Login    Register
User Information
Username:
Password:
We are a free and open
community, all are welcome.
Click here to Register
Sponsored
Who is online

In total there are 76 users online :: 5 registered, 0 hidden and 71 guests


Most users ever online was 218 on Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:58 pm

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes

The Team
Administrators
Global Moderators
global_moderators.png CS

"Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

All non-spudgun related discussion goes here such as projects, theories, serious questions, etc. All "off-topic" posts (aka useless posting, determined by moderators) will be removed.
Sponsored 
  • Author
    Message

Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:14 pm

Personally, I don't see the reasoning as being sound. This is not my area of expertise though so you'll have to put up with my Western layman arguments.
Well if you read their abstract, the reasoning appears sound for what they are testing. They seem to provide a brief over-view of competing theories but they're not really refuting them outright. Their theory is based on computer models that adhere to a few strict rules, it makes a prediction based on the assumptions. Obviously, you can't include every factor in the model (we wouldn't even know every factor to begin with) so you have to make some basic assumptions. If the assumptions are a reasonable representation of what really goes on, the model can be robust. However, that doesn't mean the model is correct. It could still be wrong, as they point out for Hamilton's model. It sort of relates to experimental design in the sense that you get out what you put in; you get a response based on the questions you ask. Whether the questions you ask, and the data you use, are accurate, is another matter.

Forget about the BBC article, go read a bit of the real article (free because PLoS). You need to be objective, and you can do this even from a western perspective that is not familiar with the literature. The authors are not blaming men for menopause, they're saying menopause is the result of mate preference. Even so, menopause isn't necessarily a good/bad thing. Blaming men for this would be like blaming women some sexual dimorphic traits. There is no blame, this isn't a blame game.

You're right here in that I object to what I perceive to be an illogical study being used as another stick to beat my gender. If it had made sense to me, I would be less ticked off.
Don't judge it based on the BBC article, hell don't even judge it based on press releases. There's a reason the media think we need to eat more chocolate and drink more wine to be healthy but should limit our alcohol consumption and chocolate consumption because it could be harmful; they don't know what the f_ck they're on about. They care about headlines, not facts.

Check out the article, the introduction will provide a brief overview (potentially biased) with the last paragraph stating their intentions. The study isn't illogical. The premise of the model might be flawed, but that doesn't make it illogical. These studies provide insights, whether they're ultimately right or not.

While the study may be being used as a stick by the media, the study itself is not the cause of this. Don't blame the study. If it doesn't make sense to you, it doesn't mean it's wrong either. You're entitled to your opinion of course, but you should be objective about your ability to judge this study. I've skimmed read it, didn't see anything weird pop out. I'm largely basing my views of it on benefit of the doubt, perhaps I'll read it later if you wish to discuss details of the study further.

Unfortunately, public policy is much more highly influenced by the media than by obscure studies. Indeed, I would never have heard of this study if it wasn't for somebody with an agenda digging it up
I can agree with you there. As you probably know, people like coldplay and voted for the Nazi's, you can't trust 'em :D

The point I was making is that it is the younger women that are the most desirable, which according to the above you agree with.
Granted, but where the research falls down (IMO) is that it fails to explain male preference for younger females in absence of the fertility argument. Your argument includes the fertility argument but relies on some form of polygyny. There is contemporary evidence against universal polygyny as well as fossil evidence in the form of limited sexual dimorphism compared to our ancestors. Basically, while men may prefer younger females, it doesn't mean that they are going to continually mate with younger females due to social restrictions and norms. The Mother and Grandmother hypothesis side-step the mate preference issue as the selective pressure comes from kinship and not fertility competition.

I suggest looking at Table.1 in the paper, there are plenty of valid ideas in the list of hypotheses. You can see why no one knows the true answer to the menopausal question, there are lots of factors at play. I personally think mate preference has a minor role, if any, in the origins of menopause. I lean more towards the senescence and kinship hypotheses, and I don't think menopause is necessarily adaptive.

We don't? Hmmm...

Some of the, yes, but a lot of them won't effect our reproductive success whereas they may do for some tribes people. If you're an outcast among your tribe and don't have good relations with another group, you be f_cked. Here, you move cities or get new friends.

I have only lived in Western culture so this is the only experience I can speak of, but I don't think I'm being close minded to think that based on this I can dismiss the conclusions of the research out of hand.
I've only really experienced western culture too so I don't mean that you can't legitimately rebut the hypothesis without having lived in Africa. On the other hand, I don't think you can legitimately rebut the hypothesis if you only consider it from a western perspective. Evolutionary Psychology might be more your thing in that case since it pretty much only uses WEIRD-populations (Western Education Industrialised Rich Democratic) for research samples and thus any conclusions only apply to WEIRD-people.

