NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml

I found numbers 3, 4, 8 and 10 most interesting.

Not PC? This is SPARTA!

Also, that's pretty interesting.

Not PC? This is SPARTA!

Also, that's pretty interesting.

I took my oldest boy to see that at the cinema, I did feel a bit odd, me and my boy sitting there, watching all of that man flesh!

No.

This is not PC

http://img.alibaba.com/photo/11623183/Ibm_T_30_Laptop_P_4_2_0_Ghz_256_Ram_40gig_Hd_Dvd_Cdrw.jpg

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml

I found numbers 3, 4, 8 and 10 most interesting.
For a four-part debunking, I recommend visiting http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com. Pandagon also addresses the many layers of bullshit packed into the Psychology Today piece.

The short version? Those "ten politically incorrect truths" are actually (surprise surprise) not remotely true at all. They're just the same old myths and sexist/racist/homophobic nonsense that's been around for generations.

No.

This is not PC...



And I'm a Mac!

http://oldcomputers.net/pics/macintosh.jpg

I have a few problems with most of these - pop psychology at best - I care not to explain why.

write new computer software in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them

yeah that sounds like it could work :D

:rolleyes:

I was going to post this the other day, then I realized it was a load of crap.

Yeah, I was wondering why I like blondes with big boobs more than any other type of woman.

Oh wait, I don't.

Pop psychology piece failed the test of reality.

But I like the "most suicide bombers are Muslims" bit. It's a subtle way of hinting that "most Muslims are suicide bombers." As long as people keep associating one with the other, Muslim-hating will be, in fact, politically correct. Unlike Jew hating, which became un-PC right about the same time certain war criminals got their necks wrung.

Maybe that's what it'll take this time.

Apparently to get a psych degree, you have to be a buffoon without common sense. I could psychoanalyze trends better than this.

All right, what the hell?

Number 10 in particular was incredibly stupid.

thanks for the linky! I have 2 daughters, therefore I am beautiful! :p

I'm glad I'm informed enough to know that's all a bunch of horse shit.

Is it just me, or is pop psychology obsessively focused on sex and dating?

I only glanced at the article briefly. Specifically only at point one. Well, I didn't think there was much point reading on after that crock of shite. Hmm... yes, let's pretend for a second that the Western/European cultural viewpoint in existance, and ignore the phase in European history in which 'Rubenesque' figures were thought to be attractive.

I mean you only have to glance at Botticelli's 'The Birth of Venus' (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7d/Botticelli_Venus.jpg), Titian's 'Venus Anadyomene' (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Anadyomene.jpg), or any other paintings of women deemed to be beautiful throughout the ages.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml

I found numbers 3, 4, 8 and 10 most interesting.

Men Like Blonde Bombshells

...Yeah...

...I also like brunettes, redheads, full-figured girls, girls with glasses, girls with freckles, blue eyes, brown eyes, green eyes, purple eyes (I've seen 'em), girls with glasses, etc. etc...

Humans are naturally polygamous

Then why are so many societies based off the monogamous relationship?

Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy

I'm not even going to go into that...

Most suicide bombers are Muslim

So most suicide bombers are Muslim because they're sex crazed but deprived due to the fact that some Arabic societies practice polygamy...which you said was natural...

Way to go, Shitlock...

Having sons reduces the likelihood of divorce

Bull....and Shit...

I'm living proof to the contrary. You want to know what reduces the likelyhood of divorse: having a mature, open, loving couple in the first place...

Beautiful people have more daughters

When did psychology get stupid...?

What Bill Gates and Paul McCartney have in common with criminals

Are you retarded?

The midlife crisis is a myth—sort of

They gave you a fuckin' degree...WHY?!

It's natural for politicians to risk everything for an affair (but only if they're male)

HEAD
HIT
KEYBOARD

Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist

*dies*

Some of that seems pretty logical, like the age-genius bit.

Some of that seems pretty logical, like the age-genius bit.

Most pop-psychology does seem logical at first glance. However, that's only because it relies on selected anecdotes, stereotypes and dressed up presumptions about human nature, but presents them as fact or otherwise representative of the whole of humanity.

"I conquered Western Europe. See, I'm somebody now and I did it all for you - will you sleep with me?"

"No."

"Dammit. Um... all right guys, time to conquer a few more civilizations..."

