4 ms·

I was commenting on this specific wording: "We're looking for a wife— take care of my house and children, be attractive and cook" Who is we in this context? A

I was commenting on this specific wording: "We're looking for a wife— take care of my house and children, be attractive and cook" Who is we in this context? All men? So cooking, taking care of children and being attractive is hard-coded into the biology and psychology of women?

jdthedisciple 4y ago
Seeking those traits in women is hard-coded into men. (Obviously there are exceptions - as with any rule - but do I really need to add this caveat ... ?)
- uxcolumbo 4y ago
  Is this just your opinion or is it based on scientific research? If the latter - can you share those studies? Are these traits coded in our DNA? I'd like to learn how it's hard-coded in men's DNA that they are looking for women who will cook for them.
  - jdthedisciple 4y ago
    I know that it's become the norm for 21st century pseudo-intellectuals to demand "scientific research" for every little thing in life. Fundamentally, you simply won't acknowledge certain self-evident realities for what they are, but I do - and that's where we differ. This is not to say those studies don't exist - I'm often surprised at studies that make me go "duh" because "that's what I've intuitively known all my life". Like some people wouldn't acknowledge the fact that men are inherently much more muscular than women had there not been studies on that. That's one such self-evident reality. So I say: You go keep searching for studies! :) Meanwhile I'm going to keep living in and by self-evident reality. Personally, I find that the predictive power of that is yet to be beaten!
    - uxcolumbo 4y ago
      Reverting to calling other people pseudo-intellectuals is really not helping this discussion. How many men exist today? Saying 'Seeking those traits in women is hard-coded into men.' is not a 'little thing in life'. You're making a sweeping statement about billions of men. What you're stating is your opinion based on what you experienced, which is a small sample size. Even if you met 10k men that showed those traits, doesn't mean it's hard coded into men. And 'hard-coded' in what way? Hard-coded into our DNA or societal imprint (which means it's not hard-coded). So I was interested in finding out what your statement is based on.
      - jdthedisciple 4y ago
        I regret finding myself in another one of those pointless internet debates but this is a subject I could write essays about so here we go I guess ... Self-evident truths don't need to be based on anything because drum roll they are self-evident. You may reject that whole concept - that's fine, but don't ask me about your type of empirical evidence because it is not needed in this paradigm. I know self-evident truths aren't fancied anymore these days because they often lead to some uncomfortable conclusions that have politically been deemed unacceptable. "Absurd!", you say. Well consider the latest example, the Olympics: I would call it self-evident that males are physically stronger than females and thus should not compete against each other in most sports. I don't need scienctific research for that. Yet here we are letting trans-women (physical males) compete against women in the Olympics. Now isn't that absurd! All the "scientific studies" didn't help prevent such idiocy. Now this example is easy to follow because everything physical we can see with our own eyes. With psychology it's a little more subtle but analogous self-evident facts hold! Just like the male peacock or lizard or bell bird or whatever, which doesn't conduct or refer to empirical research when it comes to finding a mate, so do I as a male specimen of my species just inherently know what is generally (EMPHASIS!) attractive in and to females even beyond personal preferences and beyond myself as an individual - and do not require any scientific exercise for that SHOCK - JAWS DROPPING - WHERE IS THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!? Again, the predictive performance of that knowledge as well as general observations and experience only validate this fact. P.S: Sorry for the "pseudo-intellectual" but it's not meant personally, I'm referring to the scientiVIST approach of (IMO) over-eagerly applying the scientific method to every aspect of life especially in the context of personal advice (involving psychology (a soft science)) which is what this thread is all about.

jdthedisciple 4y ago

Seeking those traits in women is hard-coded into men. (Obviously there are exceptions - as with any rule - but do I really need to add this caveat ... ?)

uxcolumbo 4y ago
Is this just your opinion or is it based on scientific research? If the latter - can you share those studies? Are these traits coded in our DNA? I'd like to learn how it's hard-coded in men's DNA that they are looking for women who will cook for them.
- jdthedisciple 4y ago
  I know that it's become the norm for 21st century pseudo-intellectuals to demand "scientific research" for every little thing in life. Fundamentally, you simply won't acknowledge certain self-evident realities for what they are, but I do - and that's where we differ. This is not to say those studies don't exist - I'm often surprised at studies that make me go "duh" because "that's what I've intuitively known all my life". Like some people wouldn't acknowledge the fact that men are inherently much more muscular than women had there not been studies on that. That's one such self-evident reality. So I say: You go keep searching for studies! :) Meanwhile I'm going to keep living in and by self-evident reality. Personally, I find that the predictive power of that is yet to be beaten!
  - uxcolumbo 4y ago
    Reverting to calling other people pseudo-intellectuals is really not helping this discussion. How many men exist today? Saying 'Seeking those traits in women is hard-coded into men.' is not a 'little thing in life'. You're making a sweeping statement about billions of men. What you're stating is your opinion based on what you experienced, which is a small sample size. Even if you met 10k men that showed those traits, doesn't mean it's hard coded into men. And 'hard-coded' in what way? Hard-coded into our DNA or societal imprint (which means it's not hard-coded). So I was interested in finding out what your statement is based on.
    - jdthedisciple 4y ago
      I regret finding myself in another one of those pointless internet debates but this is a subject I could write essays about so here we go I guess ... Self-evident truths don't need to be based on anything because drum roll they are self-evident. You may reject that whole concept - that's fine, but don't ask me about your type of empirical evidence because it is not needed in this paradigm. I know self-evident truths aren't fancied anymore these days because they often lead to some uncomfortable conclusions that have politically been deemed unacceptable. "Absurd!", you say. Well consider the latest example, the Olympics: I would call it self-evident that males are physically stronger than females and thus should not compete against each other in most sports. I don't need scienctific research for that. Yet here we are letting trans-women (physical males) compete against women in the Olympics. Now isn't that absurd! All the "scientific studies" didn't help prevent such idiocy. Now this example is easy to follow because everything physical we can see with our own eyes. With psychology it's a little more subtle but analogous self-evident facts hold! Just like the male peacock or lizard or bell bird or whatever, which doesn't conduct or refer to empirical research when it comes to finding a mate, so do I as a male specimen of my species just inherently know what is generally (EMPHASIS!) attractive in and to females even beyond personal preferences and beyond myself as an individual - and do not require any scientific exercise for that SHOCK - JAWS DROPPING - WHERE IS THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!? Again, the predictive performance of that knowledge as well as general observations and experience only validate this fact. P.S: Sorry for the "pseudo-intellectual" but it's not meant personally, I'm referring to the scientiVIST approach of (IMO) over-eagerly applying the scientific method to every aspect of life especially in the context of personal advice (involving psychology (a soft science)) which is what this thread is all about.