If you compare the hypothesis of this study to the hypotheses in table 1, you'll see that it's not really so out-there. It's backwards compared to some of the other hypotheses, but that doesn't make it any less legitimate. It just means it suffers from some problems that other hypotheses don't have, but it also has certain benefits too.

That fits the idea that men are evaluated based on what they can offer in terms of resources as opposed to physical attraction, and indeed features considered to be attractive in men are usually markers of health and strength which conventionally indicate a man's potential as a contributor of resources.
I think it's too simplistic to put it all down to resources. Chimpanzees exhibit similar meat-sharing behaviour and very little is used in exchange for sex. Instead, meat-sharing may allow individuals to signal fitness (which isn't directly strength or health) as well as increase their social standing. More prominent individuals, in terms of social standing, are often more desirable. Some of this translates over to humans, such as the Hadza, but it goes deeper than face value.

In the Hadza, I believe meat-sharing was not shared more frequently among family than the rest of the group, men with families still participated in this sharing, and meat did not form the majority of their diet. So we can see it's more complicated than just resource benefits and signalling fitness. Fitness may have less to do with strength or health (well, health is probably included indirectly since sick/dead people can't hunt), and more to do with hunting ability, intelligence, honesty, compassion, loyality, etc. It seems important for the Hadza to maintain social status and friendships and alliances. These in turn will have benefits or are signals of qualities that females may find attractive.

A lot of EvoPsych papers mentioned in the news will heavily push the resource, health, and physicality aspects of mating preferences but I'd take them with a grain of salt as EvoPsych doesn't have the greatest reputation or research methods.

This supports my opposition to the study - men are attracted to features which indicate a good chance of reproductive success. This means it makes much more sense that attraction to younger women is due to the fact that older women are less fertile, as opposed to older women becoming infertile since men were chasing younger women.
I've sort of discussed this somewhere above in this post so you can have a look at that in relation to this. Basically, you rely on the assumption that younger women are significantly more fertile than slightly older women, this creates a mate preference among males towards younger women, and that this mate preference is acted upon. This doesn't really explain menopause, it just takes the "blame" away from men. Aside from reversed causes, the only difference between what you're saying and what the research is assuming is that the research lacks an explanation for younger mate preference. Your explanation is a younger mate preference due to higher fertility, but this: a) doesn't explain menopause, and b) may not be representative of mating strategies across the board.

I'm not sure if it has been demonstrated that men do prefer women of optimal fertility. In terms of reproductive potential, we're looking at young teens. I can think of a few reasons why young teens may not be ideal mates for older men in some of these societies. So if the preference is towards women in their early 20s, we can see that fertility is not the sole factor at play.

I wouldn't, but to whoever made it, she was the model of fertility.
That is what a lot of people think. Not exactly what people today would find attractive, is it :wink:

Isn't there? Greater risk of infant or mother mortality, greater risk of birth defects, having to raise a child with diminishing physical prowess, probably not living long enough to see the child reach adulthood... it sounds to me that a woman is more likely to survive without the pressure of having to reproduce, especially beyond the years she is considered a desirable mate by the menfolk.
This is one of the big problems with figuring out the origins of menopause, evolution should continue fertility until death.

Doesn't matter if infant or mother mortality increases with age, as long as the mother has reproduced successfully before.

As for raising children, that is what the Mother and Grandmother hypotheses are based on. While there are varying degrees of paternal investment depending on the society, women tend to get a lot of help with raising their children. Often, this help includes older siblings (who may still be children themselves!). This is the reason given for our shorter interbirth interval compared to other apes.

No exact figures are given (I believe), but reproductive success in humans includes helping your offspring survive to a reasonable age. This wouldn't be adulthood. It'd probably be the end of weaning, maybe a bit older. If you have family members, they will probably do what they can to help a child survive if he's of the age where he's not dependent on his mother and can perform various tasks. A child may be kept alive just for the fact that it'll soon be old enough to look after younger children.
  • 0

User avatar
MrCrowley
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)
Reputation: 4

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:44 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazin ... r-22906476

Regardless of the validity of the study, the BBC's conclusion that men are to blame is now fact :roll:

I can't stand the BBC...

I digress, this looks pretty funky.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8LLVLJd-WM[/youtube]

Image

The graphics look fantastic:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWJD8DMasCU[/youtube]
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: evanmcorleytv » Sat Jun 15, 2013 1:50 pm

We're talking about gaming on the 343rd page of this thread ;)
  • 0


evanmcorleytv
Major
Major
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Tuscaloosa, AL
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:07 pm

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-22906476

Regardless of the validity of the study, the BBC's conclusion that men are to blame is now fact :roll:
Yeah that's very irresponsible journalism, it's a shame that's what we expect of the media these days.