I am kind of surprised that this article caused such an angry reaction from some of you guys. I think that is was logically presented. You might disagree with the analysis but I do not think that anybody should be calling it poppycock.

What some of you folks seem to be missing is that this is an explanation of subconscious brain activity. I am sure that when William Shakespeare wrote his plays he had more on his mind than getting a wife who would be impressed by his work. However, this drive to go out and accomplish great things may very well be subconsciously related to the reproductive drive.

I place very little stock in Evolutionary Psychology. Its obsessive focus on sexual drive as a motivation is distasteful and far fetched.

I place very little stock in Evolutionary Psychology. Its obsessive focus on sexual drive as a motivation is distasteful and far fetched.

Although I agree it may be a bit distasteful, why do you think it is so far fetched?

Although I agree it may be a bit distasteful, why do you think it is so far fetched?

It goes back to why Freud was wrong. Believe it or not, there are other factors important to survival besides being the the most "desirable" to fuck. There is more to human nature than sex.

It goes back to why Freud was wrong. Believe it or not, there are other factors important to survival besides being the the most "desirable" to fuck. There is more to human nature than sex.

The body's organs are (with the exception of the appendix) there to support the life of the body. The brain is no exception. I do not see why it is so far fetched to believe that the brain is programmed to make us try to be better prospective mates or help promote our ability to be good parents.

I read that and expect #11 to be "Most Jews have big noses and really do run the world" or some such bullshit. I bet people will read that stuff and actually agree with it though. Sad.

For a four-part debunking, I recommend visiting http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com. Pandagon also addresses the many layers of bullshit packed into the Psychology Today piece.

The short version? Those "ten politically incorrect truths" are actually (surprise surprise) not remotely true at all. They're just the same old myths and sexist/racist/homophobic nonsense that's been around for generations.

I'm impressed you can say that from one lame blog post. I'm not saying either site is amazing, but to call the OPs site bullshit/mythical/racist/homophobic and what other meaningless words you choose to call it, acting as if there has been some credible study into this debunking his resarch, and then back it up with a site which isn't much more then a elongated pedantic NSG post is something.

Its not PC to look at CP on your PC, CP.

The body's organs are (with the exception of the appendix) there to support the life of the body. The brain is no exception. I do not see why it is so far fetched to believe that the brain is programmed to make us try to be better prospective mates or help promote our ability to be good parents.

Like I said, there's more to humans than sex. There's more to surviving than sex. Personally, I know I feel no such inclination to be "a better prospective mate," yet I'm still here after millions of years of evolution.

And I'm a Mac!

http://oldcomputers.net/pics/macintosh.jpg

I can't believe work gave my dad one of those back in the day, and I promptly set in to playing the hay wagon drop game on it over and over again!

I am kind of surprised that this article caused such an angry reaction from some of you guys. I think that is was logically presented. You might disagree with the analysis but I do not think that anybody should be calling it poppycock.No, I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with articles analysis, rather the basis it makes such analyses from. It is discerning conclusions from false premises, thus making all their conclusions false.

It's like this piece of logic.

All Frenchmen wear berets. Vladimir is a Frenchman. Ergo, Vladimir wears a beret.

A flawless piece of logic. Now what if one or more of the premises is false? Does the this mean the analysis holds. No.


So what makes their conclusions false? That they assume their cultural and societal norms to constant across the whole of humanity. For instance. is leaving food on your plate a compliment or an insult? Depends on which society you live.

But how about something based more on physical attraction - what is more desirable, pale skin or tanned skin. If we glance back to the 19th century and beyond we see that pale skin is more desirable among social elites as it shows that the woman has only led a life of luxury and has not been forced to work. If we now look at the 1920s we find Coco Channel declaring tans to be fashionable. And because she creme de le creme among socialites the craze catches on, and now tanned skin is desireable.

The same goes for the figure of a woman. The articles claims that women with thinner waists are more desireable. And that this has always been the case. Not so. There have been times when having a fatter wife would be more desireable as it means she is well feed and that her husband has the means to feed her well. It would also mean that her children were not malnourished. This not only combines sexual reproduction, but power and status as well.

Also. that they have reduxed attraction to a purely reproductive basis without any supporting evidence is appalling. How on Earth do they explain homosexuality then? Is it a disease? Is it a congenital defect - how does it get passed on then?

I find the whole piece to be willfully ignorant. And I find that inexcusable.

PC is for the birds! I love #4.

Psychology Today? Seriously?

