What cultural behavior do most women have in common

Female cultural behavior

Discussions about society in general and social activity.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: What cultural behavior do most women have in common

#381  Postby Scot Dutchy » Mar 04, 2013 4:51 pm

mindhack wrote:Why is this thread in the sociology section?


Why is it anywhere?
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 71
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What cultural behavior do most women have in common

#382  Postby Doubtdispelled » Mar 04, 2013 7:54 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:
mindhack wrote:Why is this thread in the sociology section?


Why is it anywhere?

:lol:
Thanks, Scot. You just made me laugh after a rather tough day.

:cheers:
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

― Mark Twain
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11836

Print view this post

Re: What cultural behavior do most women have in common

#383  Postby Mr.Samsa » Mar 07, 2013 3:55 am

DavidMcC wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:Yep, and this is a trait-specific constraint that shapes behavior. In other words, the behavior is chosen not because there is an innate drive to do so (like a herring gull pecking at a red dot) but rather it's chosen because one sex is capable whereas the other is not. Thus, this is a cultural behavior.

So a new mother feeds her baby because she feels "lumbered" with the chore, right?


There are likely a number of reasons why they do so and vastly different reasons when comparing why a prehistoric woman would do it compared to a contemporary woman. One of the original reasons would have been as a natural result of the suckling reflex in babies, where they'd start to feed when held by the mother.

DavidMcC wrote:
I never stated nor hinted at the idea that hormones have nothing to do with breast lactation. The reason I claim that there is no biological cause behind the behavior of using them is simply because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest it's possible and a lot of reasons to expect that it's unnecessary to assume as much.

What you are missing is that if a mother isn't interested in using her breasts, she may well try to avoid doing so. Lucid Flight may have had problems related to the breast-feeding learning curves for both mother and baby - eg, leaving the baby to cry for milk for too long could cause over-enthuisiastic suckling when it finally does happen, while too much reliance on bottle feeding could prevent the baby from learning how hard it to grip - bottles don't complain from over-hard suckling.


And many women do try to avoid doing so.

DavidMcC wrote:
I'm not a blank slatist, nothing at all that I've said even vaguely resembles blank slatism.

Yes, it does! You argue that we have no "instincts" at all. No instincts = blank slate.


That would be a very broad definition of blank slatism and you've included every single scientist and field of science relating to behavior in that definition. Do you really think that everyone evolutionary biologist, psychologist, ethologist, zoologist, etc, are blank slatists?

Of course not. There are other biological and evolutionary predispositions that affect behavior which aren't instincts. It's simply scientific fact that there are no instincts in humans past 6 months of age.

TMB wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:There is a difference between coming up with a theory of behavior, and an explanation for an individual's behavior. To say that some guy out there might buy a car because he thinks it will get him women is most likely true. The troubling part is when the claim becomes more general, like "men buy cars as a product of a desire to have sex with women". It's also problematic to try to explain a behavior by way of a complex and convoluted causal factor; like the idea that even though men (or a particular man) thinks he's working hard to ensure he has some kind of financial stability, in reality it is an attempt to satisfy some subconscious need to obtain status and increase the likelihood of sexual encounters, when there's really no evidence to suggest that such an idea is true.


Because it is problematic trying to explain a behaviour thorough a causation stack or the making of invalid generalisations, does that mean we are unable to make valid generalisations or define the causation stack with various caveats? Surely there must be a consistent cause and effect pathway between the base biology and various levels of behaviours?


The problem isn't with generalisations, the problem is that the underlying idea on why these behaviors come about is wrong. It is demonstrably false that, for example, men work hard to satisfy an unconscious need to obtain status and increase the likelihood of sexual encounters.

TMB wrote:
Mr. Samsa wrote:Behavior is generally controlled by 'reinforcers'. Some of these are "primary" reinforcers, like food and water, which require no real learning to acquire their motivating properties, whereas some are "secondary", like money or other tokens, which require a learning process to acquire a positive association.

If the primary reinforcers require no real learning, I assume this means they are innate and presumably there is less or no choice when compared to the secondary reinforcers? Are there defined links between primary and secondary, I am assuming the numbering indicates that there is at least a partial layer of primary and secondary arise from these?


Some primary reinforcers are innate and some are a result of natural constraints on behavior. The 'numbering' simply refers to the development of these reinforcers but it has no effect on whether someone has a "choice" or "less choice" as both are equally compelling. In some situations primary reinforcers may be more effective at maintaining a behavior and in some situations a secondary reinforcer is. Secondary reinforcers don't have to arise from primary reinforcers.

TMB wrote:
Mr. Samsa wrote:So "base needs" and "higher behaviors" are essentially equal when it comes to causes of behavior. The important factor is the power of the particular reinforcer, not whether it's a base need or not.

