Bonobos that write, start fires and play Pac-Man
-
Yes, exactly, three chimps in close proximity behaving like friends. IN CLOSE PROXIMITY. Now how friendly do you think they behave without being able to see each other? Without any touch, without any sight?
Now think of the huge obstacles human beings have to deal with - nations thousands of miles away from each other have to learn to cooperate rather than fight. Not just three individuals, but thousands of millions of people with all their emotions and feelings of self righteousness. What kinds of behaviours do human beings need to make this work? It takes "HIGHER MENTAL FUNCTIONS". It takes abstract thought - thinking about someone else thinking about you thinking about them.
I.e. what will this other person - who I cannot directly see or hear - think of me if I send them this message? Will they think I'm behaving aggressively? How can I adapt the way I am behaving to make them see me as being more friendly towards them? How can I show the rest of the world that I care about how this other person feels about the way I think?
Can you see? Big chimps making friends with little chimps is simply not the same thing as the complexity that human beings must deal with. They're still predominantly driven by instinct whilst human behaviour requires much deeper perception.
Just as friendly as humans I'm sure. They'd have no problem communicating with individually recognisable grunts, squeeks and howls to let others out of sight, know how they were.
No, human beings haven't had to deal with nations thousands of miles away that is only a very recent development and we shouldn't shout to much about it either. The thousands of millions are not to concerned about international relations, they are too busy with their lives and more pressing matters, like feeding their kids! Well lots of animals cooperate with other animals even on the thousans of millions scale. It sure doesn't take all this thinking about thinking! You've got to be a women! Only a women expects people to read their thoughts rather than say they're meaning! Complexity can be just a matter of degree rather than of fundamental nature.
-
You've got to be a women! Only a women expects people to read their thoughts rather than say they're meaning! Complexity can be just a matter of degree rather than of fundamental nature.
that wasn't the right thing to say. women don't expect people to read their thoughts. It's true that some women, (and some men) might act as though others understand their non verbalised thoughts, but it's a flaw of those individuals, not of the female sex and/or gender. Besides, people who are better at inferring information from what other people say(, and don't say) may simply be better at reading subtle signals and expect others to do the same.
Btw, how can you say that liquiddharma has to be a woman? that's not a logical thing to say. Should I say that because liquiddharma's posts seem to show an egoistic nature, are not logical and show narrowmindedness, that he's got to be a man? That wouldn't be logical
@liquiddharma, I am not attacking you, I was just trying to prove a point to Alamsulten. I hope you aren't offended, since no offence was intended.
-
that wasn't the right thing to say. women don't expect people to read their thoughts. It's true that some women, (and some men) might act as though others understand their non verbalised thoughts, but it's a flaw of those individuals, not of the female sex and/or gender. Besides, people who are better at inferring information from what other people say(, and don't say) may simply be better at reading subtle signals and expect others to do the same.
Btw, how can you say that liquiddharma has to be a woman? that's not a logical thing to say. Should I say that because liquiddharma's posts seem to show an egoistic nature, are not logical and show narrowmindedness, that he's got to be a man? That wouldn't be logical
@liquiddharma, I am not attacking you, I was just trying to prove a point to Alamsulten. I hope you aren't offended, since no offence was intended.
I was being lighthearted and if I'd figured out how to use the smilies so they come the right place then I would've. Anyway sorry for any offence, it wasn't intended.
Sure, if you think its appropriate and you don't mean it really deadly serious. You took it as a derogatory comment but as your "besides" shows it doesn't have to be taken so. Yours on the other hand can only be taken as derogatory. Thinking logically is I think usually associated with the male sex and in contrast to social intelligence associated with the female sex.
If i were Liquiddharma I would definately be put out being called egoistic, illogical and narrowminded! Lets hope Liquiddharma doesn't stiffen up and become Soliddharma.
-
Yours on the other hand can only be taken as derogatory. Thinking logically is I think usually associated with the male sex and in contrast to social intelligence associated with the female sex.
not true. I am glad that you weren't being serious, but then again, should I take you seriously when you say that thinking logically is associated with the male sex? That isn't true by any means, and you'd be hard pressed to find any evidence to support that theory.
Social intelligence does involve thinking logically about other people's motives, knowledge, intentions and habits to figure out what they might do next or how they may react. I don't see how 'logical thinking' is separate from social intelligence. It seems to me social intelligence requires logical thinking and other skills like perception.
A lot of things are associated with one sex and not with another. Should I say that, since most prisoners incarcerated for violent crimes, most football hooligans and serial killers are male, it means that the males are violent by nature and men are in general illogical creatures with no control over their tempers?
I won't do that, since I think people should be taken as individuals, and it's neither logical nor fair to pigeon hole them on the basis of their sex or gender.
I wasn't being derogatory, I was just giving examples of unfounded accusations a person can make if one generalises on the basis of anything. I never intended to be derogatory or offensive, in this post, or earlier posts, and those 'accusations' do not reflect what I think, but are examples to prove my point.
-
not true. I am glad that you weren't being serious, but then again, should I take you seriously when you say that thinking logically is associated with the male sex? That isn't true by any means, and you'd be hard pressed to find any evidence to support that theory.