The general public doesn't often validate what they read in the news, they assume the news has already been validated because journalists are supposed to be 'professionals'. The media has no accountability, it's not libel and it's not harming anyone but it brings in page views so they can get away with it.

I think it's possible to fix these problems in the media, but not without damaging freedom of speech and freedom of the press. So I just try to ignore news as much as I can, I don't often learn much from it anyway.
  • 0

User avatar
MrCrowley
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)
Reputation: 4

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:03 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtGSXMuWMR4[/youtube]

Brooker is brilliant.

This particular episode of Newswipe is relevant:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDvNPJzuhbM[/youtube]
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:13 am

That first video is just too good, the pun at the end topped it all off. I thought making punny remarks was just a thing newsreaders were doing over here to try and come across as more friendly and whimsical compared to the 'readers from the previous decade.
  • 0

User avatar
MrCrowley
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)
Reputation: 4

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:19 am

MrCrowley wrote:the pun at the end topped it all off


I know, priceless!
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Sponsored

Sponsor
 


Unread postAuthor: POLAND_SPUD » Mon Jun 17, 2013 5:01 pm

cool huh??
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6tR7AUHR24[/youtube]
  • 0

Children are the future

unless we stop them now
User avatar
POLAND_SPUD
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5405
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:43 pm
Country: Israel (il)
Reputation: 10

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:13 pm

I've seen these in the wild. Planted some venus flytrap a few months ago, no idea how they're doing though as she got custody :roll:
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: Labtecpower » Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:40 pm

Image
  • 0

"ñøw mÿ šįg šüçkś!"
User avatar
Labtecpower
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:38 am
Location: Herb Island
Reputation: 7

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:16 pm

  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:27 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kORINpVUEtE[/youtube]

There's a problem with that :wink:

I think the picture above would be more accurate if it had "feminazi's" instead of "women". There's plenty of feminist crap on the internet, the type who go on about privilege constantly, purposefully refer to men as "sweetie" or "baby" to annoy them in internet arguments, and call anyone who disagrees with them a "shitlord". But there is also a legitimate 'feminist' movement, the type of people who would argue that the sentiments expressed in the above video are pretty worrying and are indicative of gender related social issues.

Perhaps one of these groups tend to drown out the other, especially on the internet, but it's usually not difficult to tell who is who. An example: SkepChick Rebecca Watson compared to blogger Dr Jen Gunter. Hell, you could do much much worse than Watson as well, but those types of people are about as rational and logical as creationists or YouTube conspiracy theorists. Jen is more focused on the sexual and health problems in society for women (really only applicable in the U.S. due to strict anti-abortion and contraceptive laws in various states), which largely stems from the fact the most of the people making these laws are not scientists or doctors and are male and religious.

I think it's worth including 'male' as one of the problem factors as it's amazing how ignorant some of these law-makers (for lack of a better term) are of female physiology and sexual reproduction.

Jack, wouldn't a waitress be the social equivalent (in the U.S. anyway) to some of those jobs? I guess it's hard to make comparisons when I haven't lived in the U.S., but in NZ you would find quite a few women working as bus drivers, in the meat industry, in other factories, street cleaners, or fast food employees. Even though mostly men work as garbage collectors here, some of the jobs female equivalents have aren't a lot better. Some guys even want to do garbage collecting as a temporary job for fitness reasons.

I think the CEO argument is often made because job equality is probably better at the minimum wage level since everyone's earning pretty much the same and the only differences are in the types of jobs.
  • 0

User avatar
MrCrowley
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)
Reputation: 4

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:16 pm

Ah, but it's the mainstream moderates that allow the extremists to flourish.

This seems like a cheery lot:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWZV4t7IAzQ[/youtube]

You wouldn't call these militant feminists, but their unbearably patronising attitudes are a mainstream view.

Meh. I don't hate women, but I choose not to associate with them because their banality is intolerable. The days when I was willing to play along or even grin and bear it for selfish reasons are long gone, and that's fine.

The vitriol comes from seeing society as a whole mutating into something disenchanting that I have no interesting in participating in. I wouldn't relieve myself on it to put out a fire, nay I would gladly watch it burn.

MrCrowley wrote:I think the CEO argument is often made because job equality is probably better at the minimum wage level since everyone's earning pretty much the same and the only differences are in the types of jobs.


A slightly annoying woman simplifies it:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMkDEe8ypfU[/youtube]

If women can do the same job better or even jsut as well and could be paid less, the market would speak.
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:24 pm

Ah, but it's the mainstream moderates that allow the extremists to flourish.
Which can be applied to any ideology... and goes both ways.

