Quasi-Exploration
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Over at Instapundit is an amusing link I feel somewhat qualified to comment on despite the fact that much of my own past single life would probably remind people more of Don Quixote than Don Juan.
As other research has found, women who believed the men liked them a lot were more attracted to the men than women who thought the men liked them only an average amount. However, the women who found the men most attractive were the ones who weren't sure whether those men were into them or not.This phenomenon is so well-known that Reynolds jokingly calls this study result, "shocking," and the few comments on the post so far include other emotional reactions to familiarity that range from whining to the equivalent of eye rolling. And, of course they bring up other tropes about dating. One such comment touches on a related matter: How many men and women gauge solid interest later on in the game.
"Numerous popular books advise people not to display their affections too openly to a potential romantic partner and to instead appear choosy and selective," the authors write. Women in this study made their decisions based on very little information on the men -- but in a situation not unlike meeting someone on an internet dating site, which is common these days. "When people first meet, it may be that popular dating advice is correct: Keeping people in the dark about how much we like them will increase how much they think about us and will pique their interest."
I've noticed that women will fall all over you until you tell them you love them, then they act like you are their property, and no longer worry about doing things you may hate, and start becoming more critical and demanding.. They constantly criticise men for never expressing their feelings. But once a man does, they lose.If we set aside the cynicism and consider these measures briefly, I think we can better understand the result/stereotype above, and see that it actually also applies to men, as advice I've heard for women to be "mysterious" suggests.
Of course men do a similar thing with women, but in their case it is having sex for the first time, rather than hearing the I love you words. They will do anything for the gal before having sex, but are much less attentive after. [minor edits]
What would it say about a total stranger if he said, "I love you," out of the blue -- or she wanted to sleep with you for no apparent reason? You'd rightly wonder why, and such behavior would almost always remove such a person from serious consideration as a romantic partner. Why? Because this person knows basically nothing about you: One can not value or care about a cypher. Something else is going on.
Now, moving on from extreme cases, we can, I think, better understand these results. Finding a partner is a journey of self-discovery. It has to be if one is looking for another self. Assuming good self-knowledge on the parts of the subjects, the other extreme cases -- of men whom they were told liked them or not -- make perfect sense. The women liked the interested men better. But what about the the ambiguous cases? The story suggests part of the answer:
"But what if Sarah is not sure how much Bob likes her?" This might lead Sarah to spend a lot of time thinking about Bob, wondering how he feels, and she might find him more attractive the more she dwells on him.Yes, Bob gets more "face time" with her mind's eye, but why, from Sarah's perspective, might this be? I think it stems from the nature of getting to know another person. Whether you are a ruggedly handsome, tall, and wealthy man; or a beautiful and accomplished woman; an over-aggressive suitor would cause you to wonder whether there was anything "real" going on at all. (And this would actually be much more the case if you weren't generally regarded as attractive for some reason.)
In normal circumstances, one falls in love gradually because it takes time to learn about another person. So, in this study, I think that the ambiguous cases pique the most interest because this "type" most closely resembles what one might usually encounter. Conversely, non-committal types, "bad boys," and girls playing "hard-to-get" thus end up mimicking this type of exploration, and enjoying a huge advantage on the dating scene, at least in terms of getting a foot in the door. In that sense, such people look like they are being more deliberate, and that they are moving past a superficial level of interest. As well, inexperienced suitors often "blow it" just as they are close to gaining someone's interest, by looking desperate or insincere.
I think my courtship with Mrs. Van Horn is an exception to the stereotype that illustrates why there is a stereotype. We both knew each other, having been introduced by a mutual friend. We were "movie buddies," and at some point, I clumsily made it clear to her that I was interested in her. She wasn't, then. I told her that was fine, but that if it ever changed, it would be up to her to let me know. I wrote her off romantically, but would go out with her from time to time. She eventually wised up, showing wrong all the cynical stereotypes that arise from the simple fact it takes time to know another person, and so to be able to love another person.
