Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Men are smartest and dumbest, say scientists

Expand Messages
  • Ligesh
    ... When you talk about traits that make a man fit , then it is not tautological. The statement that evolution cares only for fitness is self-evidently
    Message 1 of 99 , Sep 30, 2007
      On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 10:52:41AM -0400, Mark Hubey wrote:
      > > 'Fit' is not all about beauty. At least not in the case of human males. 'fit' is a technical term, meaning the ability of a person to have maximum _ADULT_ offspring. In the case of men, it would be related to artistic ability, muscular body, physical beauty and high intelligence, in that order. High intelligence is last.
      > I am just as confused as anyone else on this list as to the meaning of > "fit". I believe it has already > been discussed as to its tautologicality.

      When you talk about 'traits' that make a man 'fit', then it is not tautological. The statement that evolution cares only for 'fitness' is self-evidently true (or tautology), but the thing we are interested in is what are the traits that go toward making a person 'fit'. Then it is definitely not tautology.

      :: Evolution favors the individual with maximum 'fitness'. (Self evidently true. (Tautology)).

      :: What are the traits that make an individual 'fit'? (That is the focus of the science of Evolutionary Biology. This is nowhere near being a tautology).

      > Secondly, if what you say is true, why did humans get intelligent?

      Are we? 5 billion people believe that an all-benevolent god wants them to rape/massacre innocent people. A very few of the people do rise above the mediocrity and achieve something, But as a species, I do not consider humans intelligent. Joke: It is possible that there are many chimpanzees who have higher IQ than president Bush.

      > We did not get as muscular as lions, as large as elephants, as tall as > giraffes, or as beautiful as > XXX? > > I realize that there are problems here. Maybe like feminazis, PhDs are > also upset that they > are losing out on this race to lower kinds of species :-) > > Maybe it is time the plain talk (also called truth, reality) came out.

      We got skilled at using weapons. Good at cheating and cheater detection. Once Chimpanzees learn sign language, they do show intelligence. I am not sure if someone has measured it, but they seem capable of learning basic language.

      > >> If not, then does she not fear that the good looking guy she might have an affair with could be dumb and that the offspring would be dumber as a result?
      > > Women assess a man subconsciously and calculates a value for 'fitness'. It is as I have said above a value combining many traits in a male. Then she goes for the man with the highest 'fitness' for short term relationships.
      > We are scientists, are we not ? :-) > > What subconscious? Subconscious is still NNs and still calculates.

      'Subconscious' in the sense that her conscious brain will not be aware why she finds a certain man attractive.

      > > I have explained the issue with movie stars. Women are incapable of distinguishing the actors from the role they play. Movie stars are always portraying characters who have high 'fitness'.
      > What high fitness does Brad Pitt have that the owner of a SW firm does > not have?

      Have you seen Troy? He cuts up people like normal men cut up cucumbers. Women do NOT care about Brad Pitt. What people care for is Achilles, or whatever is the characters he has portrayed. If women were after physical perfection, then models rather than movie stars would be the focus of attention.

      > > And it is not merely appearance. EVery successful actor isn't physically attractive--though it is also an important trait.
      > Obviously everyone cannot be a clone. Some people in movies have to be > old, some young, > some female, some male, some evil, some good, some black, some white... > > Does Brad Pitt have an equal chance with, say Jimmy Durante, in his prime?

      For instance, Jack Nicholson, or Al Pacino in Godfather. They are not paragons of physical perfection. What matters is the character you represent. They are shown as clever, quick thinking, quick acting, or generally as people who have high fitness. In fact, that is why I have been saying again and again that if you want to find out what makes an ideal male, just look at the movies. Or generally pop culture.

      > Really? Pick some famous movie star that is not good looking. His only > advantage over the > average guy then must be 1) his money, and 2) the fact that he has > prestige for being > recognizable.

      A movie star's advantage is the characters he portrays in the movies. For instance, Achilles in Troy. You are again missing the point.

      > The fastest way would be for SW developers to create animation programs > to totally > virtualize the whole experience. Then there'd be no tabloids, and no TV > shows shoving > these faces into our homes.

      But it didn't work. Final Fantasy (The first movie with realistic artificial characters) was a massive failure. The firm went bankrupt.

      > You know who the competetion is. You constantly write about the EEA. Who > cares > about the EEA? The competetion is now! > > This looks like the list for the "learned helplessness" crowd.

      EP is a science that meets Popper's criteria. That enough reason for me to take it seriously.

      > And then why aren't all the males who are allegedly the alpha males of > modern civilization demanding > free sex with young beautiful nubile females passing on their genes to > the next generation?

      I am not sure what you are trying to say here. But there is paternal investment coming into play. Rock stars do have free sex with 'young beautiful nubile females'.
    • Zaphod Beeblebrox
      What about the fantasy of the old days (e.g. enlightenment), science did not care much for ethics of the day (e.g. traditional religion)? Was Tycho Brahe
      Message 99 of 99 , Nov 10, 2007
        What about the "fantasy" of "the old days (e.g. enlightenment), science did
        not care much for ethics of the day (e.g. traditional religion)?" Was Tycho
        Brahe not a scientist? He resisted his own data for "ethics of the day (e.g.
        traditional religion)." Darwin delayed publishing. Da Vinci hid his work.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
        [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Hubey
        Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 6:26 AM
        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [evol-psych] Ethics of IQ

        Ligesh wrote:
        > On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 09:12:50AM -0000, bowmanthebard wrote:
        >> steve moxon wrote:
        >>> Women have nine times as much intelligence-related
        >>> processing brain tissue (white matter) in their
        >>> brains than men do, whilst men have six times as much
        >>> intelligence-related connectivity tissue (gray matter)
        >>> than do women (Haier 2005).
        >> I've heard something like this before, and it's always treated like > the
        Third Secret of Fatima...
        >> If it's true, it would be a mystery if men and women were equally >
        intellectually able in all areas. And if men and women are not equally >
        intellectually able in all areas, it would be a bizarre coincidence if >
        their overall abilities just happened to "even out" as a happy > combination
        of the "swings and roundabouts" of all the differences. >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.