Is There Anything Good About Men?
Aug 22, 2007 at 8:29 PM Post #31 of 42
Quote:

Originally Posted by redshifter /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I don't understand your logic. How does an urge to power as a biological imperative exclude the corrupting influence of power? If you are really claiming absolute power does not currput, I respectfully suggest you get a better historical perspective.


Is this revenge for the pitbull thread?
tongue.gif


Seriously, I don't believe it corrupts at all, quite the opposite, I think people corrupt the power the wield.
 
Aug 22, 2007 at 8:31 PM Post #32 of 42
Quote:

Originally Posted by Superpredator /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The New York Times reported on an address given to the APA. The ideas espoused don't belong to the paper.


None the less, I still got to state my unrelated opinion
tongue.gif
 
Aug 22, 2007 at 8:54 PM Post #33 of 42
Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeAmEye /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Money is a manmade method of determining power, so, no, there was no biological evolution to seek it out. Power is the key, and power drives every species on the globe (probably in the universe as well
icon10.gif
). The old saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely" is "absolutely" false. It's a biological imperative to seek power, but it simply isn't feasible to the masses, because the vast majority were born with none to start and little to no realistic means of attaining it. Facing this reality, we assimilate ourselves and become complacent. Self-denial is the next process, as we convince ourselves we never wanted nor sought such power. Look closely at how people operate and it becomes fairly obvious. Everything we do in life is a measure of power, our jobs, home, car, spouse, children, possessions, general accomplishments, etc. Right here on Head-Fi we have a term called "upgradeitis" which in a small way is a measure of power (have people here not gloated and boasted, and had numerous fights over their "rigs"?). When we can't afford the "upgrade", we learn to be happy, to varying degrees, with what we have, and most will eventually convince themselves they don't want the upgrade at all. I don't buy it for a second
wink.gif



Entirely valid observation, especially if one pays close attention to how people operate. Another observation one can make is that while people at the top tend to chase vacation homes, yachts, and other tangibles, people who don't have an opportunity to chase the tangibles seek friendship, ideas and personal advancement through understanding themselves. If you give any credence to recent studies that say human beings are awful at predicting what will make them happy, then neither the rich guy with the yacht nor the middle class slob reading Kafka have any real idea what they're doing in terms of satisfying themselves.

A major biological imperative found in social creatures might well be: get to the top if you can. But clearly not everyone makes it to the top. Another biological imperative might be: be satisfied with what you've got or you're liable to lose even that. So the primary motivator for all people can't really be, get power at all costs, as you suggest. At some point there's another motivator that says: hey, moron, don't **** up what you've already got. Call it a propensity for risk coupled with an ability to weigh it. My point is that the human system is not reducible to such a simple tenet like: everyone seeks money and power. Simply because women tend to gravitate towards powerful, rich men does not mean that women inherently seek wealth and power themselves. There could be more than meets the eye. Women might instinctively seek the safe, optimal conditions for raising a family that a powerful partner would suggest. And again, if you look at the observable system, most women settle for average or slightly above average men, in terms of wealth and power. Clearly they have a similar biological imperative going on that says: well, if you can't get to the top, grab hold of what you can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeAmEye /img/forum/go_quote.gif
There isn't a shred, not a spec of dust of "hard" evidence of ancient culture motivations. We have evidence such cultures existed, but no evidence of their motivations. Whatever evidence is claimed on these matters is complete speculation, and molded to mesh with the theory of the researcher/scientist, etc. The only difference between them and me is a degree hanging on the wall. Take that for what you will, I don't put much stock in it personally.


Wrongo. We know for absolute certainty that they were motivated to eat. We know for absolute certainty that they were motivated to get it on with the opposite sex. How do we know that they were motivated to eat and do the juicy fantastic? Because we're here now, having this conversation. We know for absolute certainty that male and female bodies are suited for different purposes. We know for absolute certainty that over time societies and cultures learned to function more efficiently. Yes, what's his face does rely on some historical assertions that are not entirely provable, and some of them not at all. But my take was that he relies enough on recent, quantifiable evidence to render his theories worthy of consideration. Conjecture, no doubt. But intelligent conjecture that rings true to my own observation of men's and women's motivation in modern times. Men have an interest in solving life's small and large questions with risk and innovation, and women, by and large, don't.
 
Aug 22, 2007 at 9:09 PM Post #35 of 42
Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeAmEye /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Is this revenge for the pitbull thread?
tongue.gif


Seriously, I don't believe it corrupts at all, quite the opposite, I think people corrupt the power the wield.



No, frankly I did not notice it is you. I do not hold grudges.

It is not worth the time for me to explain the difference between opinion and historical fact, and even if I did judging from your non-replies to my posts I doubt you would get the point.
 