-- CAV
30 comments:
Yo, Gus, you write, "...much of my own past single life would probably remind people more of Don Quixote than Don Juan." Better either of them than Don Rickles! (But there's a contingent of game players who swear by Mr. Warmth.)
>She wasn't, then
Ouch. Been there, done that. Glad it turned out well in the end.
I wonder if there's a multi-millon dollar study on how you should answer if a woman asks you if she looks fat.
Snedcat,
Your jest has exposed a gaping hole in my knowledge of pop culture: I had no idea who Don Rickles is! I don't quite get the joke, although I imagine it to entail being insulted by lots of women.
Jeff,
Now there's a challenging and dangerous research topic! Conducting the research would come with the threat of bodily harm, and then you'd have lawyers coming after you when you finished: There's no right answer to that question, and you'd be investigated for misuse of research funds.
Gus
Hmm, an interesting post, Gus, but I'd like to suggest an alternative to what you seem to be thinking. From what I understand, you're saying that you think the cautious, ambivalent people provoke the most interest because this is what you'd *expect* to encounter in a potentially serious future partner, yes?
There's something to this idea, but I wonder if it's not because we know that an ambivalent partner is paying attention to reality. Instant rejection or instant interest are generated within the other person in response to their preexisting notions about us (or something about us). It's a response to an *abstraction*, not to a particular (that is, us). But love and friendship are *particular*.
I think this may also attribute to why some people cool off after the "moment of truth", per se--they start thinking about their partner in *abstract* terms again. Women label the man as "my boyfriend" and start having expectations like "boyfriends bring flowers", forgetting that maybe this particular guy doesn't do that kind of thing, and she initially was attracted to him for precisely that reason. I can't speak to what guys may do in that instance--I know there's been significant friction between me and my housemate (ex-boyfriend) because HE believes that "women do the cooking and cleaning" even though I've never shown *any* inclination to do *either* of those things.
Jenn,
I had in mind what you describe in both of your first paragraphs, or, more accurately, what you say in the first paragraph and something close to what you say in your second: I don't think abstraction is quite the right word (although it can be involved, as can random psychological associations). I'd call the kind of thinking you describe (which still has to be checked against reality) something like, "projection." It's what someone hopes to find, and it can be okay as a motivator, but it is no guide on its own.
Someone seriously interested in someone else will be aware that he has incomplete knowledge of the other person as an individual. He may see qualities he likes, and he may well make an optimistic projection based on what he knows, but he owes it to himself to make sure he's actually right.
For a clear example: Someone, say, has lots of money and is engrossed in Atlas Shrugged. That's mighty interesting, but it's possible that person is a scam artist who really likes some non-essential aspect of the book and doesn't really get it.
Gus
"I had no idea who Don Rickles is! I don't quite get the joke, although I imagine it to entail being insulted by lots of women."
Rather, playfully insulting an attractive woman. One practitioner of this variety of Gaminess refers to it as "Cocky Plus Funny". This sort of approach, by the way, is played for pretty good comic effect in an episode of Criminal Minds.
Also, while Rickles had some really top-notch Sinatra jokes, my favorite's by Shecky Greene (though Rickles always tells it): "Frank Sinatra saved my life once. I was jumped by a bunch of guys in the parking lot and they were hitting me and beating me with blackjacks when Frank walked over and said, 'That's enough, boys.'"
The very first part of that video reminds me of a first-and-last meeting at a coffee shop with someone I had had a brief, but pleasant conversation with.
She was turned out to be some kind of left-wing felony-rights activist, whose first topic of conversation was ... rape. And she was Moslem. And it was Ramadan.
If that was her way of getting me never to ask her out again, then ... genius!