Social intelligence does involve thinking logically about other people's motives, knowledge, intentions and habits to figure out what they might do next or how they may react. I don't see how 'logical thinking' is separate from social intelligence. It seems to me social intelligence requires logical thinking and other skills like perception.
A lot of things are associated with one sex and not with another. Should I say that, since most prisoners incarcerated for violent crimes, most football hooligans and serial killers are male, it means that the males are violent by nature and men are in general illogical creatures with no control over their tempers?
I won't do that, since I think people should be taken as individuals, and it's neither logical nor fair to pigeon hole them on the basis of their sex or gender.
I wasn't being derogatory, I was just giving examples of unfounded accusations a person can make if one generalises on the basis of anything. I never intended to be derogatory or offensive, in this post, or earlier posts, and those 'accusations' do not reflect what I think, but are examples to prove my point.
Tis so!
yes, you should take that seriously in so much as associated meaning in the common perception. Not hard at all It's a commonly held belief that men reason from logic and that women reason from emotion. I wouldn't say it constituted a theory though, just an assertion. Yes, the different intelligences are not totally independant of each other just as much as they are not the same. Well there are many people with high IQ scores when it comes to solving logical problems but are totally lost in social situations and for example have no friends. In the same way there are people who are great in a social context but are totally lost when it comes to following a map for example. Essentially that's the difference between logical intelligence and social intelligence. Its not logic that enables you to appreciate what someone else is thinking but the ability to recognise and read slight nuances of emotions and actions and past experience.
Yes there is an argument for saying that men are more violent by nature than women. Both on the evidence, for example the predominant sex of violent criminals and on the basis of hormones. There's a reason why testerone is a male hormone. There is also another reason why there are more male violent criminals than women and it has to do with the predomiance of men at the top and bottom of society. Men are simply more extreme than women. Logic doesn't really come into it. In fact social intelligence has much more to say. A person with low social intelligence is more likely to feel frustrated with others and resort to violence. Serial killers tend to be very logical in planning their crimes rather than simply losing their tempers. So your equating violence with lack of logic is not logical!
One should be aware of the limitations of generalisations without simply dismissing them. In this topic we've all genralised about bonobos, we haven't mentioned them as individuals with a name as common by researchers in the field. They are not human but the same principles apply. Our means of making sense of the world is through recognising patterns and making generalisations.
-
Tis so!
yes, you should take that seriously in so much as associated meaning in the common perception. Not hard at all It's a commonly held belief that men reason from logic and that women reason from emotion. I wouldn't say it constituted a theory though, just an assertion.
my point is that it's a commonly held belief, not a statement of fact. It's also a commonly held belief in some parts of the US that muslims are all bearded and 'niqab'ed plane hijacking and suicide bombing terrorists. That doesn't mean it's true
Btw, this is an interesting article
http//www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/society_culture/office_biology.htm
One day our descendants will think it incredible that we paid so much attention to things like the amount of melanin in our skin
or the shape of our eyes or our gender instead of the unique identities of each of us as complex human beings.- Franklin Thomas
-
One day our descendants will think it incredible that we paid so much attention to things like the amount of melanin in our skin
or the shape of our eyes or our gender instead of the unique identities of each of us as complex human beings.- Franklin Thomas
bravo bravo bravo bravo
-
huh?
I'm not sure why you're confused by what I'm saying. Bonobos have sex throughout the year.
Instead of fighting with each other, they diffuse tensions using sex.
Okay. I'm not saying they are wrong for doing what they do. I just wanted to point out it is interesting how they engage in sex year round.
Uncommonness isn't a good reason, I think you're passing a moral judgment.
I'm passing moral judgement? How so? Uncommon has nothing to do with morality here. It IS uncommon. I'm not talking about right or wrong.
Some lizards spray blood from their eyes as a defence mechanism, are you going to call them 'blood freaks?' It's unusual too.
Please, I'm not going to say this again, do NOT say I'm doing something that I'm not doing. I have NOT claimed what the Bonobos do with their sexual habits is bad. I did not say it was good. I pointed out it is what they DO unlike most creatures in the animal kingdom. That's not a moral judgement. It's a distinction that one can make with any creature from another. It is a fascinating practice. Do I hate it, abhor it, or love it? I have no moral judgement either way I just think it is intriguing that they do what they do.
Joe
-
Peace Sarah,
I think I may see the cause of your hardline with me. I called them freaks. It was not meant as an offense or a put down of the animals. People can say, "S/he was a freak between the sheets", which is actually not negative comment. Great athletes are called freaks but it has no negative connotation. I'm sure this may continue to be a misunderstanding between you and I, but take me for my word, I did not mean they were bad for doing what they do, or wrong for doing what they do. I tried to be lighthearted with that comment when I made it, i.e. read it as "they are horny", not as, "they are freaks, hence they are bad or evil creatures or sexually immoral creatures".
Joe
-
Instead of fighting with each other, they diffuse tensions using sex.
Okay. I'm not saying they are wrong for doing what they do. I just wanted to point out it is interesting how they engage in sex year round.