When it appears in a peer-reviewed journal, let us know.

For the record, this is not to say I dismiss out-of-hand all of the claims made in the article, some of which certainly have the ring of truth and even some respectable research to back them. But there is also a lot which is highly speculative (e.g. the claim that families with boys have a lower divorce rate because the father "sticks around" to offer his resources to his heir), and there is a lot more that can be easily discredited with existing research (e.g. the claim about Muslim suicide bombers, which completely ignores important aspects of that demographic--especially the fact that the majority of them are not particularly religious as compared with their contemporaries).

So... South Park's Mr. Garrison was right about the Muslims? :p

Wow - lots of odd facts. Some of it doesn't make a lot of sense to me (e.g., why I'm not a fan of barbie-looking women, and the thing about having sons and divorce) but some of it does. Interesting stuff. :)

number one ignores the dominant cultural norms of the past, where images like the Venus de'milo, or the prehistoric "Venus of Willendorf"-esque prehistoric creations show a desire for a much more voluptuous woman.

Yes they succeeded in their aim of pushing the boundaries of what is politically correct, but they failed to meet a scientific standard by focusing on limited trends and ignoring broader, more far-reaching and more previlent social ideals that occur in all societies in recorded human history and before.

Aren't there some societies where men are attracted to larger women? And about the Muslims -- are all Muslim societies polygamous? Keep in mind that there are Muslims in Arabia, Africa, Indonesia, etc.

It may not be a PC, but I bet the DM has big plans for this character!

I'd rather you not classify this under hate mail, just consider it a thought. I mean, really man, check your facts.

I feel as though it is my duty to crack your skull open with a copy of The World Factbook and Webster's Dictionary...

What were you thinking? You have a Ph.D I see, don't abuse the title. Check your facts, the vast majority of your cited studies are far out of date. For the record, I'm in my late teens, but my writing abilities have yet to peak. I have no attraction to women that stumble over their own breasts, I prefer warm shades of brown to sky blue, have always preffered darker hair, and I know of more than one middle aged un-wed man going through a mid-life crisis.

Most suicide bombers are Muslim? Religion and tyranny have a habbit of doing that to people. I do believe that a harbor was bombed several years ago, and that long before that ritual suicide was performed due to failure in combat. Essentially, my point is this - suicide bombings are more of a trend than a trademark. Hundreds of other cultures have the same tendencies.

You can call me rebellious and blindly argumentitive, or you can say that I'm plagued with ODD (hope you catch the pun), but when a teen thinks you're the one with somewhat childish views.... well, you have some issues to sort out. Ah well, I suppose that pop psychology has it's place. From what I've seen I'd put it on par with modern literature.


--- I nearly sent it then I saw ----

Adapted from Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, by Alan S. Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa, to be published by Perigee in September 2007.

They're trying to start arguments just like this one. It's a low way to sell a book.

So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status.

The belief that suicide bombers are poor, uneducated, disaffected or disturbed is contradicted by science. Marc Sageman, a forensic psychiatrist at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, found in a study of 400 Al Qaeda members that three quarters of his sample came from the upper or middle class. Moreover, he noted, "the vast majority--90 percent--came from caring, intact families. Sixty-three percent had gone to college, as compared with the 5-6 percent that's usual for the third world. These are the best and brightest of their societies in many ways." Nor were they sans employment and familial duties. "Far from having no family or job responsibilities, 73 percent were married and the vast majority had children.... Three quarters were professionals or semiprofessionals. They are engineers, architects and civil engineers, mostly scientists. Very few humanities are represented, and quite surprisingly very few had any background in religion."


It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates. By doing so, they have little to lose and much to gain compared with men who already have wives. Across all societies, polygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors as economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy, and political factors in the region.
Yeah. Those mormon's are freakin' crazy...

when religion is involved, the attackers are always Muslim

Flat out false

hacks

Edit: to further clarify the topic was suicide bombings in that section

Flat out false

hacks

They could atleast pick something that the most basic google search wouldn't entirely negate

They could atleast pick something that the most basic google search wouldn't entirely negate

No kidding and you figure PhD's would know not to use absolutes like that
so easy to disprove

when religion is involved, the attackers are always MuslimFlat out false

Indeed, indeed.

The LTTE (commanly known as the Tamil Tigers) were the first to use suicide bombing vests, IIRC.

They expuled the Muslims from Jaffna in 1990.