Yo, Gus, on a more serious note, you quote this: "I've noticed that women will fall all over you until you tell them you love them, then they...start becoming more critical and demanding...Of course men do a similar thing with women...They will do anything for the gal before having sex, but are much less attentive after. [minor edits]" and comment, "If we set aside the cynicism and consider these measures briefly, I think we can better understand the result/stereotype above, and see that it actually also applies to men, as advice I've heard for women to be "mysterious" suggests."
In fact, I think there's a much simpler explanation for this particular behavior, which is usually not nearly so grotesquely exaggerated as this holds: There are different levels of intimacy involved with different standards. Once you're a couple, you have to expect each other to stop being on formal behavior. If someone's normal behavior is sociopathic, then you get that stereotypical callousness, and it's little wonder that certain types of people who continually get attracted to the wrong type insist on these stereotypes so vociferously.
You are correct in your observations regarding the change of behavior that comes from the higher degree of obligation in a serious relationship.
I probably should have removed the part of the quote about less attentiveness since all I was discussing was "I love you"/sex AS a measure of seriousness in a relationship.
I understand what you mean about projection, Gus, but from my experience (which is, admittedly, narrow), most guys don't seem to expect to find certain things, it's just that they assume some things necessarily indicate other things. So they're not projecting from what they personally want, they're thinking in abstract terms.
For instance, when I tell people I like computer games, they almost universally assume that I *must* have played the games they're most familiar with. Depending on how reality-oriented they are, they may also assume all sorts of other weird things about me because all of that stuff is filed under the "gamer" abstraction in their minds.
I'd say that projection is a *type* of treating people as if they were embodied abstractions, but projection, to me, means that either a.) I have those characteristics I'm assuming myself (generalization from self) or b.) those are characterizations I want people to have--whereas I've encountered this abstract treatment both as a bonus and as a penalty. So I think it's more inclusive.
Ah. Okay. I think I can agree with that.
There was some classic misogyny in the comments over there. That's but one reason I always feel so demoralized when I read this sort of thing.
Well put. Hearing people talk about dating in such terms certainly can be demoralizing.
One thing that makes things sound worse than they really are is that I think the biggest complainers are usually those who don't take responsibility for their own lives, and that segment of the population writes the bulk of the comments.
Don't let that illusion get to you, and remember that very good advice is out there. For example, I really could have used advice like this about fifteen years ago, from the standpoint of reassurance that I was on the right track.
Gus,
The HBD response to this has been that this is more confirmation of the female hypergamy theory; ie that women have biological drives to pursue the highest ranking alpha males that they get with their youth and beauty. This is supposed to work in conjunction with the "sexy sons hypothesis" which says that women are attracted to alpha males and repulsed by beta males because a chief concern for a woman is the sexual viability of her male offspring.
I don't know if the hypergamy theory will turn out to be right but I have observed that women, and women of all social status groups, do seem to be highly attracted by men who have many other sexual options. This is called "pre-selection" by the HBDers. Its the whole basis of "The Game" and the "Mystery Method" which was alluded to in that CSI clip.
It also does seem to me to be true that "women hate nice guys". I know that all this reeks of biologic determinism but I often wonder if what evolutionary psychology is uncovering is default behaviors that are biologically wired but can be over-ridden with rational thought. Sadly, there is very little of that these days.
Madmax,
The phenomena you allude to here can be much more sensibly explained in terms of (1) how women relate to friends (as opposed to potential mates) and (2) whether a man projects confidence (purposely or by accident).
Way back when I was single, I encountered a very interesting explanation for why "nice guys finish last." It was basically that such men made themselves too available too soon, and that the women they were interested in bonded with them (if they liked them) more like they bonded with other women. This is somewhat related to the point I made in this post insofar as such men are "too easy" to be romantic targets.
Regarding men with options being more attractive, that's just a function of projected confidence (or desperation). To someone with options who's interested in more options, failure to interest someone else does not have an air of "I'll never find someone," or "I'll never score." (To take it to an extreme. Or, think of it like a slump for an athlete, if you play sports.)