What do you mean by equal? That a base need for water can be matched/cancelled out by the need for status? Or do you mean that they all operate independently and the effects might be quite unrelated?


Both. Secondary reinforcers can, and often do, outrank "base needs".

TMB wrote:
Mr. Samsa wrote:Yes it's a difference in degree, and I'm using the term animal to refer to all members of the animal kingdom. Even things like insects respond according to the same laws of behavior, and things like fruit flies and worms serve as some of the best animal models for behavioral and learning research.


As I understand it, chimps are supposed to have some sense of self although not as advanced as ours. However is the human ability to understand the past, present and future not unique and wouod presumably give rise to unique behaviours?


It depends what you mean by "understanding past, present, and future". Animals obviously have a sense of time and, if needed, they can estimate relative amounts of time that has elapsed since a certain event (i.e. the past) or they can estimate how long it is until some event occurs (i.e. the future). Obviously the important difference here is the complexity with which humans understand time and this is what leads to unique behaviors.

TMB wrote:
Mr. Samsa wrote:Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Conditioning processes are equal across humans and other animals so the conditioned behavior can be very similar; the only limiting factors are things like the physical design of the organism (e.g. we can't teach an eagle to clap because it has no hands) and the general cognitive abilities of the organism. That is, there are genetic constraints to learning which is why nature and nurture are both important factors to consider when explaining a behavior.


This depends upon your perception of conditioned behaviours. If you believe that people do no or very little free will due to their subjection both to biology or environmental conditioning which results in our behaviour – in which case we would suggest that equally animals also have no free due to the same forces. Or if you believe that humans are able to arise above their biology and conditioning and be autonomous, free willed individuals does it mean animals can do the same?


I don't think there's any evidence that humans can overcome their biological and environmental conditioning to demonstrate free will (at least in the libertarian sense where the actions have no prior cause except some kind of metaphysical self or soul).

TMB wrote:
Mr. Samsa wrote:This is a fair point. Other animals are, as you suspected, also capable of cheating and deceiving others (as well as identifying cheats) but the ability of language does bring a unique tool to the cheat.

Are humans also able to not only deceive others, but also themselves, however depending upon your view of conditioning, possibly they are simply marching to the beat of the social drum? It also raises the question of animals being able to deceive themselves, something I am not aware they can do.


What do you mean by 'deceive themselves'? If you're referring to something like "being in denial", then I think the bigger problem would be figuring out how to test it since it's a behavior that can only be viewed in context of an underlying belief. We have evidence of animals exhibiting behaviors that might be classed as "denial", like in some tasks where they have to go down corridors to find food they might check the same place twice even though they know they've eaten what was there, or the fact that they can succumb to the placebo effect which arguably involves some element of self-deception.

TMB wrote:
Mr. Samsa wrote:It's just a physiological reaction, like the activation of digestive enzymes when they come into contact with food. I'm not sure if there is any kind of particular terminology that describes it.

I cannot see how all these work given there must be differences of type. If someone is drowning, they react in a way that tries to save their life. Is it just a physiological reaction when this happens, a simple reflex that evolved and survived in people (and their ancestors) that were able to survive drowning, or being eaten by predators, or not jumping off a cliff?


There is no "drowning reflex" so there's not even a physiological reaction there. It's just a basic learnt escape response where when something painful is occurring (e.g. the burning of your deoxygenated lungs), you attempt to escape it - when in water, you swim (and thrash about when you become more desperate due to a behavioral process known as an 'extinction burst' but that's not relevant to the issue here).

TMB wrote:
Mr. Samsa wrote:There is no known instinct to have sex or stay alive. Those "instincts" are examples of how the term has been misused in history and is part of the reason why science dropped the term for more precise terminology (like referring to something as a fixed-action pattern, or a reflex, rather than the broader, vaguer term "instinct"). They are "instincts" in the same way people have a "mothering instinct" or a "bargain-hunting instinct" - what people mean is that there are general behavioral patterns in people or groups of people (but often these patterns aren't actually due to any innate component). Although it's a little old now, parts of this article are relevant here:


So a person taking fairly consistent and predictable steps to prevent themselves from drowning is not an instinct to stay alive, rather it is a FAP or something similar that is still designed to assist in survival? Since my interest is in how the whole process works, I am not fussed which words get used to describe these and I can see how the liberal misuse of the term ‘instinct’ creates issues. Are there a limited number of these that tend to operate at the base level, like one that works to keep a person or animal alive as well as one that operates to procreate?


