3 ms·

Reverting to calling other people pseudo-intellectuals is really not helping this discussion. How many men exist today? Saying 'Seeking those traits in women i

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.
- uxcolumbo 4y ago
  All I'm trying to understand is how it is self evident - because you didn't provide any details. To summarize: 1) The original statement made by a poster was: "We're looking for a wife— take care of my house and children, be attractive and cook" 2) I asked who is 'We' in this context and that that statement is an out-dated view - because I'm not seeking those traits in women and based on comments in this thread - there are quite a few who don't either. 3) Then you commented with: "Seeking those traits in women is hard-coded into men" And now my question is: How is it hard coded? Is it hard coded in our DNA? Or is it because how some of us have been brought up to view women? If so - then it's not hard coded (= something innate in our biology that can't be changed in the short term).
  - jdthedisciple 4y ago
    I don't know how. Perhaps in our DNA, but I don't know. I'd wager that liking certain physical traits in the opposite sex is hard-coded into our DNA so I wouldn't be surprised if other things were too. But do I need to know how? Does the peacock, lizard or bell-bird need to know how? I acknowledge you not identifying with the sentiment in question but may I ask: Is it in your mind conceivable that you are the one who has been brought up to view women in a way that is in opposition to your hard-coded nature?
    - uxcolumbo 4y ago
      For me 'your hard-coded nature' means that it's not something you can change without altering your biology. Men seeking women to "take care of my house and children, be attractive and cook" is not hard coded in our biology in my view. That's because you have so many examples nowadays where that's not the case, e.g. house husband - a man who stays at home and cooks and looks after kids. Or even in the past - there are signs that women assumed the role of a hunter [0]. It's something that's taught or picked up from the society you grew up in, e.g. traditional view that boys play with toy cars and girls play with dolls or men are the bread winner and women are at home cleaning, cooking and looking after the kids. So in that way, yes it's conceivable that many people have not been brought up that way and are not looking for women that "take care of my house and children, be attractive and cook". And that was my whole point - to counter the sweeping statement that it's what men are looking for, because it's hard coded in their nature. [0] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/prehistoric-female-hunter-discovery-upends-gender-role-assumptions https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/prehistor...

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.

uxcolumbo 4y ago
All I'm trying to understand is how it is self evident - because you didn't provide any details. To summarize: 1) The original statement made by a poster was: "We're looking for a wife— take care of my house and children, be attractive and cook" 2) I asked who is 'We' in this context and that that statement is an out-dated view - because I'm not seeking those traits in women and based on comments in this thread - there are quite a few who don't either. 3) Then you commented with: "Seeking those traits in women is hard-coded into men" And now my question is: How is it hard coded? Is it hard coded in our DNA? Or is it because how some of us have been brought up to view women? If so - then it's not hard coded (= something innate in our biology that can't be changed in the short term).
- jdthedisciple 4y ago
  I don't know how. Perhaps in our DNA, but I don't know. I'd wager that liking certain physical traits in the opposite sex is hard-coded into our DNA so I wouldn't be surprised if other things were too. But do I need to know how? Does the peacock, lizard or bell-bird need to know how? I acknowledge you not identifying with the sentiment in question but may I ask: Is it in your mind conceivable that you are the one who has been brought up to view women in a way that is in opposition to your hard-coded nature?
  - uxcolumbo 4y ago
    For me 'your hard-coded nature' means that it's not something you can change without altering your biology. Men seeking women to "take care of my house and children, be attractive and cook" is not hard coded in our biology in my view. That's because you have so many examples nowadays where that's not the case, e.g. house husband - a man who stays at home and cooks and looks after kids. Or even in the past - there are signs that women assumed the role of a hunter [0]. It's something that's taught or picked up from the society you grew up in, e.g. traditional view that boys play with toy cars and girls play with dolls or men are the bread winner and women are at home cleaning, cooking and looking after the kids. So in that way, yes it's conceivable that many people have not been brought up that way and are not looking for women that "take care of my house and children, be attractive and cook". And that was my whole point - to counter the sweeping statement that it's what men are looking for, because it's hard coded in their nature. [0] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/prehistoric-female-hunter-discovery-upends-gender-role-assumptions https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/prehistor...