I dismiss most evolutionary psychology. Its deterministic premise is wrong, and its "evolutionary" arguments are facile appeals to the authority of the Theory of Evolution. Just because it might make evolutionary sense for males to "spread their genes" or females to have offspring with "good genes" doesn't make it true.
That said, I'll grant that knowledge can be gained by considering how evolution might have shaped the brain, but we know too little about the relationship between the brain and high-level behavior AND about these pressures to go around proclaiming that we know why men and women (supposedly) behave as they do. (And, come to think of it, how well do we really understand human "mating behavior," for lack of a better term? There are too many hard questions and too many new areas of science involved here.
Gus
"The HBD response to this has been that this is more confirmation of the female hypergamy theory; ie that women have biological drives to pursue the highest ranking alpha males that they get with their youth and beauty. This is supposed to work in conjunction with the "sexy sons hypothesis" which says that women are attracted to alpha males and repulsed by beta males because a chief concern for a woman is the sexual viability of her male offspring."
So what? Who cares? You pay far more attention to those guys than they deserve and post pretty much these very same talking points ad nauseam. Even by the debased standards of Popperian philosophy of science, the supposed "hypotheses" of evolutionary psychology you list are unfalsifiable; by rational epistemological standards they're arbitrary "just-so" stories. They rule out free will from the beginning and commit the fallacy of self-exclusion by saying that every human trait except science is largely conditioned by our genetic heritage.
From the time I've spent discussing these matters with evolutionary psychologists on their newsgroups, the rational ones are typical psychologists, with the failings and fortes of that profession, or else biologists specializing in evolutionary theory, and their claims are much more restricted and reasonable. They are not, however, the ones who make the press (whose claim to present a common-sense approach is belied by their biological determinism).
For example, I argued on an EP group with a pathetic little mind who wasted trees with a pathetic screed (properly reviewed and dismissed here). The consistency of his commitment to objective science can be seen in his claims that (1) humanity has evolved so that low-status men do not reproduce as much, if at all, as high-status men, and this is very bad and should be remedied, but (2) women have evolved so as to reward high-status men with sex, and any attempt to modify sex relations in a feminist direction is a distortion of human nature that should be opposed. Similarly, I don't know how much of it made it into this book, but he essentially argues against prosecuting rape as a felony because women evolved to find rape by high-status warriors non-traumatic, since it assures that the best genes are passed along. (At best he says it should be treated as a form of assault on par with a barroom fight between men.)
This is no better and no worse than the conservative racialist swill you constantly wring your hands over, but that never moves beyond the same damn points over and over and over, and you have utterly failed to show that they are any more worth your time than the author I mentioned above. More than that, I should think that the fact that you constantly get the same dismissals by Objectivist scientists and intellectuals whenever you post them would suggest to you more strongly than it has that they are not worth the effort of thorough rebutting that you seem to want. Their epistemological errors are too crude, even by their own Popperian standards, their philosophical basis is simply inadequate to deal rationally with human psychology, and their scientific status is laughable. If they bother you so much, it might be that you should devote more effort to understanding philosophy of science, epistemology, and evolutionary theory in general. Continually deploring them for saying precisely what they always say is a waste of your time and surely can’t be doing you any good.
One key piece of information that is missing is the type of women who took this study. In my personal experience as well, there is a vast difference in the dating and mate-selection behavior of women depending on their personal self-esteem, judgments of their own attractiveness and self-ranking versus other women.
Simply put, beautiful women know they have lots of options in terms of potential dates/mates. They get "hit on" all the time, it's a given. Even in the post-modern, post-feminist world it still is largely men who initiate overt the romantic or sexual "seduction" of women, rather than the reverse.
Thus a woman who thinks or knows she is attractive will expect that a man of equal or lesser attractiveness will be attracted to her. Knowing this fact thus changes little, she doesn't have to work at gaining his attention, she can make their relationship progress at any time, hold it out as a Plan B, C, D or Z or just more likely just lose interest entirely.