There really aren't any (currently) known behaviors like what you're trying to describe. There are no rigid behavioral reactions or responses to things like drowning or trying to reproduce. What we do have are general predispositions, like finding the feeling of sex to be pleasurable, and these can combine with other biological processes like say a slightly overactive gland that increases the likelihood of erections, and you end up with someone who is described as having a "high sex drive". There's no innate behavior when it comes to sex or reproduction, it's not like he tries to mount a woman whenever he sees her (like a fixed-action pattern would), instead it's just that a combination of variables and learning processes might make a certain action more probable.

TMB wrote:
Mr. Samsa wrote:What we would generally consider to be "instincts" do occur in animals but I'm not sure it's enough to consider humans and other animals to significantly differ behaviorally. Instincts like fixed-action patterns (e.g. the herring gull example I gave earlier) do occur in other animals but they form such a small part of the animal's behavioral repertoire that it shouldn't really be considered a fundamental difference. If, on the other hand, all or some animals responded purely in these fixed stimulus-response patterns, like mindless automata, then that would be enough to claim a difference in kind, in my opinion.


So you are saying that if animals responded in all cases like mindless automata, then this would be a difference in kind to humans. You say that there are very few FAPs, yet surely they form a critical part of behaviour without which they would not survive.


Not at all! The power and extent of learning can accommodate a lot of the needs of an animal. There are underlying biological factors that make survival more likely; for example, if you got an animal that didn't get hunger pains, or an animal that didn't find sex pleasurable, then they are very unlikely to continue their species (unless evolution does step in and give the animal an instinctual response).

TMB wrote:Unless all behaviours then ultimately assist the animal to survive, surely there must be a foundation of behaviours in place that provide part of the causation stack?


There doesn't need to be any set behaviors to assist an animal in survival but, as I mention above, there does need to be some basic reactions, like pain when you haven't eaten (and above that, you need a rule that essentially says "avoid pain, approach pleasure" - which is learning).

TMB wrote:You are also saying that humans do not respond like mindless automata, however surely the whole principle of conditioning means that we are subject and a product of our environment (subject to its influence on our nature), surely this provides a case for a range of behaviours that only exist because of this environment/biological mix?


True, it just depends on how we're defining mindless automata. My point was to distinguish between the behaviors of, say, a dog and a thermostat. Even if both exhibit behaviors that are caused by some preceding condition, I think it is worthwhile highlighting the difference between the "if, then" reactions of the thermostat and the complex interaction of biological and environmental factors that lead to the resulting behaviors of a dog (or chimp, human, etc).

TMB wrote:
Mr. Samsa wrote:I meant drives but I'm just referring to the concept you were discussing. Drives, in the sense you were using, aren't instinctive behaviors. That is, if it were true that men buy cars in order to achieve some level of status and have sex with women, then that wouldn't be an "instinct". It would be something like an innate predisposition which is like a priming towards a certain behavior given certain environmental conditions, whereas an "instinct" would be more rigid and fixed; e.g. when a man sees a car, he is forced (even against his will) to buy it.


You are saying that if it were an instinct it would be fixed and rigid, much as we might expect from a person trying to avoid drowning are rigid and fixed. What do you mean by the term ‘will’? If a person has been conditioned to behave in certain ways by their environment acting upon his biology, his will must be a complex mix of both of these forces, and while everyones biology is different, as is their environment, I cannot see where something like a will (assuming some degree of autonomy and choice) fits in here, and how it can be seen to be something separate to common mechanisms.


I'm using the term "will" informally there. I just meant to refer to the idea of something like conscious desire (what the person thinks they want, as opposed to some potential unconscious or evolutionary cause that really drives their behavior).

TMB wrote:
Mr. Samsa wrote:If there was a FAP that was triggered upon seeing a shark, then you would see every individual of the human race react in the exact same way everytime they see a shark (or even a picture or film of a shark). If the proposed reaction is something like, "try to swim away" then we should see aquarium staff doing this every time they try to feed a shark or audiences of Jaws trying to swim away in their seats.


Surely the key factor would be the reality of being faced by a shark as opposed to facsimiles of sharks. I understand that gulls can be deceived to some degree by the red spot into a FAP, but surely when faced with actually drowning people behave in a way similar enough to be a FAP?


If a "fear of shark" FAP was so complicated that it required a realistic shark then it would be unlike any other FAP we have seen. It would also require so much neural resources and evolutionary force to make it an ultimately wasteful innate behavior given how little interaction we have with sharks.

The behavior of drowning people is relatively uniform, yes, but it's not enough to be classified as a FAP. There are many universal behaviors which aren't innate, like eating hot liquids from a bowl rather than a plate.

