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. 

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

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! 

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! 

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.