A man she doesn't know whether he likes her or not, however, introduces doubt. Is she really as attractive as she believes? At that point she may go out of her way to PROVE to him that she's attractive. And this may lead to the next stage, a sexual fling, a real relationship, marriage, etc.
The curious thing is how the women test subjects reacted when told the man is uninterested entirely. I wonder if this makes it appear as if the man is "out of their league" subconsciously, and thus they simply write him off as a possibility.
Gus -
That's pretty much my view of evolutionary psychology. Psychology itself is young compared to other sciences, and to attempt to shoehorn what modest knowledge we have into a grand theory of human behavior encompassing evolution is premature, at best.
Also, I see ev. psych. as a rationalistic attempt to treat psychology as merely the handmaiden of evolutionary biology, as if we can use Darwinian principles to deduce how and why people act. This facile assumption is contrary to what we know from the other sciences. Biology is not simply applied chemistry, chemistry is not simply applied physics -- and we should not expect psychology to be merely applied biology, either.
Mike,
This is harsher in tone than something I would normally post, but I'm allowing your comment because it makes some worthwhile points.
Madmax, you have frequently made valuable comments here, but I have to agree that you spend more time on these (EP) people than they deserve.
Vladimir,
Off the cuff, I think that "out of their league" is, in one sense, reading too much into "not interested" and in another, exactly right.
I think it is erroneous to rank people as if one standard of attractiveness applies to all members of the opposite sex. The same woman can be a "10" to one guy and "5" to another for any number of valid reasons. Yes, maybe on average most women will rate a given way, but we all want to meet the right individual
On the other hand, you can't MAKE someone romantically interested in you. In that sense, the sooner one realizes someone isn't interested and moves on, the better.
Andrew,
In addition to your view, EP omits crucial, extremely accessible (via introspection, for example) evidence that human beings, in fact, have volition.
Gus
Gus,
You're quite correct that attractiveness/beauty has no truly universal standard. There are however generalizations that broadly apply, there have been several interesting studies involving things like the theory of attractiveness based on the "average face," various body measurement ratios and the like. My point is more that people, in this case women, who fall towards the generally-attractive side of the scale as applicable to most men will find that a large percentage of men are interested and attracted to them on a daily basis. This would be less true as you head towards the opposite end of the generally attractive scale. Thus correct or not, the woman's own beauty and opinion of it would largely influence her reaction to men who are attracted to her.
I think this ties in with your point that it does all come down to the individual. It doesn't matter how well-matched a couple is if the woman rejects the man early-on (or vice versa) and both go their separate ways. You may not be able to MAKE as in FORCE someone to love you or be interested in you, but you can very easily act in a manner which works to prevent any chance of love or attraction from happening in the first place.
This is why the lesson for men I would see from this study, and experience in general, is that initial ambiguity and mystery is more powerful than straight out brutal honesty early-on in a potential relationship. Just as the hint or suggestion of nakedness is often more enticing than actual exposure, the possibility of attraction is more enticing than its certain knowledge.
Nice rant Mike. Did that make you feel better?
Getting past that, a valid question remains and it has relevance for Objectivism. One of the premises of evolutionary psychology is that there are biologically determined emotions that are not the product of the reaction to freely formed value choices. I am not certain that this has been disproved. No, this doesn't imply determinism, but I think it does imply that there are emotional mechanisms in place that are "default settings" of a type. This could go a far way to explaining many elements of human behavior including sexual selection and the damned stubbornness of altruism.
Ayn Rand defines emotions as purely the reaction to freely chosen values. The higher emotions are certainly that but do all emotions follow that pattern? Mike basically asserts that there is nothing of interest here and that all of evolutionary psychology is useless. This is the type of snobbery and arrogance that gives Objectivists a bad name.
I think there is something going on here that should not be so easily dismissed. Further, the fact that the "alpha mimicry" seduction systems like 'Game' or 'The Mystery Method' work so well begs the question: why?