TMB wrote:
Mr. Samsa wrote:The kind of innate reaction that humans are claimed to have in regards to dangerous animals, like spiders or snakes, is more along the lines of an idea called "prepared learning" or "preparedness". The idea is that whilst there is no instinctual relationship with those creatures, we have been primed by evolution to be able to easily make the association between "that animal" and "danger". There are major problems with this hypothesis, the main being that there is no real evidence that humans pick up a fear of spiders or snakes easier than other things, and there's the more fundamental problem in the fact that the idea of "preparedness" in learning theory has largely been rejected. Instead of organisms being "prepared" (or "unprepared" and "counterprepared"), it seems that there are just methodological issues surrounding experimental designs which determine how effective a learnt association is.


So once again humans are conditioned by their environment and society to react to various stimuli, once again this raises the question of ‘will’. Depending upon what the function of our will is, surely it would be something that allows us not to be conditioned, in which case its surely a matter of being part of our common biology, and while we do have different biologies, you would then expect to find vast numbers of people unmoved by conditioning?


As far as I know, there is nobody that is not affected by conditioning and I'd argue that such a thing is not even logically possible.

TMB wrote:As regards animals, see this link that says that mice have an innate ability to identify predators smells and respond. If this is the case then surely if we are different to animals in kind, we might also have innate reactions to some stimuli?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 162701.htm


Certainly! It's definitely possible that we might have innate reactions to some animals, the point is just that there is currently no evidence that we actually do have them.

TMB wrote:
Mr. Samsa wrote:Sexual responses are incredibly complex and certainly can't be reduced to an instinct (otherwise people would be forced to have sex whenever aroused). There are definitely biological components involved, and these would be considered "primary reinforcers". In regards to the "undergoing a readiness for sex response", this would largely just be a physiological reaction like getting goosebumps when cold or having an increase in heartbeat when scared.


So you are saying that something like an instinct will force a behaviour to happen?


Yes, instincts, FAPs, innate behaviors, etc, are set responses that are triggered by specific stimuli. That is, it's a simple "If A, then B" reaction where every time A is presented, B occurs. If sex was an instinct then every time A is presented (a woman, breasts, some smell, or whatever) then B (sex) must occur. The fact that it doesn't means that it's not an instinct.

TMB wrote:Why does the act of sex have to occur for this to be ‘enforced’. Surely any reaction that it innate and taken to a certain point can be considered. You have said that in order for a sexual response to be considered instinctive (or similar), we need to be forced to have sex. Why is stopping before this point make it invalid as an ‘instinct’? What criteria defines that the act of sex is the point at which we judge. If a person is sexually attracted to another, why is this not considered the entire behaviour.


It can be, I just don't think "sex" should be conflated with "sexual attraction". There are definitely aspects of sexual attraction which are innate (there's some research on smells and feelings towards certain hormones) and the question would simply be whether this is an "instinct" (a behavior) or just a physiological response.

TMB wrote:The fact that this does happen, and most people then control their ‘sexual urges’ and prevent themselves from actually performing the sex act not qualify as a ‘instinct’ or similar because at least the first stage of the process is autonomic?


The "sex" part wouldn't be instinctual simply because the first part was autonomic, in the same way 'eating' isn't an instinct simply because it's often caused by a physiological sensation of hunger pains.

TMB wrote:
Mr. Samsa wrote:What are these behaviours (as distinct from innate responses), and what happens at 6 months for them to disappear. If there are other things that exist that were previously known as instincts, like a desire to stay alive or have sex, how are these defined and described?
Most of them are basic behavioral responses that are termed the "primitive reflexes" like the stepping response (where a baby will make a "walking" motion when the pad of their feet are touched) or the suckling response (where they start to suck whenever something is pressed against their lips). Even though some of these are termed "reflexes", it's a bit of a misnomer as behaviors like the suckling response are better described as fixed-action patterns (but that's probably not overly relevant to this discussion).


As I said earlier my interest is understanding how it all hangs together. Intuitively I do not believe that it is possible to have something, a behaviour, or reflex that arises in a vacuum. I believe that every effect is preceded by a cause(s), however complex and inscrutable it might appear and when it comes to behaviour, regardless of the complex interaction between nature and nurture, that most if not all behaviours will be subject to innate biology, however remotely. This does not mean that a person wants to wear a yellow cycling jersey because he has a ‘yellow jersey’ gene, but you can be sure if he has no genes, he wont have a jersey either.


It doesn't occur in a vacuum though, it does reduce down to innate processes - the ability to learn (i.e. "avoid pain, approach pleasure") and biological states that create pain and pleasure. From there, instincts often not only become unnecessary but they can even be detrimental. Having fixed behaviors can be useful for young creatures first experiencing the world, or for organisms that have a lifespan that lasts only days or weeks, because the time spent learning a behavior reduces their ability to actually survive and pass along their genes. However, when you get to animals that live longer (especially like us, who live 70+ years), having fixed behaviors that cannot adjust to, or account for, changes in the environment then we basically just hang ourselves out to dry.

