Mating in mammals has a basic asymmetry – females must invest more in each child than males. This can lead to an equilibrium where males focus on impressing and having sex with as many females as possible, while females do most of the child-rearing and choose impressive males.
"If a large factor in holding back female sexuality was social pressure then it follows that women would be more likely to use anonymous or pseudonymous sex/dating services than they are."
What if the societal conditioning was so strong that it meant women were likely to avoid seeking out even anonymous sex and masturbating because they "knew" it was wrong.
In the ancient greek world it was common for men to take other men as their lovers, but now only a small percentage of men to so, maybe society (or nurture) has more power over our sexual impulses than our genes do.
The burden of proof does not rest on the shoulders of those sharing my "worldview". To think that is the case is to underestimate the epistemological barriers one encounters in dealing with the immense complexities of human behavior, of natural selection on the scale of human societies, and of data gathering in the social sciences. Show me how your hypotheses are supported by solid evidence, because the fact that they coincide remarkably well with how beer commercials instruct you to behave, I believe, is a very strong piece of evidence against them. I don't intend to dispute the validity of sociobiology or evolutionary psychology in principle. I believe that such approaches are the only way in which the causes of human behavior can be understood. I do however, dispute many of the conclusions made by these sciences on the grounds of limited evidence. (some simpler cases, such as the shape of the human penis, I think are well substantiated by empirical evidence). I just don't think people realize just how much evidence it takes to be sure you're right in the social sciences, and in the case of prof. robin's hypothesis, I think it's more than is currently available, though I could be convinced otherwise. (and I invite you to do so).
"I have the advantage of having found out how hard it is to get to really know something, how careful you have to be in checking things, how easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourself. I know what it means to know something, and therefore I see how they get their information, and I can't believe that they know it. They haven't done the work necessary, they haven't done the checks necessary, the care necessary. I have a great suspicion that they don't know this stuff, and they're intimidating people with it." Richard Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out (http://www.youtube.com/watc... [4:15])
"The failure of women to express their sexual interests seems rather more likely to stem from social conditioning – women who seem more “liberated” appear to have a lot less trouble expressing their sexual interests"
I used to think the above was the case but I no longer do. If a large factor in holding back female sexuality was social pressure then it follows that women would be more likely to use anonymous or pseudonymous sex/dating services than they are. Try to find a male prostitute that services only women and charges more than a fraction of what a female prostitute charges.
Go to sex and dating sites and see the extreme over representation of men.
This might just be an effect of the much lower female libido but if it's so much lower then the male libido that the effect of social pressure disappear in the noise I'm not sure why we even need to discuss social pressure as the effect appears to be negligible.
P.S. I just realized I misunderstood your post somewhat. As in I read conditioning as pressure but I'm posting anyway.
This whole story requires that given ambiguous signals people tend to assume the best, rather than assume the worst. Seems to apply to people, though I’m not sure why.
Not that I buy your model, but fMRI studies of the early stages of romantic love have been linked to deactivation of critical social assessment and of negative emotion in general, allowing for the kind of uncritical relationship escalation you propose.
Another thing this post fails to account for is the observed high relative frequency of men killing estranged wives (i.e., wives who have left the relationship, as opposed to having extramarital sex).
Maybe you should do a bit of research on your own instead of demanding others to proffer research that you'll likely just knee-jerkedly deny and decry because it doesn't fit your worldview.
"It’s no wonder you don’t cite any empirical data to support your hypothesis."
There are many books with reams of data. Just because you don't like a conclusion doesn't mean it isn't true. People who don't like evo psych simply don't like the results, they don't offer arguments against it.
Justifying the status quo using shotty sociobiological/evolutionary psych reasoning. Dawkins did it in the first edition of the Selfish Gene, and countless others have followed since. Your theory is a "just-so" story used to justify your preconceptions about sex and gender relations in society. It's no wonder you don't cite any empirical data to support your hypothesis. Such an incredibly complex subject as evolutionary pressures on human social behavior requires far more restraint, skepticism, and scientific rigor than is shown in your post. Overcome your bias!
This is a nice explanation - and helps me understand the lack of self-transparency issue a bit better.