Sorry to be somewhat rude towards Mike but he was unnecessarily rude towards me. He made good and interesting points, but I could have done without the attitude.
Gus, I hate to belabor the point but I am curious as to your opinion of what Mystery says in this video clip:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/proximity-alerts/
He is talking about women and the "proximity alerts" that they give to men. He describes certain behavioral traits that all women have such as touching their hair or scratching their hands as a response to the feelings of attractions. He claims these are "emotional circuits" that are hard-wired. I have seen these reactions from women as have you. Wouldn't these qualify as non-volitional emotions? And if so, doesn't that imply that there are sub-conscious things going on here? I don't see how all of this can be so easily dismissed as Mike seems to suggest.
Note: ignore the blog site and just watch the video. The blog author is an HBDer.
Vladimir,
You make excellent points in both of your last paragraphs, particularly the last.
Perhaps the power of suggestion lies in the fact that it better engages the mind by involving the imagination.
Gus
Madmax,
You are not quite right in your characterization of Rand's view of the nature of emotion. Specifically, she says that:
"Emotions are the automatic results of man's value judgments integrated by his subconscious; emotions are estimates of that which furthers man's values or threatens them, that which is for him or against him—lightning calculators giving him the sum of his profit or loss."
Men can (and do) hold value-judgments without really having chosen them. Furthermore, even when we consciously change our minds about such things, particularly highly abstract judgments, it can take time to integrate those changes subconsciously to the point that they (and not the old judgments) affect our emotions.
Moving on to you other points. I don't have time to watch the six-minute video you point to, but I gather from the blogger that he sees certain types of behavior as "hard-wired." I can give a simpler example: We all smile when we're happy. (How we react is hard-wired. What we react to isn't, as Rand shows.
With higher-order, more complex behaviors, like hair-flipping, it's hard to say definitively whether they, too, are hard-wired or not. Women of dating age or older have had ample time to "pick up" such behaviors, for one thing.
But let's say, for the sake of argument, that hair-flipping IS a more complex, but hard-wired behavior. The hair-flipper still has control over what she ultimately does. (Discover he's a great guy and date him, or learn that he's an ass, and have nothing further to do with him.
Let me know whether that answers your question. If not, I can watch the video later if you think it might help.
Gus
Madmax: "Mike basically asserts that there is nothing of interest here and that all of evolutionary psychology is useless. This is the type of snobbery and arrogance that gives Objectivists a bad name."
You were talking about HBD, not EP, and it was HBD I was focusing on. Some of EP is useless, but much of it is best described as premature half-baked speculation with a rotten philosophical base. In any case, the whole issue of feelings, automatic responses, and emotions is a matter of much debate in psychology, and one must make sure how a given psychologist's usage compares to Ayn Rand's before going further.
"Further, the fact that the "alpha mimicry" seduction systems like 'Game' or 'The Mystery Method' work so well begs the question: why?"
First of all, please stop misusing the term "begging the question." They raise the question, not beg it.
Second, how do you know they work well? Because the people who get rich off peddling them say so? For example, I received emails from one of these pickup artist maestros (David De Angelo) for a few months. These emails consisted of an unending stream of uninterrupted applause, yes, but how many of them were authentic, how many of the authentic ones were accurate, how often did the men strike out in addition to the accurately described successful seductions, and how many men who did poorly under his tutelage simply went elsewhere without contributing to the discussion? It's a self-selected population of self-reporters giving data of uncertain veracity and accuracy.
As for the content of his teachings, or at least what he didn't demand payment for examining, it was a mixture of good and bad points. It could train men in self-confident, funny, and independent behavior (in this respect he had some quite good comments), but it could also easily devolve into thoroughly insincere manipulation. His theory of female psychology is that there are certain inborn triggers that cocky-plus-funny chaps can use to seduce a woman pretty much automatically--and apparently women, unlike men, are so constitutionally incapable of introspection and reasoned response that these techniques will work virtually all the time on virtually every woman, and even after all this time women don't realize this is going on right under their noses.