TMB wrote:
Mr. Samsa wrote:Why do they disappear? That's a difficult question to answer and I don't think a concrete answer has been presented yet. The main theories at the moment suggest that they are either lost as a result of inhibiting processes (like the massive amounts of culling that goes on in a babies' life could clean out unneeded neural space or new learnt behaviors are incompatible with the instinct and block it from appearing) or they are integrated into new behaviors and are still there on a fundamental level but simply aren't as obvious.


Does this mean that it will only operate on certain of these reflexes/FAPs and not others? Presumably the tendency to try and avoid drowning would be very difficult to overcome even with much learning. People are able to commit suicide using various means thus overcoming a reflex to live, but I do not think too many people could hold their head under water long enough to die. I can see that certain reflexes become redundant at various ages and stages, in which case they get culled and then tested to see if the individual survives without them.


The reason why it's difficult to cause yourself to drown is because after a certain point you pass out, which allows you to float to the surface and sometimes roll over allowing you to breathe again.

TMB wrote:
Mr. Samsa wrote:I'm not saying that the difference would definitely disappear but rather that it's a massive environmental confound that could explain the difference. And it's not just less women being prepared to put in the same degree of work (because they are affected by negative social pressures) but also the fact that many women drop out of sport entirely because of those social pressures. So from a purely statistical perspective, even if both groups were equal but the women had a significant drop-off rate early on in these athlete's careers, then we should expect that world records are held primarily (or even entirely) by men.

In other words, I was just highlighting the obvious problem with trying to use records and stats to demonstrate an innate difference.


What about other differences that might explain the differences in results?
The hip and shoulder/arm structures are different between men and women, womens wider hips being less suitable for sprinting.


Certainly, that's a definite possibility. The point isn't that there are no innate differences, the point is that it's difficult to figure out if there is a need to ponder innate differences and, if so, to what extent they are needed to explain the differences.

TMB wrote:Also the fact that the differences in records/times etc are replicated at every level of the sport, at school level, state, club etc.


But cultural explanations would predict this as well.

TMB wrote:Olympic level is the most easy to measure as it represents the elite. Here the other difference that comes out is the consistent differences depending upon the discipline, track events are different by around 10% while track events like the hammer, javelin etc are different by around 30%. I don’t see a lot of evidence that the differences are as a result of conditioning or bias.


Again, there might be innate differences here but also, we can't discount the fact that we'd expect there to be a greater difference in events that are traditionally considered "masculine". Earlier I mentioned the experiences of Jessica Ennis who considered refusing to become a track athlete as a teenager because she was afraid of the effect it would have on her appearance (i.e. looking more "manly"), so you can imagine how much harder it would have been if she was choosing to become a weightlifter or shotputter.

DavidMcC wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:If there was a FAP that was triggered upon seeing a shark, then you would see every individual of the human race react in the exact same way everytime they see a shark (or even a picture or film of a shark).

A. Mammalian instincts are not insectile FAPs.
B. Fear would be triggered by the seeing sharp, pointy things coming at you. Likewise, hunger is what provides the motivation to find food, albeit not the know-how, or the know-how to catch it.


And that's how the learning works. There is no instinct there. There is no known instinct to "avoid sharp, pointy things".

DavidMcC wrote:The main problem with Mr.S is rather like that I saw certain other posters years ago - a refusal to recognise that when a conference of specialists decides to change the "official" definition of a word, that does not invalidate arguments based on the original word usage. All that is necessary is to change the word in question. Thus, in this case, if the word, "instinct" was replaced with the phrase "mammalian instinct" (EDIT: or "drive"), there would be no problem, given that such an "instinct" involves the use of learning the details of the response, because mammals do not have an insect-style "mushroom body" in their brains that I think contains "programmable fixed patterns".


The problem is not terminology and I have never argued that someone is wrong because they are using the word terminology. The problem is that the concept being put forward by you is not consistent with the evidence and data that we have.

DavidMcC wrote:The science issue I have with Mr.S on this is that he assumes that what I have called "mammalian instinct" (and he calls drive), is going to be exactly the same (in behavioural terms) in all individuals if it is of genetic origin. I have tried to explain that that is not correct, because it is only the motivation that is of genetic origin, not the detailed behaviour (which is mainly learned, and therefore subject to cultural influences, even if the motivation is not).


Then you are not describing "instinct", you are describing "learning". As such, I am still in agreement that such a thing occurs in all animals, and again I'll point out that those kinds of "instincts" are the same in insects and mammals.

TMB wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
On what basis would you say all of the above? Anything more than preconceived notions and common sense?