Promiscuity is a form of violence. Some animals wipe out their competitors with their claws, some do it with their genitals. You can't say one method is moral and one is immoral. You can't say the rabbit is moral and the fox immoral, nor vice versa.
-
Peace Sarah,
I think I may see the cause of your hardline with me. I called them freaks. It was not meant as an offense or a put down of the animals. People can say, "S/he was a freak between the sheets", which is actually not negative comment. Great athletes are called freaks but it has no negative connotation. I'm sure this may continue to be a misunderstanding between you and I, but take me for my word, I did not mean they were bad for doing what they do, or wrong for doing what they do. I tried to be lighthearted with that comment when I made it, i.e. read it as "they are horny", not as, "they are freaks, hence they are bad or evil creatures or sexually immoral creatures".
Joe
oh, ok, sorry for the misuderstanding. It was because you called them freaks, but now I know what you meant.
Peace
Sarah -
Okay. I'm not saying they are wrong for doing what they do. I just wanted to point out it is interesting how they engage in sex year round.
Promiscuity is a form of violence. Some animals wipe out their competitors with their claws, some do it with their genitals.
???
how are they 'wiping out' their competitors? -
my point is that it's a commonly held belief, not a statement of fact. It's also a commonly held belief in some parts of the US that muslims are all bearded and 'niqab'ed plane hijacking and suicide bombing terrorists. That doesn't mean it's true
Btw, this is an interesting article
http//www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/society_culture/office_biology.htm
One day our descendants will think it incredible that we paid so much attention to things like the amount of melanin in our skin
or the shape of our eyes or our gender instead of the unique identities of each of us as complex human beings.- Franklin Thomas
Its not about what you consider a fact or not. Argument is based on accepted common perceptions. In the parts of the US you mentioned it would be logical to base an argument on the commonly held perceptions you mentioned assuming you shared these perceptions. You could not use the argument that because someone had a beard they most likely were not Islamic terrorists, with the asssumption that this would be accepted as you yourself ascribe to another perception that most Islamic terrorists don't have beards. This is irrespective of what the truth may be. Let us say that the truth is that most Islamic terrorists don't have beards and that the commonly held perception in those parts of the US is wrong. In order for you to use this fact, you would first have to argue for it and if you don't then you are guilty of the fallacy of appeal to authority. Cards must be declared in open and honest discussion. The bottom line is that you cannot make a direct arguement on this forum that someone is a man because they are not logical when the common perception is that this is a female trait not a male one and this is irrespective of the facts. Arguments must be based on some form of common perception whether or not they are correct.
I think Franklin Thomas's comment is more of a utopic wish than a prophecy rather like Martin Luther King's dream. Though there's little doubt that we are moving in the general direction of equality I don't see so many signs of past inequality being considered incredible. Is it incredible to think that Africans were catured like animals and shipped to market in America? Well perhaps to someone with a very limited perception of humanity but personally I find it more incredible that today people can be shipped around the world and held as sex slaves all across the modern West and that this trade is growing. That's an indication to me that it is the future that will offer the greater incredulities not the past.
I found the article you linked to high on assertions and low on science even though I may agree with some of the generalities and conclusions. I believe that any differences between the sexes is far less significant than the differences within the sexes and that the expansion of the overlap challenges the assertions made. Here is an article for you Is There Anything Good About Men?
-
Is There Anything Good About Men?
That was a very interesting read. A perspective that I hadn't thought of before, I found myself tending to agree with the general one-on-one - larger social group aspect he brings forth, it explains in a sensible way certain patterns that are repetitive enough to warrant an explanation. -
Promiscuity is a form of violence. Some animals wipe out their competitors with their claws, some do it with their genitals.
???
how are they 'wiping out' their competitors?I think LH is confusing individuals with genes and is referring to the survival of the fittest or even the competition between species.
However I'm also interested to know how promiscuity is another kind of violence even taking an evolutionary stance. Is an oak tree being violent when it sheds 100,000s of acorns? I suppose one could say that this was an agressive strategy just as sending thousands of job applications, but violent?
-
???
how are they 'wiping out' their competitors?I think LH is confusing individuals with genes and is referring to the survival of the fittest or even the competition between species.
However I'm also interested to know how promiscuity is another kind of violence even taking an evolutionary stance. Is an oak tree being violent when it sheds 100,000s of acorns? I suppose one could say that this was an agressive strategy just as sending thousands of job applications, but violent?
Passive aggressive maybe?
-
I think LH is confusing individuals with genes and is referring to the survival of the fittest or even the competition between species.
However I'm also interested to know how promiscuity is another kind of violence even taking an evolutionary stance. Is an oak tree being violent when it sheds 100,000s of acorns? I suppose one could say that this was an agressive strategy just as sending thousands of job applications, but violent?
It's not like sending out job applications because the hiring of employees is a consensual process. However the spread of life across the planet is not in some way consensual, it is by force and determination.
Again, this is not to say it is wrong, it is right for the rabbit to breed, and right for the fox to catch and devour it, because this is how animals are meant to behave. But it is absurd to forget the complexity of the behaviour that makes human beings unique and describe animal behaviour as human when all you are seeing is that a lot of human behaviour is animal.