From Psychology Today. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature: 1- Men like blond bombshells (and women want to look like them) 2- Humans are naturally polygamous 3- Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy 4- Most suicide bombers are Muslim 5- Having sons reduces the likelihood of divorce 6- Beautiful people have more daughters 7- What Bill Gates and Paul McCartney have in common with criminals 8- The midlife crisis is a myth—sort of 9- It's natural for politicians to risk everything for an affair (but only if they're male) 10- Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml Interesting. Debatable....
That was a very enlightening article. I wonder how long til polygyny hits China. And if beautiful people have more daughters...I guess our Presidents have been gorgous!
I dunno. I know lots of people who are not attractive and have only daughters. I know people who have sons who are divorced. I guess there are always exceptions. Interesting little read though...
I always found #1 to be true when I went platinum blonde. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I don't think I ever payed for a drink, so I enjoyed it too.
I think number one is true from personal experience. I go out with a female friend of mine who is very attractive. She has naturally dark hair and dark eyes. I am a natural blonde with blue eyes. We get hit on a lot. But the ratio is about 8:1 for hits on me vs. her. We do it for fun. She gets all made up. I go au natural. The ratio doesn't change. We laugh about it everytime. Then again, this is CA. The results would probably be different in areas where darker is preferred. I look at the beautiful people having daughters and see Angie Jolie/Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Richard Gere etc proving that point. Then I see Britney Spears having boys. It's all debatable.
Psychology Today is not a peer reviewed journal, it is considered a popular magazine. I have to wonder how accurate this article is and if there was a scientific study for this information. I would think that if this was a serious social science study that it would have been published in a psychology journal after being peer-reviewed and not published into a book which financially benefits the authors.
Found part of the actual study information: http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...=2854086&md5=71484d7989e35900aafc8f8718af436b
Also some opposing opinions.... http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2006/08/more_on_girl_an.html
nr. 1 is mostly true. But, first, we like all kinds of women. Not JUST the blondes. Second, it only goes for most men. Some like guys, some like dogs, some like even more unusual stuff. And third, blondes get hit on more often because blonde=slut in social generalization. So blonde haired slut - means she's already given everyone a green light to at least hit on her. It isn't about men being more attracted, it's about a men considering blondies to be a higher chance of scoring. nr. 7 - "What Bill Gates and Paul McCartney have in common with criminals" - is that a statement?
Yes, and Scientific American isn't peer reviewed either. I think it would be more beneficial to look at the credentials of the authors, if you wanted to attack the validity of the claims. Some of the claims in the article are pretty hard to believe, but make sense in a wierd way. For example, this excerpt: In terms of evolution, it makes sense---if blonde women LOOK younger, more men will try to mate with them (where's darksidZz when you need him), and so there will be more blonde childeren. I guess these things are like the economy, though---you can always find an economist who agrees with you. I'm sure a bit of digging could reveal that polygamy is bad for women, etc. etc.
I don't think polygamy would have been bad. More hands to raise crops, help with child rearing/child birth, household tasks. More women would seem to me at least, to mean less babies per woman which extends your life span. My Mom grew up a house shared by grandparents and an uncle and his family. The only thing not shared was sex.
In my opinion Scientific American is also a magazine not a journal or trade publication. Here is some information on the differences. http://training.proquest.com/trc/training/en/peervsscholarly.pdf I did research the Ph.D.'s that published the book...did you read the post under my initial post. Here is the link to Science Direct which offers the original: http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...=2854086&md5=71484d7989e35900aafc8f8718af436b "Beautiful parents have more daughters: A further implication of the generalized Trivers–Willard hypothesis (gTWH) Satoshi KanazawaCorresponding Author Contact Information, a, E-mail The Corresponding Author Interdisciplinary Institute of Management, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK Received 21 May 2006; revised 15 July 2006; accepted 18 July 2006. Available online 24 July 2006."
A lot of that stuff involves biological reaction to sociological circumstance. Change the circumstance - say by, as my ancestors did, running inheritance of property from mother to daughter - and the biological reaction would have to be different to match the evolutionary argument. As humans, we had a huge change of circumstance jsut a little while ago, when we invented agriculture and set up towns. Evolutionarily speaking, we haven't settled into that yet. So all these arguments are suspect, if they rely on something specific to agrarian (or nomadic) life.
That's all we talk about around here .....it's obvious that no other nations on Earth are worth talking about ...nothing ever happens in other countries! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
I'm pissing in this ocean of idiocy, but it wouldn't. The concept of property isn't old enough to really affect the process of human evolution. Same goes for anything that dates from a civilized era. In keeping with sentiment, though: Sandy loves [deleted].