I'm going to take a stab in the dark and assume he's referring to Robert Trivers' ideas on sexual selection and parental investment. It has some support in the biological characteristics of animals, but breaks down when addressing behavioral evidence and there is really no current support in humans.


I might be reading into your post things you do not mean but it appears you have dismissed sexual selection and parental investment on the basis that Robert Trivers supports it. As does Dawkins and a number of others who are certainly better qualified that anyone on this forum both to propound their ideas and respond to any criticism of them. It sounds like the schoolyard 'my Dad can beat up your Dad' syndrome. I do not see much value in dismissing or validating ideas by name dropping. This approach would mean we can simply refer any attempt at argument to our negative or positive champion.


I think you've misunderstood me. I mentioned Trivers' because he is the major proponent behind the idea being presented. The idea is not wrong because it was presented by Trivers' (such an argument would be nonsensical as he is a brilliant scientist), and rather it is wrong because it is currently unsupported by evidence.

TMB wrote:I am aware of the impasse between behaviorist like Skinner versus Dawkins and his merry men, and (despite the many learned insights and undoubted scientific brilliance) it reduces to a contest between two gangs of stubborn kids who refuse to step away from their pet theory and advance everyones knowledge.


There's no impasse between behaviorists like Skinner and scientists like Dawkins, they both accept the same scientific evidence.

TMB wrote:I cannot see any logical flaws in the sexual selection model, however I have not delved into the behaviorist counter arguments. Mr Samsa since I assume you have, would you be interested in looking at the actual arguments put forward? I am happy to condense the salient points of sexual selection and I would be interested in the behaviorist counters to these?


It's not so much "behaviorist" counter arguments but just basic scientific objections. The main problem being that there is currently no evidence to support it in humans, especially when trying to use it to explain specific behavior.
Image
Mr.Samsa
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 35

Print view this post

Re: What cultural behavior do most women have in common

#384  Postby Imagination Theory » May 25, 2013 6:58 am

Isn't shaving ones armpit a semi recent thing, for both men and women? And it has not yet reached "all cultures" or even most.
Я пью за разоренный дом,
За злую жизнь мою,
За одиночество вдвоем,
И за тебя я пью, -
За ложь меня предавших губ,
За мертвый холод глаз,
За то, что мир жесток и груб,
За то, что Бог не спас.


Андре́евна

אני מתגעגע הביתה
User avatar
Imagination Theory
 
Posts: 5981

Botswana (bw)
Print view this post

Re: What cultural behavior do most women have in common

#385  Postby Imagination Theory » May 25, 2013 7:08 am

TMB wrote:Agrippina, you said
You're talking about women in your particular culture.
There are vast numbers of women everywhere outside of your own culture who don't shave anything.

I am not talking about my culture, however I agree there are certain cultures, like rural African women who do not remove body hair, however they remove in Asia, India and South America widely. Japan, India and Western Europe have a long tradition of removing female body hair, but the trend is clearly driving the removal of body hair.

Are we talking about countries or cultures? :scratch:
Я пью за разоренный дом,
За злую жизнь мою,
За одиночество вдвоем,
И за тебя я пью, -
За ложь меня предавших губ,
За мертвый холод глаз,
За то, что мир жесток и груб,
За то, что Бог не спас.


Андре́евна

אני מתגעגע הביתה
User avatar
Imagination Theory
 
Posts: 5981

Botswana (bw)
Print view this post

Re: What cultural behavior do most women have in common

#386  Postby The_Metatron » May 25, 2013 10:21 am

Imagination Theory wrote:Isn't shaving ones armpit a semi recent thing, for both men and women? And it has not yet reached "all cultures" or even most.

Men? Never heard that before.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21065
Age: 57
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What cultural behavior do most women have in common

#387  Postby Agrippina » May 25, 2013 11:44 am

The only body hair that really bothers me is extreme facial hair on women. There's something just wrong about a bearded woman. :grin:
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What cultural behavior do most women have in common

#388  Postby Imagination Theory » May 27, 2013 1:49 am

Beatrice wrote:
TMB wrote:
Beatrice wrote:
TMB wrote: and although French women are more likely to be unshaven than British women this has becomes less so in the past 30 years.

What stats are you basing this on? It doesn't at all fit my experience as a French woman.


How have you interpreted by assertion? By this I mean that 30 years ago hair removal/concealment would have been more common among British women than among French women. Today I would say that both for British and French women more are removing hair than 30 years ago, however French women probably remove hair less than British women. What is your experience?