So what then will be the effect of increased economic power of women? I know you think greater licentiousness will result generally as a result of increased wealth in modern times - but will it also change the significance of economic based signals from men to women? Will a wife care less if the husband buys flowers for the secretarial pool (an anachronism i know).
I read one paper that suggested that women have adapted to their changing economic fortunes - and have become more willing to assert direct power in relationships (as in making overt demands) - as opposed to indirect power (lying and gossip etc) in order to get their way. This suggests to me the possibility of responding differently to signals as well.
But if these adaptations to circumstance are possible - it makes me questions the transparency aspect again. Why should that adaptation in particular have evolved (and remain seemingly static with respect to modern times) - when other aspects of behaviour do seem change with the times.
Could it be that we'll become better able to inspect our feelings as economic wealth increases?
"wherein for a few years a male gave substantial resource support to help raising a kid in trade for credible signs that the kid was his."
The shape of the human penis strongly disagrees with you. I'm not aware of much evidence that pre-historic man made such support contingent on paternity certainty. Moreover, since people existed in small bands of hunter-gatherers, it seems pretty unlikely that they raised children/allocated resources based on a narrow nuclear family. 1950 was not the ancestral environment.
Also, I'm not sure "transparency" is really the issue. From the women I know, they're not confused about when they're horny. The failure of women to express their sexual interests seems rather more likely to stem from social conditioning - women who seem more "liberated" appear to have a lot less trouble expressing their sexual interests. When women seek signs of emotional commitment, I think failure to provide them tends to be based on their actual absence, not a lack of knowledge on men's part (though I suppose that hypothesis is non-falsifiable from my perspective - how would a man know?). In particular, if you look in the past, i.e. before 1950, men were extremely emotional. Look at love letters from the 17 and 1800's. Again, men who are more "liberated" in that their immediate cultural surroundings do not value gender stereotypes are much more likely to be openly emotional. You're ignoring an obvious, better explanation.
And you've failed to explain why self-deception *helps* deception generally. It seems intuitive because we're basically wired that way - but WHY are we wired that way?
Ha! Never has the contention of a title (that men are bad at feelings) been so proven true by the content of the article.
"If a large factor in holding back female sexuality was social pressure then it follows that women would be more likely to use anonymous or pseudonymous sex/dating services than they are."
What if the societal conditioning was so strong that it meant women were likely to avoid seeking out even anonymous sex and masturbating because they "knew" it was wrong.
In the ancient greek world it was common for men to take other men as their lovers, but now only a small percentage of men to so, maybe society (or nurture) has more power over our sexual impulses than our genes do.
The burden of proof does not rest on the shoulders of those sharing my "worldview". To think that is the case is to underestimate the epistemological barriers one encounters in dealing with the immense complexities of human behavior, of natural selection on the scale of human societies, and of data gathering in the social sciences. Show me how your hypotheses are supported by solid evidence, because the fact that they coincide remarkably well with how beer commercials instruct you to behave, I believe, is a very strong piece of evidence against them. I don't intend to dispute the validity of sociobiology or evolutionary psychology in principle. I believe that such approaches are the only way in which the causes of human behavior can be understood. I do however, dispute many of the conclusions made by these sciences on the grounds of limited evidence. (some simpler cases, such as the shape of the human penis, I think are well substantiated by empirical evidence). I just don't think people realize just how much evidence it takes to be sure you're right in the social sciences, and in the case of prof. robin's hypothesis, I think it's more than is currently available, though I could be convinced otherwise. (and I invite you to do so).
"I have the advantage of having found out how hard it is to get to really know something, how careful you have to be in checking things, how easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourself. I know what it means to know something, and therefore I see how they get their information, and I can't believe that they know it. They haven't done the work necessary, they haven't done the checks necessary, the care necessary. I have a great suspicion that they don't know this stuff, and they're intimidating people with it." Richard Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out (http://www.youtube.com/watc... [4:15])
@Psychohistorian
"The failure of women to express their sexual interests seems rather more likely to stem from social conditioning – women who seem more “liberated” appear to have a lot less trouble expressing their sexual interests"
I used to think the above was the case but I no longer do. If a large factor in holding back female sexuality was social pressure then it follows that women would be more likely to use anonymous or pseudonymous sex/dating services than they are. Try to find a male prostitute that services only women and charges more than a fraction of what a female prostitute charges.
