Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature
Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature
Do not reply if you tl;dr.
I guess a lot of people tl;dr'd this then... meh. *reads content*
EDIT: Had to tl;dr 9 because I'm in a hurry. :x
Overall, it was an interesting article...
1. I strong disagree with. I feel it is full of crap unless we're talking about idiots and less sophisticated individuals; that's just my opinion though.
2. I can agree with, we are quite polygamist we just have contracts that attempt to defer these actions with the results of losing half the man's assets should anything be false in that signing.
3. I can agree with as well. Most women will get more by flirting around while men won't realize they can lose a lot unless they are extremely hawt like Johnny Depp.
4. I can agree with to an extent, mainly for the fact of them being told what they'll get in heaven, even by their religion if they ever do end up in hell; it is a temporary result, people who practice Islam are promised to arrive in heaven at some point in their afterlife.
5. I'm pretty lost on this one @__@ No comment really.
6. Same as above.
7. Is just a dark and probably depressing thing to think about how you'll end up in a few decades D:
8. Menopause being called the cause and effect of mid-life crises?@_@
9. I agree with these comments, and it only makes good news moments for many...
10. Blame the wrong feminism. The ones that want men extinct rather than equality in the world.
I'm just amazed, I thought this would've delved more into the id rather than some things that can be called social stigmas or weird topics.
This sounds like another terrible case of generalization.
Not to mention knowledge vs. experience. Scientists and researchers can observe their subjects all they want, but I would not take what they say at face value, even if they explain things throughly and in a persuasive manner.
Which gets me to the point of persuasion: This article is written in a very persuasive tone as if to enlighten the uneducated and oblivious masses... such a tone should not be necessary when the topic should be second nature to us. If what is written is really "human nature", that is.
Everyone tries to write in such a tone to grab the attention of the reader, throwing in hardcore facts throws everyone into a dull state and they tend to forget about the article. I'd almost liken this as humor but you can find above examples to exist, even if you don't ifnd yourself in such positions to observe how many humans can behave.
You can also go with "hmmm, so I'm above the idiot population" if you want. :D
Once, your out of the field of acquiring knowledge, (let's say you read what to do) in reality, there might be some variables here and there that throw you off because you never actually experienced it for yourself.
One can have all the experience they need, but that does not necessarily make them 'proficient' at all, with experience comes acquired knowledge in certain situations, which is the advantage of 'knowing what to do, according to ...' . And experience can be applied repetitively or adapted into.
Experience would be procedural experience, knowing the protocols, and know-how, however there is a flaw in experience, as if if I had made the argument 'All men are stupid around women' in experience, than it would be equivalent to saying experience is what
Anyway, I believe that this article suggests something and people take it as fact is what your trying to say.
I like to say that science cannot prove anything (to be definitely true), but it can suggest something and disprove something (in reality), while experience can cause you to believe something (that seems to be true).
Science kinds of uses observation and experience at a higher level, with a theory to analyze the data, and the media to bias it while experience solely relies on reference to self-observation.
1) The person who wrote this must have been a Nazi. People naturally like blond hair and blue eyes? Give me a break!
2) Some people might be into this stuff, but others are obsessed over having one person to themselves.
3) I don't think either sex benefits. The author is forgetting the fact that 90% of women practicing polygyny are forced into it, this isn't the animal world where we woo all our mates. Later in the article the author also says that women are not as interested in sex as much as men, if this is true (and I am not saying it is, just using the author's words) then why would they "benefit" even if their husband was a desireable mate. If there are multiple women in the equation, then it is impossible for her to have her husband to herself in a long term relationship. (I'm going to assume that in polygyny women are just there for sex because I don't really see why the man would be interested in having multiple wives otherwise.)
4) I hate to agree that I can see the point the author is trying to make. Still, I hate the way Islam is portrayed nowadays. I wish I could do some research and put down this arguement, but I don't feel like doing it now. Barely anyone practices polygyny anyways and it is illigal in some Islamic countries.
5) I hope this is not true in modern society.
6) I can see what they are trying to say, but again I hope this is not true in modern society.
7) I understand the first half, but what they talk about in the second half has nothing to do with anything.
8) Okay I see the point they are trying to make, but I don't think everyone goes through this.
9) Yea, I get this. But this has to do more with kings than presidents, and again I hope this fades in modern society.
10) I hope people don't shoot me if I say I agree with this. I think that gender equality is important, be we need to be careful to make sure that the whole world doesn't get too feminist. It is like a pendulum really. Up until now the pendulum has been far into the male side, and the world has worked hard to push it to the centre, but if we pushed too hard the weight could be going into the female side. If men didn't harass women in the workplace, it would mean that they are discriminating against men. Though I think we all would agree it would be better if nobody harasses anyone.
That was the greatest read beside Terry Pratchett and Peter F. Hamilton. Only difference between this and those two, is this looks like a work of fact, rather than fiction. It made me laugh a lot, but I find it all very believable, and indeed, taking it in as a truth actually makes me feel a lot comfortable in of myself.
I'm glad someone(s) took the time to dig the dirt on these issues and give us that article, and thanks to you, Vegeance, for posting this thread ;)
|All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:28 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.