Yes, that is how I interpreted your assertion.
Once again, have you any stats to support this? My experience is that French women are pretty anal when it comes to removing body hair, and that was also true 30 years ago. I have no idea where this myth about French women not shaving comes from, I've heard it many times and it leaves me scratching my head.
I'm going to drop this particular subject however, as all we are doing here is trading anecdotes


History does tell us that even 30 years ago people in France removed more body hair then say people in the UK or I think any other country. I heard the myth came about because "shaving" is not as common, though "waxing" is. People in Poland have the highest IQ's and people in the UK have the best dental health. So, so much for that. :lol:
Я пью за разоренный дом,
За злую жизнь мою,
За одиночество вдвоем,
И за тебя я пью, -
За ложь меня предавших губ,
За мертвый холод глаз,
За то, что мир жесток и груб,
За то, что Бог не спас.


Андре́евна

אני מתגעגע הביתה
User avatar
Imagination Theory
 
Posts: 5981

Botswana (bw)
Print view this post

Re: What cultural behavior do most women have in common

#389  Postby Imagination Theory » May 27, 2013 1:55 am

The_Metatron wrote:
Imagination Theory wrote:Isn't shaving ones armpit a semi recent thing, for both men and women? And it has not yet reached "all cultures" or even most.

Men? Never heard that before.


It goes in and out of style, and I think it has only been in style semi recently so I don't see how the OP can say it looks to him like it will stay around for forever. :scratch:
Я пью за разоренный дом,
За злую жизнь мою,
За одиночество вдвоем,
И за тебя я пью, -
За ложь меня предавших губ,
За мертвый холод глаз,
За то, что мир жесток и груб,
За то, что Бог не спас.


Андре́евна

אני מתגעגע הביתה
User avatar
Imagination Theory
 
Posts: 5981

Botswana (bw)
Print view this post

Re: What cultural behavior do most women have in common

#390  Postby HughMcB » May 27, 2013 1:13 pm

Imagination Theory wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
Imagination Theory wrote:Isn't shaving ones armpit a semi recent thing, for both men and women? And it has not yet reached "all cultures" or even most.

Men? Never heard that before.


It goes in and out of style, and I think it has only been in style semi recently so I don't see how the OP can say it looks to him like it will stay around for forever. :scratch:

Plenty of men shave their pits and chest. Unless it's for hydrodynamic purposes I really don't see the point.

As for me, I'm bringing the Tom Selleck hairy chest back.

[Reveal] Spoiler: Me + moustache :lol:
Image
"So we're just done with phrasing?"
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
 
Posts: 19113
Age: 36
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: What cultural behavior do most women have in common

#391  Postby Imagination Theory » May 27, 2013 10:45 pm

Ewwwwwww! :lol:

I like the way people look without all the hair. All the guys I know except my dad shave their armpits and chest and some of them their legs.
Я пью за разоренный дом,
За злую жизнь мою,
За одиночество вдвоем,
И за тебя я пью, -
За ложь меня предавших губ,
За мертвый холод глаз,
За то, что мир жесток и груб,
За то, что Бог не спас.


Андре́евна

אני מתגעגע הביתה
User avatar
Imagination Theory
 
Posts: 5981

Botswana (bw)
Print view this post

Re: What cultural behavior do most women have in common

#392  Postby Scot Dutchy » May 28, 2013 10:32 am

Imagination Theory wrote:Ewwwwwww! :lol:

I like the way people look without all the hair. All the guys I know except my dad shave their armpits and chest and some of them their legs.


I shave my whole body except my head and I have shoulder length hair.

So do plenty of men I see in the sauna.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 71
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: What cultural behavior do most women have in common

#393  Postby proudfootz » May 29, 2013 4:28 am

The_Metatron wrote:
Imagination Theory wrote:Isn't shaving ones armpit a semi recent thing, for both men and women? And it has not yet reached "all cultures" or even most.

Men? Never heard that before.


Image

People do all kinds of kooky things.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10970

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What cultural behavior do most women have in common

#394  Postby TMB » May 29, 2013 5:34 am

Imagination Theory wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
Imagination Theory wrote:Isn't shaving ones armpit a semi recent thing, for both men and women? And it has not yet reached "all cultures" or even most.

Men? Never heard that before.


It goes in and out of style, and I think it has only been in style semi recently so I don't see how the OP can say it looks to him like it will stay around for forever. :scratch:


So do see any evidence to suggest that the current trend for women to shave legs and armpits, and evidenced by the majority or role models, like athletes, sportswomen, actresses, and most western women, is about to shave such that in the near future you would expect to see armpit hair returning? Forever is too long a time frame, however I would say that hair removal has been on the increase since the safety razor was invented and people saw they could make a dollar from doing it. In the past 20 years the majority of eastern bloc athletes and sports women know remove body hair to match their western counterparts.
TMB
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: What cultural behavior do most women have in common

#395  Postby Agrippina » May 29, 2013 6:04 am

proudfootz wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
Imagination Theory wrote:Isn't shaving ones armpit a semi recent thing, for both men and women? And it has not yet reached "all cultures" or even most.

