4 ms·

"It would be a very touchy subject though as the results of the study will implicate some cultures as more 'evil' than others." You don't say? There is a might

by burfog 10y ago

"It would be a very touchy subject though as the results of the study will implicate some cultures as more 'evil' than others." You don't say? There is a mighty good chance it is even worse: this is a brain trait, and we know that brain traits are at least partially due to DNA. Anybody who dares to research this one is completely nuts, with or without tenure.

crimsonalucard 10y ago
I disagree. I believe there is higher chance that the trait is cultural. But this of course is just derived from my anecdotal observations of human nature. >Anybody who dares to research this one is completely nuts, with or without tenure. What is interesting though is that in the field of anthropology there is total awareness of a certain fact. Throughout all ancient and historical human cultures, women have consistently been to certain degrees less privileged and more subservient to men. There is no definitive reason why this is the case, however biological imperative has not yet been ruled out. It's "nuts" but this is a case where political correctness has not yet suppressed what is otherwise a scientific observation. More interesting is that I was made aware of this fact by an anthropology professor at UCLA. She specifically believed that it was biological. She thought that women in general do not want to be leaders. (keyword: She)
- eric_h 10y ago
  > Throughout all ancient and historical human cultures, women have consistently been to certain degrees less privileged and more subservient to men I suspect that this is largely due to men's greater capacity for violence than women, due to having proportionally more muscle mass.
  - crimsonalucard 10y ago
    This theory has been examined. It is unlikely. First and foremost strength does not correlate with power, neither does violence. The most powerful people throughout history are not those that are strong or violent, but those that are well connected. Obama, Warren Buffet and Donald Trump are not known for their physical strength. Additionally, power correlates with age. Those that are older and weaker tend to be more powerful then younger people while younger people tend to be physically stronger but less powerful. When the most powerful people throughout history are not simple minded violent brutes, it becomes unlikely for men to be in power due to physical strength or violence. Personally, I do not believe that the reason is biological. Other than that I'm as befuddled as the rest of the anthropological field, I don't know why men have consistently been in power throughout the majority of human history, but the correlation cannot be denied.

by burfog 10y ago

crimsonalucard 10y ago

I disagree. I believe there is higher chance that the trait is cultural. But this of course is just derived from my anecdotal observations of human nature. >Anybody who dares to research this one is completely nuts, with or without tenure. What is interesting though is that in the field of anthropology there is total awareness of a certain fact. Throughout all ancient and historical human cultures, women have consistently been to certain degrees less privileged and more subservient to men. There is no definitive reason why this is the case, however biological imperative has not yet been ruled out. It's "nuts" but this is a case where political correctness has not yet suppressed what is otherwise a scientific observation. More interesting is that I was made aware of this fact by an anthropology professor at UCLA. She specifically believed that it was biological. She thought that women in general do not want to be leaders. (keyword: She)

eric_h 10y ago
> Throughout all ancient and historical human cultures, women have consistently been to certain degrees less privileged and more subservient to men I suspect that this is largely due to men's greater capacity for violence than women, due to having proportionally more muscle mass.
- crimsonalucard 10y ago
  This theory has been examined. It is unlikely. First and foremost strength does not correlate with power, neither does violence. The most powerful people throughout history are not those that are strong or violent, but those that are well connected. Obama, Warren Buffet and Donald Trump are not known for their physical strength. Additionally, power correlates with age. Those that are older and weaker tend to be more powerful then younger people while younger people tend to be physically stronger but less powerful. When the most powerful people throughout history are not simple minded violent brutes, it becomes unlikely for men to be in power due to physical strength or violence. Personally, I do not believe that the reason is biological. Other than that I'm as befuddled as the rest of the anthropological field, I don't know why men have consistently been in power throughout the majority of human history, but the correlation cannot be denied.