I've changed the formatting here to make it easier to keep apart who says what.
Madmax: He describes certain behavioral traits that all women have such as touching their hair or scratching their hands as a response to the feelings of attractions.
Those aren't emotions, those are "behavioral traits," more precisely (supposedly) automatic responses to feelings.
He claims these are "emotional circuits" that are hard-wired.
"Emotional circuits?" Are those emotions, responses, or what? If so, why call them by yet another term; if not, what's the difference between them?
I have seen these reactions from women as have you.
So now they're reactions.
Wouldn't these qualify as non-volitional emotions?
But you've already said they're reactions. Are they emotions too? What's the difference, or is there any? Rand distinguished between emotions and automatic biological responses; you have confounded them. Without a more careful effort on your part, they certainly don't constitute a counter-example to Ayn Rand's theory of emotions.
Yo, Gus, you write: "I think it stems from the nature of getting to know another person. Whether you are a ruggedly handsome, tall, and wealthy man; or a beautiful and accomplished woman; an over-aggressive suitor would cause you to wonder whether there was anything "real" going on at all. (And this would actually be much more the case if you weren't generally regarded as attractive for some reason.)"
Think about it outside of a romantic context. Let's say another guy shows interest in your friendship. If he comes on really strong compared to what he could reasonably be expected to know of you, you'd immediately wonder what's going on. (Though it's not the behavior as such that you're reacting to, as you can see if you find out you two have a friend in common who's spoken highly of you, or there's a reputation you didn't realize you had preceding you. It's the disproportion between the repsonse and the reasonable degree of knowledge.) Let's say instead he sucks up to you; that's even worse. If you think about the usual progress of getting to know a friend, it's similar enough to getting to know a potential romantic partner.
In other words: Yeah, what Gus said.
Just a few points:
(1) What IS HBD? The points raised reminded me quite a bit of EP, but I apparently am missing part of the context of Madmax's remarks through having not asked what it is earlier.
(2) That said, I agree with the following: "Some of EP is useless, but much of it is best described as premature half-baked speculation with a rotten philosophical base."
(3) Also, the following raises a good point regarding the value of testimonials that transcends the narrow issue at hand:
"Second, how do you know they work well? Because the people who get rich off peddling them say so? For example, I received emails from one of these pickup artist maestros (David De Angelo) for a few months. These emails consisted of an unending stream of uninterrupted applause, yes, but how many of them were authentic, how many of the authentic ones were accurate, how often did the men strike out in addition to the accurately described successful seductions, and how many men who did poorly under his tutelage simply went elsewhere without contributing to the discussion? It's a self-selected population of self-reporters giving data of uncertain veracity and accuracy."
Gus -
HBD stands for "human biodiversity," which is a weasel term used by those who think that innate group differences are important enough to be incorporated into moral and political prescriptions.
Its advocates basically admit that this is a politically calculated euphemism:
http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/06/hbd-human-biodiversity.html
Andrew,
Thanks.
Now I can see the source of Mike's disdain for HBD: They take something with superficial plausibility and run with it.
To wit: There are common personality differences between the sexes, which have to be explained in some way. The physical differences between the sexes are known to be due to genetic differences. Therefore, so must the different personality traits. So what if these personality differences can easily-enough explained as a combination of learned behavior and effects (including rational adjustments to) of living in bodies that differ in fundamental ways -- as genetically determined. And if that's true, then why stop there?
Why let the full context of what a human being is get in the way of such an all-encompassing "scientific" explanation for everything?
I risk sounding harsh here, but one should be highly suspicious of pat explanations that take a grain of scientific truth, a few stereotypes, and a blind-to-context, illogical leap and purport to explain things that have puzzled the greatest minds of humanity for hundreds, if not thousands of years.
Gus
Post a Comment