Survival of the Fittest so Women Rule - Friendship as Adaptation - Biological Determinism
I have the good fortune of being in a college town. This week we had this lecture (summary below) as part of a larger series that goes on through Dec.
The questions this brings up are:
1.) Biological determinism? Is man just an animal? If he is just a product of his genes and biology then what stops us from moving toward nihilistic ideas like eugenic management of society?
2.) Why are the universities so determined to prove that we can be good without God? What is their purpose?
The ancient philosophers were not good without their gods, why do we think we will be? Did the Enlightenment give man hope and light in the short term, only to take it away in the long term, as the ideas matured to their conclusion?
3.) What value does man add to his existence by his will? And how is that will to stand if we have decided that there is no firm foundation?
We children of postmoderns try to construct our own reality and morality but does the center hold? Education has seemed to forget that even Socrates has his daemon, but today there is no virtue other than "to thine own self be true" - we forget that Polonius was a fool.
4.) If women are the natural communicators and relationship builders, and relationships are more rare in modern society and need to be rebuilt, and the world is changing to modes of communication that women are more naturally "wired" for (i.e. written/verbal language communication) ...
What will happen to men as the Internet and traditionally female communication styles become more dominant? Will men be relegated to irrelevancy? Will we change? If we do change, what will we lose? What will humanity lose? Can we change? (Is it even true that men are less language oriented than women?)
Fall 2012 Good Behavior, Bad Behavior: Molecules to Morality
Public Lecture: What are Friends for? The Adaptive Values of Social Bonds
Joan SilkJoan Silk, Arizona State University
When: Thursday, Nov 15 @ 5:30 PM
Where: Indiana Memorial Union Whittenberger Auditorium
Partnering organizations: Center for Integrative Study of Animal Behavior, College of Arts and Science - Themester, Cognitive Science ProgramOrganizers: Michael Muehlenbein and Kevin Hunt
Part of the Primate Behavior Speaker Series
Abstract: Group living has evolved in many animal taxa, but humans and other primates are unusual because individuals establish close and lasting social bonds with other members of their groups. Such bonds are particularly pronounced among females in species like baboons, in which females’ social lives revolve around a tight core of close associates, who are mainly close maternal relatives. Data derived from long-term studies of female baboons at several sites in Africa suggest that social bonds help females cope more effectively with the stresses of everyday life. In addition, females that have close and stable social bonds reproduce more successfully and live longer than others. These findings closely parallel evidence that social ties have positive effects on physical and mental health in humans. As with baboons, the strength and quality of these bonds are more important than their number. Although we are not yet certain whether the mechanisms that underlie these effects in humans and other primates are the same, it seems likely that the capacity and motivation to establish and nurture close social relationships with others have been under strong selective pressure in the primate lineage for many millions of years.
I am a bit confused on what you are actually looking for or even saying, but I am thinking it has something to do with women being better at socializing?
Hope and Change?
You've always got good stuff to say - your refining of the question is good. Go with it.
I left it open because the Dr. left it wide-open in her summary of the lecture, but pick whatever part that you feel like answering.
If that is the case, I would say that the premise is wrong.
Men are just as good at socializing. This site, and esp the way Testosterone was setup are pure indicators about that. We argue, we bitch, we strut, but we do have some semblance of a community.
I think the problem isn't that we can't socialize it is that many men are afraid to socialize so they don't. Look back at the FB thread, when I broke down the arguments there, it wasn't the socializing that drove the men away, it was fear of where it took these men.
Read it all over the site, lonely men, scared to interact with others, not that they don't.
But on the flip side, most of the female socializing I see is but a very shallow type. They will be nice to each other on the face value, but you can watch as they move around the idea that they hate the others and judge them all.
Hell, I would even go so far as to postulate that when men allow themselves to bond, they bond far stronger than women do.
Men socialize differently than women, and that may be the hangup. "Socializing" has pretty much been redefined to mean "socializing like women".
On average, men are less communicative and more competitive ... so men socializing is less communicative and more competitive. We talk in shorter bursts, and typically socialize by doing something, rather than talking to one another. Socializing has largely been defined as talking and cooperating -- which women seem to do more.
Women are responsible for mores, not men. The political importance of marriage--whence the laws regarding property, custody, &c.--is easily summed as a way of protecting women from men. Socializing is a made-up category. But when it comes to who is going to get the kids to have tolerable manners, who is going to worry over their every step, & who loves them just because they're theirs, it's mostly women. As for adults, rules of etiquette fit much better with women's inclinations & habits than men's.
Or put bluntly, women's education makes it difficult for males to have sex & civilization moves forward.
The easier males get to have sex, the less there is any effort put into getting creature comforts, rendering actions predictable, & making men reliable even when they are not under threat.
I agree with you on good male friendships being possibly stronger than female ones.
Regarding Testosterone, that wasn't the case with me. I didn't fight well there but it is pretty sad that folks were willing to kick me out of the group rather than fight fair.
I don't mind that - but it makes me think the group's name should have been changed to Estrogen. A man who struts is not necessarily a man. A man who is effeminate is not just a man who acts stereotypically gay - he is also the man who acts macho. Masculinity is not the clothes you wear or the way you strut, it's something else - and I hold that it is our ability to fight for what we believe in without apology. True male friendship comes when men fight fiercely yet honorably - best friends I've ever had are the ones I fought with - sometimes physically. Otherwise our relationship and respect for each other is based on glossing over differences - which is no respect at all.
With the need for wise fighting aside...
To avoid a fight just because it ruffles feathers is the opposite of Testosterone.
Just because you fight fair doesn't mean you won't get thrown out of the bar for bothering the rest of the customers.
No, it just is further proof that you were too stupid or too ignorant to understand teh role of that group. It is a place without the fighting, without judgement, to just let everyone whip their cocks out without having to compare. True, honest socializing.
You took it as a group to see who had the most testosterone, and you still think that is what it should be.
Respect is realizing that sometimes such a place is needed, esp as there was still the Great Debate and other areas where could "fight". Obviously true respect still escapes your understanding.
Good point Jack.
And Shields, I think your point fits with what Jack said - and I accept that if it's the case.
I wasn't around long enough to see. It blew up I was gone and that was it.
I still think the reason it happened was because I said something that the folks there couldn't deal with - and it wasn't a pissing contest, it was that honest truth you were talking about.
"Regarding Testosterone, that wasn't the case with me. I didn't fight well there but it is pretty sad that folks were willing to kick me out of the group rather than fight fair."
The Testosterone group is for casual hanging out and conversation about guy stuff. People go there to get away from the arguing, debating and other stuff that goes on in the other places. I guess you misunderstood the point of the group.
Okay, that makes sense. You, Jack and Shields are right.
I suspected that even was the case that day - as I put my nuke out there - I said something like, "I can't believe I'm doing this but..."
The difference I think to me is that I can joke and be casual with people and talk very seriously at the same time - that's something that most people don't like and I can't say I blame them. I was compelled to say what I said, but I didn't even like it, I didn't really expect anyone else to either.
So I got what I asked for.