You wouldn't call these militant feminists, but their unbearably patronising attitudes are a mainstream view.
It lost the plot halfway through so I agree, but I think shows like The View can be worse. Though, I would say that The View represents a different feminism than the tumblr/blog feminism both you and I complain about. Both types are bad, but I think there are differences in how they go about what they do. I think the feminism sometimes seen on The View is less harmful to 'equality' than tumblr feminism as the former is mainly a bit of ridicule and banter whereas the latter comes across as a passionate hatred of men where only one side is allowed to make an argument.

Having said that, I still think my clip of Fox news I linked is more of a worry than the first video you linked.

The vitriol comes from seeing society as a whole mutating into something disenchanting that I have no interesting in participating in. I wouldn't relieve myself on it to put out a fire, nay I would gladly watch it burn.
I think I share similar thoughts but I don't treat males and females as separate, rather I feel there are discrete groups and within each group there are males and females who have distinguishing traits but are more similar to each other than either one is to another discrete group. So when there is some hipster girl who thinks she's being constantly oppressed into oblivion, there tends to be a male version (not necessarily a feminist) that goes with it. So I try to avoid those types of people, rather than specifically males or females of each group.

Just as there are stuck-up bimbos who think they're the sh|t, there's a male equivalent not too far away.

A slightly annoying woman simplifies it

Got 1:05s through before stopping haha. Simplified it is, however. This is quite a complex research question, I don't think it's something that can be simplified by reading a handful of news articles. You know what I think of the news. I'll try to find some research articles tonight but I think research that is more specific to an industry or occupation would be more useful than something that is all-encompassing.

If women can do the same job better or even jsut as well and could be paid less, the market would speak.
Well I doubt it's the simple to begin with. But that still assumes that women can get the same training and experience to be able to demonstrate they can do the same job just as good or better and also that there are no biases or other forms of discrimination. Put out a news headline saying a new burger from McDonalds tastes like ass and I bet that after having tasted the new burger more people will agree with that statement than if there was no headline.
  • 0

User avatar
MrCrowley
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)
Reputation: 4

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:30 am

MrCrowley wrote:Which can be applied to any ideology... and goes both ways.


Are you suggesting I am propping up hardcore misogyny :D

Though, I would say that The View represents a different feminism than the tumblr/blog feminism both you and I complain about. Both types are bad, but I think there are differences in how they go about what they do. I think the feminism sometimes seen on The View is less harmful to 'equality' than tumblr feminism as the former is mainly a bit of ridicule and banter whereas the latter comes across as a passionate hatred of men where only one side is allowed to make an argument.


Both equally deplorable in my view, the former moreso because it is not seen as a fringe, and while the hatred isn't as explicit, the sentiment is the same.

Having said that, I still think my clip of Fox news I linked is more of a worry than the first video you linked.


I don't see how anything in that clip is objectionable.

You're not a fan of GWW I know, but here she talks about the social contract of marriage, which no longer makes sense if the state is willing to deprive women of the consequences of their indiscretion:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w__PJ8ymliw[/youtube]

In this context, I am not in the slightest inclined to marry or procreate.

I think I share similar thoughts but I don't treat males and females as separate, rather I feel there are discrete groups and within each group there are males and females who have distinguishing traits but are more similar to each other than either one is to another discrete group. So when there is some hipster girl who thinks she's being constantly oppressed into oblivion, there tends to be a male version (not necessarily a feminist) that goes with it. So I try to avoid those types of people, rather than specifically males or females of each group.


I count these men as women :) naturally you cannot generalise across the board, and intolerable banality is obviously not an female preserve, but those I've interacted with so far are consistently so.

Just as there are stuck-up bimbos who think they're the sh|t, there's a male equivalent not too far away.


Women tend to laud and be lauded for trivial attributes (for which see "celebrity culture") while men demand higher standards.

Got 1:05s through before stopping haha.


Much more than I initially managed :D

Well I doubt it's the simple to begin with. But that still assumes that women can get the same training and experience to be able to demonstrate they can do the same job just as good or better and also that there are no biases or other forms of discrimination. Put out a news headline saying a new burger from McDonalds tastes like ass and I bet that after having tasted the new burger more people will agree with that statement than if there was no headline.


Even if you open a job to anyone, regardless of their personal attributes, and give it to the first person who turns up, you're still discriminating against the ones who turned up later or not at all. Whenever there are less opportunities than people, you will have to discriminate on one basis or another.

Regardless of race or gender, I applaud those who achieve their goals in spite of the hardships they might face, but have no time or tolerance for those who fail and claim it was "because I am _________ ".
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Spudgun Related Discussion

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot]

Reputation System ©'