tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post4035696872877943382..comments2024-03-28T21:32:26.550+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: Inverted boasting and the profound psychosis of modernityBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-25233047881672479132010-10-22T18:02:20.229+01:002010-10-22T18:02:20.229+01:00@wmjas - You are inadvertently slipping into selec...@wmjas - You are inadvertently slipping into selective blank slate-ism, by picking among the evolved instincts. <br /><br />Instincts are many, and they conflict. <br /><br />The main outlines of evolved human sexual behavior have been analyzed and explained pretty thoroughly. <br /><br />Why is sex enjoyable? - natural selection. Why do women like sex with high status men? - natural selection. Why do women (and men) routinely over-ride their impulses to do enjoyable things regardless of longer term consequences? - natural selection. Why do women intrinsically not advertise their casual promiscuity? - natural selection. <br /><br />Of course we can over-ride instinct, especially one instinct (e.g. to seek perceived peer approval) can over-ride another (aversion from public casual sex); but we must note that over-riding is what is happening.Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-48509218571982977342010-10-22T16:36:28.340+01:002010-10-22T16:36:28.340+01:00@Dennis - I know that people say what you have sum...@Dennis - I know that people say what you have summarized as an explanation - but I am pointing out that they are wrong!<br /><br />They are wrong essentially because of Trivers theory of parental investment - which is well supported:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_investmentBruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-7991809529787130462010-10-22T15:47:36.175+01:002010-10-22T15:47:36.175+01:00Mangan is right. Having sex with an attractive par...Mangan is right. Having sex with an attractive partner, unlike handing out $500 bills, is enjoyable in itself. Loose women aren't giving away something for nothing; they're making a trade-off, choosing sex over money. Since it's quite easy for a woman to be financially independent these days, meaning that they simply don't <i>need</i> a man's resources as much as they used to, it's not clear that the trade-off is necessarily an irrational one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-67488540960377866912010-10-22T12:32:34.916+01:002010-10-22T12:32:34.916+01:00Alternatively, we could say that "such widesp...Alternatively, we could say that "such widespread female behavior" is *not* "a gross violation of such a powerful evolved instinct." Normally, scientists invent "paradoxes" to reconcile findings seemingly at odds with each other, e.g. the French paradox allegedly describes the fact that the French have a high fat diet yet get less heart disease - the obvious solution being that dietary fat doesn't cause heart disease. In this case, the the solution is that women enjoy sex, so long as the men are attractive, and the modern technology of birth control, along with urban anonymity, allows them to do so without many consequences. The women are still choosing, it's just that they're choosing multiple men.Dennis Manganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16934802482968611507noreply@blogger.com