Go to sex and dating sites and see the extreme over representation of men.
This might just be an effect of the much lower female libido but if it's so much lower then the male libido that the effect of social pressure disappear in the noise I'm not sure why we even need to discuss social pressure as the effect appears to be negligible.
P.S. I just realized I misunderstood your post somewhat. As in I read conditioning as pressure but I'm posting anyway.
Love your handle.
I wonder if it is just confirmation bias, but every piece of data and evolutionary psychology I read about women makes me hate them more.
This whole story requires that given ambiguous signals people tend to assume the best, rather than assume the worst. Seems to apply to people, though I’m not sure why.
Not that I buy your model, but fMRI studies of the early stages of romantic love have been linked to deactivation of critical social assessment and of negative emotion in general, allowing for the kind of uncritical relationship escalation you propose.
Another thing this post fails to account for is the observed high relative frequency of men killing estranged wives (i.e., wives who have left the relationship, as opposed to having extramarital sex).
Maybe you should do a bit of research on your own instead of demanding others to proffer research that you'll likely just knee-jerkedly deny and decry because it doesn't fit your worldview.
I'd love to see these "reams of data".
"It’s no wonder you don’t cite any empirical data to support your hypothesis."
There are many books with reams of data. Just because you don't like a conclusion doesn't mean it isn't true. People who don't like evo psych simply don't like the results, they don't offer arguments against it.
women are only capable of truly loving one man at a time
From observation of polyamorous relationships, this is complete bullshit.
Michael Bailey gathered evidence that women are confused by hooking up electrodes to their hoo-has.
The theory of self-deception to better deceive is usually attributed to Robert Trivers.
Justifying the status quo using shotty sociobiological/evolutionary psych reasoning. Dawkins did it in the first edition of the Selfish Gene, and countless others have followed since. Your theory is a "just-so" story used to justify your preconceptions about sex and gender relations in society. It's no wonder you don't cite any empirical data to support your hypothesis. Such an incredibly complex subject as evolutionary pressures on human social behavior requires far more restraint, skepticism, and scientific rigor than is shown in your post. Overcome your bias!
This is a nice explanation - and helps me understand the lack of self-transparency issue a bit better.
So what then will be the effect of increased economic power of women? I know you think greater licentiousness will result generally as a result of increased wealth in modern times - but will it also change the significance of economic based signals from men to women? Will a wife care less if the husband buys flowers for the secretarial pool (an anachronism i know).
I read one paper that suggested that women have adapted to their changing economic fortunes - and have become more willing to assert direct power in relationships (as in making overt demands) - as opposed to indirect power (lying and gossip etc) in order to get their way. This suggests to me the possibility of responding differently to signals as well.
But if these adaptations to circumstance are possible - it makes me questions the transparency aspect again. Why should that adaptation in particular have evolved (and remain seemingly static with respect to modern times) - when other aspects of behaviour do seem change with the times.
Could it be that we'll become better able to inspect our feelings as economic wealth increases?
"wherein for a few years a male gave substantial resource support to help raising a kid in trade for credible signs that the kid was his."
The shape of the human penis strongly disagrees with you. I'm not aware of much evidence that pre-historic man made such support contingent on paternity certainty. Moreover, since people existed in small bands of hunter-gatherers, it seems pretty unlikely that they raised children/allocated resources based on a narrow nuclear family. 1950 was not the ancestral environment.
Also, I'm not sure "transparency" is really the issue. From the women I know, they're not confused about when they're horny. The failure of women to express their sexual interests seems rather more likely to stem from social conditioning - women who seem more "liberated" appear to have a lot less trouble expressing their sexual interests. When women seek signs of emotional commitment, I think failure to provide them tends to be based on their actual absence, not a lack of knowledge on men's part (though I suppose that hypothesis is non-falsifiable from my perspective - how would a man know?). In particular, if you look in the past, i.e. before 1950, men were extremely emotional. Look at love letters from the 17 and 1800's. Again, men who are more "liberated" in that their immediate cultural surroundings do not value gender stereotypes are much more likely to be openly emotional. You're ignoring an obvious, better explanation.
And you've failed to explain why self-deception *helps* deception generally. It seems intuitive because we're basically wired that way - but WHY are we wired that way?