical point. In the case of most of the modern forms of both of them, that philosophical starting point is existentialism.
Quote from: spacial on May 28, 2010, 02:07:07 AM
Other socioligists use different tools. You will almost certainly be coming to very different conclusions than they. This is evidenced by the enormous diversity of opinions.
Except that there isn't an enormous diversity of opinions. There's an enormous sense of consensus inthe fields -- consensus, for all it's flaws, is based on peer reviewed evidence following the scientific method.
That sorta erases the issues of *opinion* -- hence the value of the scientific method.
Quote from: spacial on May 28, 2010, 02:07:07 AM
The tools you and anyone else uses are designed to look at the perspective you are interested in.
THis is incorrect. They are designed to do something else entirely. Are you familiar with the scientific method?
Quote from: spacial on May 28, 2010, 02:07:07 AM
I am simply using a different set of tools from you because my objectives are different. My tools and conclusions are no more and no less valid than anyone elses.
Well, I have to beg to differ. Your opinions are going to suffer soundly if they fail logically and are scientifically unsound. Which, being opinions, until you can prove them, are merely guesses. Illogical guesses, as well
Illogic has it's place, but not in the discernment of truths and facts.
Quote from: spacial on May 28, 2010, 02:07:07 AM
But I must point out, with great respect, and I do have a lot of respect for you, even if you don't necessarily feel in right now, that when any of us fails to understand the limitations of our tools, we invariably fall into a trap of dogmatism.
And yet, your response here was filled with dogmatic pronouncements and revelations.
I'll gladly step up and note that yeah, I think the scientific method is a really impressive and powerful tool. And the reson for it being such is that it prevetns us from doing so so long as we follow it.
Not always easy -- sometimes the data doesn't fit your initial hypothesis.
No, self determination is a European concept. It involves cultural awareness, cultural comparison and self examination.
I understand that you don't see European culture as being the highest point, but that is because you are looking at culture from the perspective of a contemporary snapshot.
I look at culture in the same way as I look at individuals, species and life itself, as a continual struggle for survival and ascendency.
QuoteYour culture values the putting down of other societal forms, and you think that's a good thing? Odd
That isn't what I said at all. No further comment necesary.
QuoteIf you mean that thinking your culture is better than someone else's is a part of your culture, then yeah, you are correct -- that's typical for most people, especially in the current structure of nationalism that has created the ongoing problem of ethnocentrism I mentioned above.
Which you are doing yourself, starting with your application of the notion of self determination. But actually a lot deeper than that.
C'est la vie.
Quoteyours is racial, mine's cultural. Incidentally, mongolian as a racial characteristic is sorta, um, way, way outdated.
This is just getting silly. I appreciate that American culture is going through a prolonged nerveous break down over its multiracial society. But this is an American concept. As a Briton, and a European, I don't suffer from these particular hangups.
QuoteYou confuse tribalism with "small" and "cooperative".
I'm not confsing anything. The natrue of tribal groups is distinct from larger macros. Conflicts occure between different tribes and to a lesser extent, within tribes, as each struggle for acendency. Whereas, in macro groups, different communities co-exist, one acknowledging the dominance of the other,
QuoteThere's an enormous sense of consensus inthe fields
No. This is an illusion created by your dismissal of those who use entirely different tools or reach entirely different conclusions.
Quoteif they fail logically and are scientifically unsound. Which, being opinions, until you can prove them, are merely guesses.
Only from your perspective. From mine, many of the notion you reach are primitive and badly thought out.
QuoteAnd yet, your response here was filled with dogmatic pronouncements and revelations.
Possibly. But what I express is simply stating my own perspective.
Where is believe I am avoiding dogmatism is that I accept my observations may be wrong and present them for constructive criticism.
What has happened here is that, rather than offer constructive rebuttal or alternatives, I have been faced with the likes of:
Quote from: brainiac on May 23, 2010, 10:09:37 PM
The evolutionary psychology in this reeks of... a certain type of bovine manure to me, but then again, it is inherently un-empirical so I'm fussy about it.
Quote from: dyssonance on May 24, 2010, 08:20:24 PM
Not to mention that evo psych is what underlies the whole "trans aren't real" arguments of the blank born blank sorts...
This latter is entirely incorrect. I originally began my own investigation to try to answer the question of where homosexuality fitted in with human development. (As I have previously said, I was largely unaware of transgendered people at the time. I just thought I was weird.
This was in the early 70s when any notion that went against the traditional principals of patriotic brave young men being ready to answer their county's command to go to war tended to view any aberation of that as some modern and therefore worthless, concept.
My original investigations were to search for historical examples of homosexuality. The only well known one at that time, was Oscar Wilde. I found examples of homosexuality going back to antiquity.
This clearly indicates that homosexuality is not a behavioural aberation. Given the enormous consequences many homosexuals have faced, it also seems unlikely that it is simply elective deviancy.
So, my first conclusions was that homosexuality is innate in the human population. I'm pleased that the rest of accademia eventually caught up with me. :D