Aug 23, 2007 at 1:41 AM Post #37 of 42
Quote:

Originally Posted by redshifter /img/forum/go_quote.gif
No, frankly I did not notice it is you. I do not hold grudges.

It is not worth the time for me to explain the difference between opinion and historical fact, and even if I did judging from your non-replies to my posts I doubt you would get the point.




Good, I usually skip windbag responses anyway.
 
Aug 23, 2007 at 1:58 AM Post #38 of 42
Quote:

Originally Posted by Superpredator /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Entirely valid observation, especially if one pays close attention to how people operate. Another observation one can make is that while people at the top tend to chase vacation homes, yachts, and other tangibles, people who don't have an opportunity to chase the tangibles seek friendship, ideas and personal advancement through understanding themselves. If you give any credence to recent studies that say human beings are awful at predicting what will make them happy, then neither the rich guy with the yacht nor the middle class slob reading Kafka have any real idea what they're doing in terms of satisfying themselves.

A major biological imperative found in social creatures might well be: get to the top if you can. But clearly not everyone makes it to the top. Another biological imperative might be: be satisfied with what you've got or you're liable to lose even that. So the primary motivator for all people can't really be, get power at all costs, as you suggest. At some point there's another motivator that says: hey, moron, don't **** up what you've already got. Call it a propensity for risk coupled with an ability to weigh it. My point is that the human system is not reducible to such a simple tenet like: everyone seeks money and power. Simply because women tend to gravitate towards powerful, rich men does not mean that women inherently seek wealth and power themselves. There could be more than meets the eye. Women might instinctively seek the safe, optimal conditions for raising a family that a powerful partner would suggest. And again, if you look at the observable system, most women settle for average or slightly above average men, in terms of wealth and power. Clearly they have a similar biological imperative going on that says: well, if you can't get to the top, grab hold of what you can.



Wrongo. We know for absolute certainty that they were motivated to eat. We know for absolute certainty that they were motivated to get it on with the opposite sex. How do we know that they were motivated to eat and do the juicy fantastic? Because we're here now, having this conversation. We know for absolute certainty that male and female bodies are suited for different purposes. We know for absolute certainty that over time societies and cultures learned to function more efficiently. Yes, what's his face does rely on some historical assertions that are not entirely provable, and some of them not at all. But my take was that he relies enough on recent, quantifiable evidence to render his theories worthy of consideration. Conjecture, no doubt. But intelligent conjecture that rings true to my own observation of men's and women's motivation in modern times. Men have an interest in solving life's small and large questions with risk and innovation, and women, by and large, don't.



I can see your point, but I believe most people aren't happy because no matter what they have, instinctually they believe there is something better, more money, a better job, home, possessions. No matter how much they reason with themselves and try to be satisfied with the midground, in the back of their mind there is always the urge for more. They may not know exactly what it is they want, but they feel whatever they have isn't it.

I didn't say get to the top at all costs, but the urge to do so is there. There is a risk/reward taken into account. If getting to the top is unreasonable (realistically for vast majority, it is), and the cost could be losing everything, we settle with what we have and try to make the best. (What I was basically getting at with assimilation and self-denial).

Women gravitating to rich and powerful men is a sign to me of seeking power. They obtain a degree of that power, do they not? Money, servants, celebrity in some cases. Why else would anyone flock to Hugh Hefner?

Sorry, I neglected to mention those because they seemed like givens. Absolutely agree with you about eating and breeding. Again, however, especially in men, there is an element of power. Men do a whole lot of boasting of their sexual prowess (even fabricate it
tongue.gif
). Virility is a sign of a man's power. Eating is a must for survival, and even then, there is hoarding and gluttony. There was a time when one's girth was seen as a yet another measure of wealth and power.
 
Aug 23, 2007 at 8:35 AM Post #39 of 42
Is There Anything Good About Men?

Yes, we've been happy to spend 5 minutes occasionally to keep the human race going long enough to evolve to the point wher we can debate the issue of what has motivated us to spend 5 minutes occasionally to keep the human race going.
 
Aug 23, 2007 at 8:39 AM Post #40 of 42
I think mans innate drive to breed is high, but his innate drive to be involved in the rearing is summed up beautifully by the Homer Simpson line:
"It's always SOMETHING with you, Lisa. First I had to drive your mother to the hospital to give birth to you, and now THIS!"
 
Sep 6, 2007 at 1:41 PM Post #42 of 42
Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Nor does it imply that it never shifts or changes.
I wear glasses. I haven't yet been eaten by a predator.



Modern human society follows a different evolutionary path due to the lack of predators.

IdiocracyDVD.jpg
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top