I know I come off like a crackpot rambling, but I’m gonna blame that on my limited English skills.

I am currently in a cross cultural psychology masters program and evolutionary psychology is one of the areas that I’m most interested in. You argue that the truth is brutal and not all of us are ready to accept it. However, just because something is crude and brutal, does not necessarily make it 100% true either.

Totally true, and something I try to stay aware of. It is very easy to fall into the trap that just because the truth is often brutal and unsympathetic, then the reverse is also truth and everything brutal and unsympathetic is always true. This fallacy is something I’m addressing right now in my Blacks and IQ posts.

You tend to oversimplify and give examples that are a little on the extreme side.

Yes, I do. I like to make it as straightforward and nonacademic as possible.

When a layperson attempts to play the role of a therapist and try to save a promiscuous woman that has been abused or smacked around by a crazed stepfather, then it will obviously take years of therapy and cognitive restructuring before that person is able to function in relationships and society in a healthy and stable manner.

Okay, so far we seem to agree.

In terms of what women expect from men, strength and leadership are indeed important qualities. Evolutionary psychology has taught us however that these are merely traits that help secure resources, which will in turn give women the confidence that those resources will be passed on to their offspring. In studies of virtually all societies on earth, whether they encouraged tranquility and femininity like some Asian cultures, or aggression and masculinity like many western cultures, Women always find money, resources, and the ability of acquiring those resources most desirable in a man.

Okay, now here’s where I begin to disagree. How do Asian cultures promote femininity and tranquility while Western cultures promote agression and masculinity? I think this is a trap intellectuals and progressives tend to fall into, this belief that Western civilization is selfishness and war while the East is all zen and yoga. I believe this stems from the mistake of judging the east by its purported spiritual beliefs while judging the West by its actions. If you were to primarily judge the west by its spiritual practices like Christianity, you’d find a society just as tranquil in theory as you claim the East to be. If you were to judge the East by their actions, you’d find societies as aggressive and dangerous and prone to war as you claim the West to be. Isn’t North Korea building nukes? Isn’t China building up its military and aggressively suppressing human rights and protest? And it’s not a recent development, warring states were the norm in China and Japan long before they ever came into contact with the West. And read about precolonial India and the cult of the Thugees. Don’t buy into the intellectual hype peddled in elite universities that the West somehow has a monopoly on aggression and war and machismo.

The main problem with your reasoning is that the traits you bring are no longer at the very top of the list. A man that is cultured, intelligent, socially agreeable, and rich is not necessarily the same man that is an aggressive leader. Of course CEO’s of major companies are usually testosterone pumped and aggressive, but for the most part the well educated upper social spheres are more in touch with their emotions. Studies show that couples that stay together the longest are those that are very precise about their communication in the relationship. Im starting to ramble but heres a good example. The man in a lower social sphere should be tough and an honorable fighter for example and it is often that man that will win over a girls heart. In a rich neighborhood with its own set of rules, it is the smartest man that avoids fights in order to not get arrested and keep his resources secure who is the most attractive to a woman. Even if he admits to his woman that he is scared of physical confrontation, he still has his money and upper class mannerisms to fall back on, which are much more important to her, and the communication is much more important for keeping the relationship stable.

This does not disprove anything I’ve said. There are more ways to be weak than just physically. It’s not the rich guy’s upper class mannerisms that satisfy his woman, it’s his leadership and power. In his case, getting into a fight and risking his money and status would be a sign of weakness and low self-discipline, whereas with a low-status guy who has nothing to lose and no other way to exercise power, it’s a sign of strength. If your rich guy with upper class mannrerisms does not show mental toughness and leadership and is percieved as emotionally weak by his woman though, she won’t respect him, even if she stays with him. There is more to winning than just keeping your mate, the terms you keep her on are just as important. If the guy’s wife is keeping him just as a meal ticket that she just walks all over while spending his money and disrespecting him at will, he has lost, even if they stay together. I see many couples where the woman is around a rich weak man for status and publicly emasculates the man in front of mixed company at will.

I dislike the reasoning in 3b because it seems irrelevant. You are saying that it will blow up in your face if you worship someone with low self esteem. But why either worship them or treat them like shit? Those aren’t the only options available to you. You can work on improving their self esteem and the communication between the two of you rather than looking for a cynical approach of keeping them “in check”.

Matt, where did I say the only choices were either to worship someone or treat them like shit? I never claimed those were the only two options available to you, YOU were the one that read that into what I wrote. Not worshipping someone in no way means you have to treat them like shit either.

Thanks for your response Matt. i appreciate the thought you put into it.

Brie - The fact that traits exist on a continuum is addressed by the “almost” part of the statement. For example, “he’s stupid, but he knows that he is stupid, and that ALMOST makes him smart.” The “almost” shows that his self-awareness makes him not quite totally stupid, yet not quite totally smart either, meaning he is now somewhere in the middle, which is the “continuum” you speak of. Reread the statement and you’ll see it’s actually not a black or white, either-or statement.

I am currently in a cross cultural psychology masters program and evolutionary psychology is one of the areas that I’m most interested in. You argue that the truth is brutal and not all of us are ready to accept it. However, just because something is crude and brutal, does not necessarily make it 100% true either. You tend to oversimplify and give examples that are a little on the extreme side.

When a layperson attempts to play the role of a therapist and try to save a promiscuous woman that has been abused or smacked around by a crazed stepfather, then it will obviously take years of therapy and cognitive restructuring before that person is able to function in relationships and society in a healthy and stable manner.

In terms of what women expect from men, strength and leadership are indeed important qualities. Evolutionary psychology has taught us however that these are merely traits that help secure resources, which will in turn give women the confidence that those resources will be passed on to their offspring. In studies of virtually all societies on earth, whether they encouraged tranquility and femininity like some Asian cultures, or aggression and masculinity like many western cultures, Women always find money, resources, and the ability of acquiring those resources most desirable in a man. The main problem with your reasoning is that the traits you bring are no longer at the very top of the list. A man that is cultured, intelligent, socially agreeable, and rich is not necessarily the same man that is an aggressive leader. Of course CEO’s of major companies are usually testosterone pumped and aggressive, but for the most part the well educated upper social spheres are more in touch with their emotions. Studies show that couples that stay together the longest are those that are very precise about their communication in the relationship. Im starting to ramble but heres a good example. The man in a lower social sphere should be tough and an honorable fighter for example and it is often that man that will win over a girls heart. In a rich neighborhood with its own set of rules, it is the smartest man that avoids fights in order to not get arrested and keep his resources secure who is the most attractive to a woman. Even if he admits to his woman that he is scared of physical confrontation, he still has his money and upper class mannerisms to fall back on, which are much more important to her, and the communication is much more important for keeping the relationship stable.

I dislike the reasoning in 3b because it seems irrelevant. You are saying that it will blow up in your face if you worship someone with low self esteem. But why either worship them or treat them like shit? Those aren’t the only options available to you. You can work on improving their self esteem and the communication between the two of you rather than looking for a cynical approach of keeping them “in check”.

I’m really interested in all of what you had to say, and would greatly appreciate feedback, especially if you disagree with what I had to say or find any loopholes in my arguments, I like to have my views challenged. Furthermore I would like to see if what I learn in psychology stands up to practical reasoning and street smarts, and how to resolve any discrepancies between the two.

Take care - Matt