Men? Never heard that before.


Image

People do all kinds of kooky things.


That looks too "boyish" for my taste. I prefer grown men to look like adults with body hair. Women, I don't care too much about as I'm not likely to want to explore them. I just find facial hair in women a little distracting.
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What cultural behavior do most women have in common

#396  Postby Imagination Theory » Jun 01, 2013 1:28 am

DavidMcC wrote:I haven't read this entire thread, but I suspect that the principal cultural gender division has been "spiked" as it were, by the OP distinguishing between mothers and other women. Why do I say that? Because looking after baby is the principal cultural behaviour shared by most women - when they have one. In other words, it is an instinctive desire to do so that is shared by all women, regardless of whether they are actual mothers or not.
In spite of exceptions, such as Metatron, they also tend to do most of the domestic work, although that is probably a less fundamental aspect - one that is mainly propagated by male dominance, perhaps.


I don't think that is true. And I know not all women share that. And if true for women the same can be said for men and those with neither genders.:scratch:
Я пью за разоренный дом,
За злую жизнь мою,
За одиночество вдвоем,
И за тебя я пью, -
За ложь меня предавших губ,
За мертвый холод глаз,
За то, что мир жесток и груб,
За то, что Бог не спас.


Андре́евна

אני מתגעגע הביתה
User avatar
Imagination Theory
 
Posts: 5981

Botswana (bw)
Print view this post

Re: What cultural behavior do most women have in common

#397  Postby Imagination Theory » Jun 01, 2013 1:35 am

TMB wrote:
Imagination Theory wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
Imagination Theory wrote:Isn't shaving ones armpit a semi recent thing, for both men and women? And it has not yet reached "all cultures" or even most.

Men? Never heard that before.


It goes in and out of style, and I think it has only been in style semi recently so I don't see how the OP can say it looks to him like it will stay around for forever. :scratch:


So do see any evidence to suggest that the current trend for women to shave legs and armpits, and evidenced by the majority or role models, like athletes, sportswomen, actresses, and most western women, is about to shave such that in the near future you would expect to see armpit hair returning? Forever is too long a time frame, however I would say that hair removal has been on the increase since the safety razor was invented and people saw they could make a dollar from doing it. In the past 20 years the majority of eastern bloc athletes and sports women know remove body hair to match their western counterparts.


I don't know and neither do you. It already has been in and out of style.
Я пью за разоренный дом,
За злую жизнь мою,
За одиночество вдвоем,
И за тебя я пью, -
За ложь меня предавших губ,
За мертвый холод глаз,
За то, что мир жесток и груб,
За то, что Бог не спас.


Андре́евна

אני מתגעגע הביתה
User avatar
Imagination Theory
 
Posts: 5981

Botswana (bw)
Print view this post

Re: What cultural behavior do most women have in common

#398  Postby Imagination Theory » Jun 01, 2013 1:40 am

Agrippina wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
Imagination Theory wrote:Isn't shaving ones armpit a semi recent thing, for both men and women? And it has not yet reached "all cultures" or even most.

Men? Never heard that before.


Image

People do all kinds of kooky things.


That looks too "boyish" for my taste. I prefer grown men to look like adults with body hair. Women, I don't care too much about as I'm not likely to want to explore them. I just find facial hair in women a little distracting.


When I was little I didn't know humans had body hair except for the hair and eyebrows. Everyone I knew waxed. My brothers plucked their eye brows more than my sisters even. :lol:

I am the only one who doesn't shave, but my body hair is very thin, very, very short and light so maybe if it was long black and curly I would. I don't know. Probably so it wouldn't get matty and I could put lotion on, etc. Does it matter?
Я пью за разоренный дом,
За злую жизнь мою,
За одиночество вдвоем,
И за тебя я пью, -
За ложь меня предавших губ,
За мертвый холод глаз,
За то, что мир жесток и груб,
За то, что Бог не спас.


Андре́евна

אני מתגעגע הביתה
User avatar
Imagination Theory
 
Posts: 5981

Botswana (bw)
Print view this post

Re: What cultural behavior do most women have in common

#399  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Jun 01, 2013 1:47 am

Heh, I don't think so. I love hair but I'm not horrified by a lack of it. My last partner shaved his pits. Whatever. He had no problem with me after four months of tree planting during which the only parts of me without hair were those that never had it or it had been lased off of.
what a terrible image
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: speaking moistly
Posts: 13490
Age: 32
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: What cultural behavior do most women have in common

#400  Postby TMB » Mar 29, 2014 2:30 am

This article comments Madonnas recent public display of unshaven pits, and given the rash of articles following this, most commentators seem to think that this is a significant social event.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.582441
TMB
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Sociology

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest