View Full Version : Nature or culture?
There is a funny thing happened many times while discussing with my friends here : "men in their nature are..." and "women in their nature are..." (I heard it too in Canada, but much more oftenly here).
Usually it goes like that :
- Friend : In their nature, women are more sensitive and shy than men. In their nature, men like to be leader, to be in the front.
- Me : French canadian women are not more sensitive and shy than men, and they also like to lead and be in the front. So I think this is not from the inherent women or men nature, but from the education patterns.
- Friend : ...
Or :
- Friend : In their nature, women like to take care of others' well-being while men are naturally selfish.
- Me : I'm a women and don't care about you and the rest of the world except my cat!
- Friend : ...
(ok, this one I never said it, i don't know how to say "I don't care" in Bahasa Indonesia).
Or (my favourite) :
- Me : Why it's socially acceptable here for a man to get more than one sexual partner in his life, and it is absolutly not for a woman to do the same?
- Friend : Because in their nature, men have high sexual needs and women, in their nature, don't much like sex.
- Me, thinking : (:nono: don't answer this one, don't answer this one, keep the shut off...)
This is not about the differences about men and women.
This is about to know if those differences result from the way we educate little boys and little girls in a particular cultural context, or from some inherent nature we do get following our biological sex?
well, Men cant be sexually equal to women......we cant get pregnant, thats for sure..... Once women are at it, 9 months is such a long time to have a sexual break....
That could be where the stereotyped comes from....
well, Men cant be sexually equal to women......we cant get pregnant, thats for sure..... Once women are at it, 9 months is such a long time to have a sexual break....
Hah? Where did you get that from? Who said they had a break?
I'm with you Sopie, there is no such things as what you described
Hah? Where did you get that from? Who said they had a break?
Holy Cow....
They dont ? where do you hanging out at ????
lone_ranger
17-01-11, 21:00
Sopie, I can highly recommend Jared Diamond's "Why is sex fun: the evolution of human sexuality" where he tries to answer some of your probing questions. For instance, among the many classes of primates, there is a correlation between testicle size and sexual promiscuity. And yes, you guess it, human males fall somewhere between chimpanzees and gorillas. His other book, "The Third Chimpanzee" is another good read. Be forewarned though, if you're a Creationist, then most of his books will leave a bitter taste in your mouth.
Hombre de Maiz
17-01-11, 21:11
Nature or culture? A false dichotomy.
Well, there are inherent differences between men and women. However, they are just generalizations. Men are stronger. Generally. Men are more competitive. Generally.
Some of the differences are kind of cool. Such as women being able to see more shades of colors than men.
Women have higher average IQ's. Men have more IQ variance. Women tend to think quicker and more accurately than men. Men tend to be notably better at spacial reasoning, mental math and abstract reasoning.
Ect. These are all just generalizations though and have no bearing on any particular individual. Men and women have far more similarities than differences and neither is "better" than the other.
As for nature vs nurture (as we always said it back home), it's not an either/or but a both situation. Nature and your environment combine to make people the way they are.
Your friend also could have debunked your rebuttal by simply pointing out that anecdotal evidence has no bearing on a generalization.
Be forewarned though, if you're a Creationist, then most of his books will leave a bitter taste in your mouth.
Be forewarned though, if you're a Creationist, then you're an idiot.
Hombre de Maiz
17-01-11, 21:34
People can observe for themselves that women's and men's bodies are noticeably different. This, because of the different cocktail and sequencing of hormones starting from the moment of conception. Yet people can't seem to accept that, just as in the rest of the body, the brains of men and women might just be arranged and wired just a bit differently, all under the action of the same cocktail of hormones. For some, the brain and nervous system might as well develop autonomously and in isolation from the rest of the body.
Sky Garden
17-01-11, 21:40
Wasn't there a recent post about stereotyping?
People can observe for themselves that women's and men's bodies are noticeably different. This, because of the different cocktail and sequencing of hormones starting from the moment of conception. Yet people can't seem to accept that, just as in the rest of the body, the brains of men and women might just be arranged and wired just a bit differently, all under the action of the same cocktail of hormones.
Yes we have different bodies, but does those biological differences are enough to explain our different personnalities?
When we born, our brains are almost the same. It's just later, with the stimulations from our environment (notably our education), men's and women's brains got differents.
And individual are not affect the same way with the same quantity of hormones. Men have biologically more testosteron, but what about if women need less quantity of testosteron to get sparklings in the panties?
I personnaly think the whole humanity got totally wrong with the assumption of men more sexual-oriented than women.
Same for almost all generalizations Elithium wrote down. We have been brain washed to believe it.
Hombre de Maiz
17-01-11, 22:03
Inform yourself here: Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate (http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0670031518)
lone_ranger
17-01-11, 22:08
Inform yourself here: Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate (http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0670031518)
I'll second that suggestion, Pinker's is an excellent book.
Hombre de Maiz
17-01-11, 22:11
It not only goes through the neuroscience, biology and evolutionary evidence for our very distinct nature, but also about the politics of what can be said, what has been deemed to be acceptable to be said, what has established an orthodoxy in the nurture/nature debate in which the mere suggestion that nature plays a role has been sidelined.
Hmm..what else ..how about the fact that men are capable to produce millions of sperm while women are only capable to produce single egg in a month?
From evolutianary point of view, what can we conclude from this fact.
Btw, I know a case of a woman which after she recovered from a brain trauma (she got a near fatal accident in the head), her sexual appetite is higher than before the accident,and some other personality change. I was told by her husband about this. After that, I google for similar cases , and actually it's well documented case .
Human brain is a complex system, scientist all over the world are still trying to figure out how this system works.
Hombre de Maiz
17-01-11, 22:25
Hmm..what else ..how about the fact that men are capable to produce millions of sperm while women are only capable to produce single egg in a month?
From evolutianary point of view, what can we conclude from this fact.
That sperm is cheap, relative to eggs? That conception depends on sperm competition among males inside the female body, not on physical competition among males out on the plains of the savana? There are many possible conclusions.
Hmm..what else ..how about the fact that men are capable to produce millions of sperm while women are only capable to produce single egg in a month?
From evolutianary point of view, what can we conclude from this fact
The male product is so inferior that it needs millions just to ensure that one can have a remote chance of reaching its destination, whereas the female product is so near perfect it only has to lie around waiting for that one little squiggly thing to hit its target and commence fertilization. Unfortunately (or fortunately in some people's eyes) even that one doesn't always make it home!! Keep it up guys!! http://cdn.livinginindonesiaforum.org/images/icons/icon12.png
Hombre de Maiz
17-01-11, 22:40
So, what were are saying is that there are many possible conclusions.
waarmstrong
17-01-11, 23:28
... while women are only capable to produce single egg in a month...
Actually that is not true. Women can produce multiple eggs simultaneously. I do believe that research supports the notion that the total number of eggs a women can produce in her life time is finite.
All I know is that generally speaking men and women have the same level of sexual appetite, women just tend to hide it much better than men do.
Brigadier Van Der Schnoof
18-01-11, 01:13
Hmm..what else ..how about the fact that men are capable to produce millions of sperm while women are only capable to produce single egg in a month?
From evolutianary point of view, what can we conclude from this fact.
I remember a target practice session where my general said - "What's this? One hole in the target's head? You just wasted 5 minutes aiming your shot! Typhon's target is shred to pieces and he did it in 10 seconds with his M-16. You're here to do kills son, not to make art out of them."
It's always the same story. Your chances of making a kill increase with each bullet that flies out of your gun. That's what evolution figured out. One target with a bunch of scouts racing towards it.
Later, :plane:
Brigadier
Hey Brigs,
Anything your general didn't say?
Brigadier Van Der Schnoof
18-01-11, 01:19
Son, I didn't take note of what my general wasn't saying.
Later, :plane:
Brigadier
... Once women are at it, 9 months is such a long time to have a sexual break.....
I've been in my 9 months period twice, and at that time, I had never get enough of sex.
You need to learn more, kiddo.
I think there's a lot of truth to the idea that people will live up (or down) to the expectations that we set for them.
Most of the XX contingency grows up hearing about men and their voracious sexual appetites. Most of us XY'ers learn that ladies aren't supposed to be overtly sexual.
Despite that, there are MANY men with low sex drives and MANY women with high sex drives. I would also argue that the baseline sex drive for men and women is about the same.
Despite that, you'd be hard-pressed to find a man openly discussing his lacking libido and you'd have to look pretty hard (especially in Indonesia) to find a woman willing to talk about her high sex drive.
It's not about what's in our nature, it's about the societal norms that have been prescribed for our behavior. (For the record, I don't agree with most of those norms at all.)
Hmm..what else ..how about the fact that men are capable to produce millions of sperm while women are only capable to produce single egg in a month?
From evolutianary point of view, what can we conclude from this fact.
.
as appealing as it may be to do so, tis fraught with danger.
Hombre de Maiz
18-01-11, 10:47
... Your chances of making a kill increase with each bullet that flies out of your gun. That's what evolution figured out. One target with a bunch of scouts racing towards it.
Later, :plane:
Brigadier
I'm afraid that it's not that simple, Brigadier. Yours is a false analogy or bad accounting. Nature and evolution also takes into account the price of the bullets, which your analogy does not.
- Me : Why it's socially acceptable here for a man to get more than one sexual partner in his life, and it is absolutly not for a woman to do the same?
- Friend : Because in their nature, men have high sexual needs and women, in their nature, don't much like sex.
- Me, thinking : (:nono: don't answer this one, don't answer this one, keep the shut off...)
(im women 29 y/o) haahhhhaa..
""men have high sexual needs and women, in their nature, don't much like sex"...???..
so im not women??:confused2: because i have high sexual drive...(hahhahaha)
yeah beside on my fact, its culture...
culture in here is, if women have high sexsual then men, its means not good women (ohh pitty of me :tongue1:)
The biggest sexual organ is the brain, so I think ingrained culture can affect sexual drive.
Thank you Ranger and Hombre for books suggestions.
I did enjoy Diamond's Collapse few years ago.
For Pinker, I'll try to read in English first, but I'm afraid I will have to wait until I get a French version.
Sam, I 100% agree with you.
I'm don't believe in creationism mythology and I personally rely on sciences, including social sciences (while I like study different religions and forms of spirituality because it's also fun and very interesting). But the bad thing with sciences is we can use it to proof a thing and its opposite.
So the question of the biological determination of women and men specific characters entirely stay open for me : How to explain there is so many cultural differences in the world and across the history, if we are not for the most part a product of the education and culture we got? Hormones are totally influence by our environment, which include our education and our cultural context.
Take depression for example : We acknowledges it's cause by a deficit of one, two or three kinds of neurotransmitters (like the serotonin). This deficit is cause by an over-use of those hormones, generally by living on a long-time a stressful daily life.
Where I come from, a lot of people are touch by it. But here in South Sulawesi, only few cases. South Sulawesian people, culturally, don't bother themselves with the 1000 things that usually stress Westerners. I saw my friends here dealing with huge complex problem with calm and patience while bule we were half crazy to fix the thing as soon as possible.
Brigadier Van Der Schnoof
18-01-11, 11:18
I'm afraid that it's not that simple, Brigadier. Yours is a false analogy or bad accounting. Nature and evolution also takes into account the price of the bullets, which your analogy does not
My General used to say - "Don't worry about the cost of firing many bullets. Trust me, it costs us way more to train a sniper. He has to learn about ballistics, the wind's influence on trajectory, and how various bullets and guns play out with these parameters. It's always cheaper to send 100 quickly shot bullets, than 1 perfectly placed shot."
Evolution probably figured out the same thing. 1 million sperms racing towards their target must be cheaper to produce than 1 super sperm able to withstand all the obstacles in its way. The fact that the body can produce millions of sperms daily is testament to their feasibility and cheapness of production.
Evolution always seems to favour the numbers game in this regard. We can think of thousands of turtles being born on a beach racing to make it to the waters before they are picked of by predators. Or the millions of pollen molecules unleashed by flowers in an attempt to proliferate themselves.
Do you have an example of a time when nature prefers to create the prefect vessel, instead of sending many imperfect but more easily created ones for the task of reproduction?
Later, :plane:
Brigadier
Brigadier Van Der Schnoof
18-01-11, 11:27
But the bad thing with sciences is we can use it to proof a thing and its opposite.
I never heard of such a case. Can you give us an example?
Later, :plane:
Brigadier
Do you have an example of a time when nature prefers to create the prefect vessel, instead of sending many imperfect but more easily created ones for the task of reproduction?
Most large mammals use a K selected strategy for reproduction.
Brigadier Van Der Schnoof
18-01-11, 11:37
Most large mammals use a K selected strategy for reproduction.
Using K strategy instead of R strategy for reproduction only moves the problem to another area. In R strategy, you produce many offsprings knowing only some will survive. It's impossible to aim towards strong offsprings because the environment is changing quickly and is thus unpredictable. Because you can't foresee the traits your offspring will need in a particular environment, you create many offsprings with slightly different traits. Mammals who use the K strategy live in areas where the environment is more predictable so they can concentrate on creating a few strong offsprings instead of many weaker ones.
However, mammals who use the K strategy still produce many vessels to go after their target. Humans, for example, follow the K strategy producing few offsprings, but still millions of sperms.
Do you have an example of a mammal using the K strategy and also generating only one super sperm per female egg?
When does nature act as a farmer with few seeds who spends all the care in the world to make sure his few seeds have the best possible chance for success? Isn't nature lazy? Isn't it the other way around? A farmer who throws a million seeds, and who is then content to see but one tree being born from his efforts?
Later, :plane:
Brigadier
lone_ranger
18-01-11, 11:45
Sopie - You're on to something there re: cultural differences. DNA sets the policy but nurture determines how we implement those policies. But let's not confuse sexual appetite with male promiscuity, where the male modus operandi is to disseminate and inseminate, while in females it is primarily resource acquisition, or finding a quality partner who will stick around long enough to ensure the well being of their offspring.
Brigadier - Not so much mammals but some fish such as hammerhead sharks are capable of asexual reproduction. No sperm required even.
Brigadier Van Der Schnoof
18-01-11, 11:54
Good example Lone_ranger. However, it's important to note that creatures using parthenogenesis (whereby an egg can develop without being fertilized) usually produce many more eggs than creatures who use the more common method of fertilization. Fish can lay thousands of eggs for example. The problem only changes hands.
Later, :plane:
Brigadier
I think there's a lot of truth to the idea that people will live up (or down) to the expectations that we set for them.
Most of the XX contingency grows up hearing about men and their voracious sexual appetites. Most of us XY'ers learn that ladies aren't supposed to be overtly sexual.
Despite that, there are MANY men with low sex drives and MANY women with high sex drives. I would also argue that the baseline sex drive for men and women is about the same.
Despite that, you'd be hard-pressed to find a man openly discussing his lacking libido and you'd have to look pretty hard (especially in Indonesia) to find a woman willing to talk about her high sex drive.
It's not about what's in our nature, it's about the societal norms that have been prescribed for our behavior. (For the record, I don't agree with most of those norms at all.)
High sex drive huh. Jingle bells jingle bells jingle all the way.
- Me : Why it's socially acceptable here for a man to get more than one sexual partner in his life, and it is absolutly not for a woman to do the same?
- Friend : Because in their nature, men have high sexual needs and women, in their nature, don't much like sex.
- Me, thinking : (:nono: don't answer this one, don't answer this one, keep the shut off...)
(im women 29 y/o) haahhhhaa..
""men have high sexual needs and women, in their nature, don't much like sex"...???..
so im not women??:confused2: because i have high sexual drive...(hahhahaha)
yeah beside on my fact, its culture...
culture in here is, if women have high sexsual then men, its means not good women (ohh pitty of me :tongue1:)
Busy tonight? I like this thread.
Personally I subscribe to the "self" theory. Neither nature nor culture(nurture) is enough to hold one back if he/she wishes to be different than their culture/nature. Exceptions would be physical handicaps that cannot be overcome or compensated for...and that's rare.
Chemical imbalance: this is one that I think is important to recognize and acknowledge. Unfortunately we over acknowledge and over prescribe the medicines or at the very least use it as an excuse far too often.
Currently, there are slightly more men in the world than women.
Every time a man is having sex with a woman, obviously a woman is having sex with a man. So, homosexual sex aside, women are having sex more frequently than men are. This concept that men have sex more than women or more sexual partners is mathematically impossible given current gender biases.
One woman may be having sex with several men. How does that fit into the calculation?
One woman may be having sex with several men. How does that fit into the calculation?
It doesn't matter. Every time a man has sex with a woman, a woman is having sex with a man.
Watch, it's like this.
Lets say we have 3 (ABC) men and 2 (DE) women.
AE
AD
AE
AE
BE
BE
CD
CE
8 "couplings". The 3 men had sex a total of 8 times and the 2 women had sex a total of 8 times.
The men had sex, on average, 2.66 times each and women had sex, on average, 4 times each. Since there are more men than women, women will always have sex more, on average, than men.
Brigadier Van Der Schnoof
18-01-11, 18:37
Personally I subscribe to the "self" theory. Neither nature nor culture(nurture) is enough to hold one back if he/she wishes to be different than their culture/nature
My general used to say - "You are what you are, and so deal with that McGruff!".
I think he believed in Plato's idea that one is a product of his or her society. You can never escape your culture/nurture. It's impossible!
A Medieval person couldn't have, even if they had wanted, think like we do in the 21st century. Mozart could never have created a work like Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. And we can never think like how people will be thinking in 1000 years.
Later, :plane:
Brigadier
Brig: I am not sure I agree with that. If that were true 100%, we would never have pioneers, ground breakers, innovators, inventors. Culture used to think we can't fly, what made the Wright Brothers and many others try to fly? Heck the baloon was invented years prior.
If people can't escape your nurture/culture, then everyone in under the same conditions will have the same outcome. You can't say that no one who grew up in an Indonesian kampung has ever succeeded by all reasonable measures.
Sopie - You're on to something there re: cultural differences. DNA sets the policy but nurture determines how we implement those policies. But let's not confuse sexual appetite with male promiscuity, where the male modus operandi is to disseminate and inseminate, while in females it is primarily resource acquisition, or finding a quality partner who will stick around long enough to ensure the well being of their offspring.
Not agree that human female is naturally looking for a partner who will stick around long enough. That idea might be cultural too. We just need to fuck to get pregnant, and we can do it with many partners. Don't really need them to stay after it, specially if it means having to do their laundry.
Not agree that human female is naturally looking for a partner who will stick around long enough. That idea might be cultural too. We just need to fuck to get pregnant, and we can do it with many partners. Don't really need them to stay after it, specially if it means having to do their laundry.
Evolutionarily, you did need them to stick around. It is a lot more difficult for a single mother of 8 to get by in the wild alone.
Hombre de Maiz
19-01-11, 00:01
Sopie, you really do need to pick up Pinker's book asap.
Brigadier Van Der Schnoof
19-01-11, 02:37
Brig: I am not sure I agree with that. If that were true 100%, we would never have pioneers, ground breakers, innovators, inventors. Culture used to think we can't fly, what made the Wright Brothers and many others try to fly? Heck the baloon was invented years prior.
If people can't escape your nurture/culture, then everyone in under the same conditions will have the same outcome. You can't say that no one who grew up in an Indonesian kampung has ever succeeded by all reasonable measures.
You make it seem like these pioneers, the Wright brothers for example, were ahead of their time. Well, being ahead of your time is impossible. You are a product of your time.
Everyone will not have the same outcome because no one has the same nurture/culture. Everyone has a different brain, DNA, and different life experiences. But we are all subject to our time.
Pioneers are the ones who can see far till the limit of what is possible in their time. Then, they find a way to make that happen. The Wright brothers invented flight because they realized everything needed for flight (sciences) were ready in their time. People had tried to fly before and had failed. They succeeded.
If what you say is true, then the Wright brothers could have flown to Pluto. The fact is this wasn't possible in their time. They only did what was possible.
Later, :plane:
Brigadier
Evolutionarily, you did need them to stick around. It is a lot more difficult for a single mother of 8 to get by in the wild alone.
I may need other women sticking around so we raise children and manage the community together... I am absolutly not sure nature have create human female and human male to live two together, for the rest of their life, and share the same home and space community. I am not sure men and women are so interdependant.
And our understanding about what is a woman and what is a man had make things worse. We are educate in a totally different way, and then we learn we should get marry and live together for the rest of our life (and trying to understand why we both evoluate in two different psychologic world).
Sopie, you really do need to pick up Pinker's book asap.
I'll try, but I'm in Makassar. Last time I send a postal card here from Canada, it tooks 3 months.
I may need other women sticking around so we raise children together...
You are simply being obstinate. Of course in modern times a woman can be a single mother just fine, nor did I say otherwise. I said evolutionarily, meaning in the far distant past before we were civilized and were little more than smart apes in the wild, you would have needed a man. While you may not have needed to be "married", you would need the protection and support of men all the same.
It takes a long time for human children to grow and be independent, unlike with most other species. Most other species are mature in less than a year. This prolonged and increasing (more children) burden on a woman would cause her to need support.
Flash forward to today, woman would naturally desire the stability of male support. Hence why women tend to be more interested in marriage than men, regardless of the culture. Hence why all cultures had marriage of one form or another, whether it was purely a cultural construct or part of an elaborate religion.
Any woman (or culture) that did not follow the trend would be significantly less likely to thrive and their children would be far more likely to perish.
Does this mean that you are required to desperately want to get married? Of course not. It does mean that there is more to the generic social structure than simple dogma.
Hombre de Maiz
19-01-11, 09:43
This from Wikipedia's article on the term Sexual Dimorphism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism).
Sexual dimorphism in mammals and birds
The brains of many birds and mammals, including humans, are significantly different for males and females of the species.[11] Both genes and hormones affect the formation of many animal brains before "birth" (or hatching), and also behaviour of adult individuals. Hormones significantly affect human brain formation, and also brain development at puberty. A 2004 review in Nature Reviews Neuroscience observed that "because it is easier to manipulate hormone levels than the expression of sex chromosome genes, the effects of hormones have been studied much more extensively, and are much better understood, than the direct actions in the brain of sex chromosome genes." It concluded that while "the differentiating effects of gonadal secretions seem to be dominant," the existing body of research "support the idea that sex differences in neural expression of X and Y genes significantly contribute to sex differences in brain functions and disease."[12]
[12] ^ Arnold, A. P. (2004). "Sex chromosomes and brain gender". Nature Rev. Neurosci 5 (9): 701–708. doi:10.1038/nrn1494. PMID 15322528.
You are simply being obstinate.
You cannot say to people defending a point of view different from you "you are simply being obstinate". I could answer the same to you. It's a debate, I have a point of view but I'm not sure about my opinion on the topic, that it's why I defend it while asking question.
Of course in modern times a woman can be a single mother just fine, nor did I say otherwise. I said evolutionarily, meaning in the far distant past before we were civilized and were little more than smart apes in the wild, you would have needed a man. While you may not have needed to be "married", you would need the protection and support of men all the same.
I'm questionning assumption that humanity got long time ago but it have not been scientifically well proove. Into the wild, human together have better chance to survive than alone. That's not necessarly means women and men "naturally" have to stick together two by two. Possible configurations of pre-civilised human societies and families are multiple.
There is, for example, a community of women only living in the forest and they manage to survive very well until now (and no, thanks, I don't want to join them).
There is a lot of assumption we can make about the pre-civilised human state. I just want to question what we used to take for scientific thruth, which are not.
It takes a long time for human children to grow and be independent, unlike with most other species. Most other species are mature in less than a year. This prolonged and increasing (more children) burden on a woman would cause her to need support.
Theorically, human can be mature by 3 or 5 years old. Put a group a human in the jungle with a life expectation around 30-35 years old, and you will probably find very mature and clever little children.
Flash forward to today, woman would naturally desire the stability of male support. Hence why women tend to be more interested in marriage than men, regardless of the culture. Hence why all cultures had marriage of one form or another, whether it was purely a cultural construct or part of an elaborate religion.
Again assumption. If women are more interested in marriage than men (which I'm not sure it's universal), i think it's purely a cultural construction. From our childhood, we women learn that one day, a prince will come and save us and bring us happiness and joy (and if your lucky, a big diamond to the finger). And then (hopefully) you learn life become much more funny and useful when you stop to believe it.
Hombre de Maiz
19-01-11, 09:55
I don't know what species you belong to (and there's only one species of humans), but in my species humans do not and cannot become mature by age three to five years. A band of five year olds would stand no chance of competing in all respects with a band of adult humans. Not a chance.
I met little boys from an indigenous community living in the jungle, they were from 4 to 6 years old and far away much more mature than any children I ever see in my life. They were able to told me wich animals, plants and roots we can eat, how to cook them, which one are medicine. The also had already understood and intergrated community rules. Impressive.
Hombre de Maiz
19-01-11, 10:03
Ah, they were good at memorizing. Hardly the type of thinking that one needs to prevail over others...
Ah, they were good at memorizing. Hardly the type of thinking that one needs to prevail over others...
Perhaps, but I can't discount the possibility that little children can survive. I've seen signs of critical thinking and creativity and survival instincts in children even in America. Let alone in more primitive environment where it is a MUST.
lone_ranger
19-01-11, 10:45
I'm questionning assumption that humanity got long time ago but it have not been scientifically well proove. Into the wild, human together have better chance to survive than alone. That's not necessarly means women and men "naturally" have to stick together two by two. Possible configurations of pre-civilised human societies and families are multiple.
There is, for example, a community of women only living in the forest and they manage to survive very well until now (and no, thanks, I don't want to join them).
At the most basic level is the gene (the "selfish gene" as Dawkins puts it) that wants to replicate. There are group dynamics that evolved to support this, and also individual dynamics that also want to ensure survival of the next replicate. Everything else becomes trivial, whether one is in Ulan Bator or Oshkosh. But the individual gene trumps all others. So a community of women may very well survive in the wild but from whence would come their offspring? Unless, of course, there is no need to replicate, which is fair enough, because some women are not interested in offspring. As a species, groups of women who live in a commune will die off very quickly, or at least somewhat slowly if children are involved and no physically larger males are present to ward off dangerous elements.
On an evolutionary scale (say, 4 million years for primates), our genes have done very well indeed and have propagated themselves, whether we like it or not. Perhaps we'll perish within the next miliion years, who knows. Fortunately our genes don't really care how we protect our offspring so long as they survive to replicate again. That's for natural selection to worry about. Alpha gorillas, for instance, are physically huge and there is no sperm competition whatsoever, thus obviating the need to have large testicles. Their job is to protect the harem and offspring. Chimpanzees have Type A and Type B sperm in their larger testicles to: (i) block off the cervical passage from other sperm; and (ii) kill off sperm that are already in the cervical passageway and they are way more promiscuous than us human males. They're your classic slap and dash parents.
Proponents of human female mate choice state that human females prefer attractive (or "symmetrical" in the lingo) males with whom to copulate, should they wish to do so. Which is why evolution finds it hard to explain birth control, since sex can be fun just for the sake of it. For instance, is there an evolutionary gain by having more sex with birth control? Possibly not. Perhaps it stimulates the neuro transmitters on a more frequent basis which enables females to make better choices in selecting a mate. Alternatively, frequent sex may enable a female to retain a mate, and make him less promiscuous in the long term so that he could concentrate on raising their offspring. Or it may release chemicals in the brain to make them happier, thus relieving them of the stresses of family life (or the stresses of NO family life).
As for science, there is a bunch of research into this whole issue, and Diamond's book is a good starting point. Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" or "The Ancestor's Tale" is highly recommended as well.
You cannot say to people defending a point of view different from you "you are simply being obstinate". I could answer the same to you. It's a debate, I have a point of view but I'm not sure about my opinion on the topic, that it's why I defend it while asking question.
I'm questionning assumption that humanity got long time ago but it have not been scientifically well proove. Into the wild, human together have better chance to survive than alone. That's not necessarly means women and men "naturally" have to stick together two by two. Possible configurations of pre-civilised human societies and families are multiple.
There is, for example, a community of women only living in the forest and they manage to survive very well until now (and no, thanks, I don't want to join them).
There is a lot of assumption we can make about the pre-civilised human state. I just want to question what we used to take for scientific thruth, which are not.
Theorically, human can be mature by 3 or 5 years old. Put a group a human in the jungle with a life expectation around 30-35 years old, and you will probably find very mature and clever little children.
Again assumption. If women are more interested in marriage than men (which I'm not sure it's universal), i think it's purely a cultural construction. From our childhood, we women learn that one day, a prince will come and save us and bring us happiness and joy (and if your lucky, a big diamond to the finger). And then (hopefully) you learn life become much more funny and useful when you stop to believe it.
Take a group of 3-5 year olds and leave them alone with out adult supervision for 1 year in the wild. Think more than half would survive? I don't. It's not about how well educated they are. They are simply not equipped to provide for themselves.
Also, ancient society has been well supported. They know what our ancestors ate, the tools they used, ect. They can use the various pieces of evidence they have gained from thousands of sites to piece together what life was like back then.
It is impossible for a community of women to survive alone as they can not procreate. So, sorry, but going to call bs on this.
The closest I have heard of is some of the ancient amazonian tribes. However, they tend to romanticized and exaggerated. There have been a number of matriarchal societies but none could function exclusive of men.
Did I ever say it was universal that women were more interested in marriage than men? No. I said "tend to be".
These are nothing more than generalizations. Humans have evolved to be a certain way.
Women see more colors than men. Why? Because women tended to be gatherers and needed to be able to distinguish between the various types of plant life.
Men have much better coordination and spatial reasoning. Why? Because men had to hit things with rocks, sticks, ect.
What you are essentially stating is that you do not believe in evolution. Since you do not seem to be an irrational person, I do not believe this is the case. Hence why I stated you are being obstinate.
Brigadier Van Der Schnoof
19-01-11, 14:53
There is, for example, a community of women only living in the forest and they manage to survive very well until now (and no, thanks, I don't want to join them).
Certainly, they will have some difficulty in generating a new generation no?
My general used to say - "As long as you can fight, I don't care if you're a woman, a man, or something in between."
Later, :plane:
Brigadier
Your general sounds like a highly opinionated person. Any chance he might join the Forum so we could hear first hand accounts? He must be really flattered you have taken on the task of ensuring his long life in history. He seemed to have a lot to say. What did he do?
Brigadier Van Der Schnoof
19-01-11, 15:09
Your general sounds like a highly opinionated person. Any chance he might join the Forum so we could hear first hand accounts? He must be really flattered you have taken on the task of ensuring his long life in history.
My general is my Trautman, but I won't go as far as considering myself his Rambo.
I'm sure he would have enjoyed sharing his many experiences on this forum. Unfortunately, he is no more. He died from health complications some years after Nam. He had a good life though, and often came to Indonesia on his holidays. He suggested this area to me and other soldiers.
He used to say - "Indonesia is the world's best kept secret. Go there when you need to replenish your energies after a great battle. The people have golden hearts and the land is fertile. It's Vietnam without the tarnish of our bad memories."
Later, :plane:
Brigadier
Ok so he just talked a lot and didnt do much beyond traveling?
Brigadier Van Der Schnoof
19-01-11, 15:26
Ok so he just talked a lot and didnt do much beyond traveling?
He gave us the best possible training we could have hoped for. His teachings saved many precious lives. He fought in Nam and returned a hero only to die some years later due to health complications related to his war activities.
The words he uttered at his marshall's funeral could very well be used in his honour.
He said - "He's my hero... he's our hero!"
Later, :plane:
Brigadier
Hombre de Maiz
19-01-11, 15:35
I take it, Brig, that you fought in Nam for Uncle Sam. If so, I am told that brigadier alone is not a rank in any U.S. military service. Am I wrong?
Brigadier Van Der Schnoof
19-01-11, 15:47
If so, I am told that brigadier alone is not a rank in any U.S. military service. Am I wrong?
Most countries call the rank brigadier. The US calls it brigadier general. The US adds the word 'general' to all the titles of its general officers: brigadier general, major general, lieutenant general, and general. Brigadier general is pay grade 7th, where general is pay grade 10th.
Amongst generals we just say brigadier, and reserve general to mean the top of the generals. Lower grade officers often call the 'brigadier general' simply 'general' as a sign of respect pointing to the fact that he has one of the four general grades.
I hope its okay if I use this relaxed naming scheme on these forums. Does it offend anyone?
I feel the original topic was interesting and I suggest we return to it. If you wish to ask me more questions please start a thread dedicated to that effect, or send me a PM.
Later, :plane:
Brigadier (General)
Hombre de Maiz
19-01-11, 15:58
No, I was just looking for an explanation. That's all. Thanks.
My friend told me about an indigenous exclusive women group living in Papua's jungle. Once a year, some of them meet men from another clans in a designated area and have fun. What my friend say, male babies are give, throw up or just kill while they keep babies girl. But I cannot find information on the topic, so I guess it's a myth (but I don't have many time to search).
But I found a Cambodian woman living alone in the jungle without any man to protect her : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/cambodia/7777904/Cambodian-jungle-woman-flees-back-to-wild.html
Of course I believe in evolution. What I'm saying is it's not scientifically prove that nature has a priori gave us all those different characteristics. Women see more color then men, this is prove. But for what, it's stay an assumption. Secondly, we don't know since when women have this different capacity.
What I'm saying is : Do we see more colors to get the cook role or do we see more colors because we had been gave the cook role so our vision got better?
In another words : In the cycle of human evolution : Is the biological or the culture that comes first? Sure there is many answers.
lone_ranger
19-01-11, 16:19
Sounds like you're more interested in memes rather than genes, or the impact of cultural transmission. It has its place in Lamarckism, or the science of acquired rather than evolved traits. There has been a recent revival of Lamarckian theory but it has generally been replaced by Mendelian genetics, or modern evolution. Read the Extended Phenotype and all will be explained. I guess your question is whether the ability to identify more colours has evolved or was acquired. Evolution would say it's the former.
Lone: I'm a believer in acquired traits being able to trump evolved traits. Call me arrogant I guess, thinking that I (and any other individuals) can do anything we want to. As long as we want it hard enough. Too many success stories to discount the idea.
lone_ranger
19-01-11, 16:34
That is entirely fine, Rabbit. The issue really is whether an acquired trait (e.g. Tiger Woods playing good golf) will necessarily pass on to his offspring via genetics (it doesn't). Likewise, did the giraffe's neck become longer because his ancestors tried the hardest they could to reach for that proverbial fruit at the end of the highest branch? Or did giraffes with generally longer necks survive because they could reach more food? (With the rest dying off due to natural selection.) The time span we're talking about is really millions of years.
Exactly. So as long as no one know if as a women my place should be inside the kitchen because I'm a priori biologically programmed to, I'll continue to do things my way.
lone_ranger
19-01-11, 16:45
Sopie, you can do anything you want in whatever way, and I will still respect you. :D
That is entirely fine, Rabbit. The issue really is whether an acquired trait (e.g. Tiger Woods playing good golf) will necessarily pass on to his offspring via genetics (it doesn't). Likewise, did the giraffe's neck become longer because his ancestors tried the hardest they could to reach for that proverbial fruit at the end of the highest branch? Or did giraffes with generally longer necks survive because they could reach more food? (With the rest dying off due to natural selection.) The time span we're talking about is really millions of years.
I believe, in principle, that evolution takes precedence in basic physical traits (skin color, hair color, eye color, length of neck, etc). These are the only things that genetics will rule (other than artificial means). Sounds like you believe the same, but we might have a different list of what "basic physical traits are". Or maybe we don't.
But other than those things, if it can be gained by one, others can gain it too. I may not have a talent in paying attention and keeping focused on task. But if I need to, I can force myself to pay attention and to focus. You call it acquired trait, I agree.
All this man woman difference, BUT why do men have nipples?
Wouahahahahahahh LOL!!! Good question!
Hombre de Maiz
19-01-11, 17:46
Men have more than nipples. They also have mamary glands that atrophy and get covered over with muscle during puberty under the influence, once again, of hormones.
Wouahahahahahahh LOL!!! Good question!
Answer: as embryos men and women have similar tissues and body parts. If anything the embryo follows a 'female template'. That is why nipples are present in both sexes. It is the effect of the genes, the Y chromosome and the hormone testosterone that brings about the changes and masculinises the embryo. Testosterone promotes the growth of the penis and testicles. Because nipples are there before this process begins the nipples stay!
lone_ranger
19-01-11, 18:12
There have been documented cases of male lactation as well. To paraphrase Jack Byrnes in Meet The Parents, "I have nipples, Greg, can you milk me?"
Exactly. So as long as no one know if as a women my place should be inside the kitchen because I'm a priori biologically programmed to, I'll continue to do things my way.
How you aquired the traits is irrelevent. You have the traits. To deny that you have them is ignorant. To decide that you wish to ignore you genetic predisposition because you do not find it pleasing is entirely up to you of course. Your place is not in the kitchen or to be a mother, it is to do what makes you happiest.
These are also just very general traits. There is far more variance with in individual genders than there is between gender averages.
I am simply pointing out that you DO have a natural disposition towards certain activities, feelings, ect.
I believe, in principle, that evolution takes precedence in basic physical traits (skin color, hair color, eye color, length of neck, etc). These are the only things that genetics will rule (other than artificial means). Sounds like you believe the same, but we might have a different list of what "basic physical traits are". Or maybe we don't.
But other than those things, if it can be gained by one, others can gain it too. I may not have a talent in paying attention and keeping focused on task. But if I need to, I can force myself to pay attention and to focus. You call it acquired trait, I agree.
No. There are intellectual and physical limits. Your emotions are in large part determined by your chemical make up. This has a huge impact on your moods and personality. You can't just decide to be an outgoing bubbly people person when you are a shy introvert because your chemical make up does not allow you to do so. You can decide your actions, but you can not decide your thoughts.
I'm 5'10". No matter how hard I try, I will not grow to be 7' nor can I shrink to 4'.
While the idea that everyone is created equal is popular and repeated on a regular basis, it is not remotely true. Some are naturally smarter, better looking, faster, ect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakuntala_Devi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlNiAqYN6ZQ
No matter how much you try, you can not aquire these abilities. They are not in the scope of normal humans.
I went to a school for the gifted from 4th grade through 8th grade. I had a "high IQ", as did everyone in my school, and won WA state math olympia in the mental math category when I was in 7th grade by figuring out the square root of a 4 digit number in under 15 seconds. I know that I can not compare to these children and no ammount of effort would alow me to do so.
How you aquired the traits is irrelevent. You have the traits. To deny that you have them is ignorant. To decide that you wish to ignore you genetic predisposition because you do not find it pleasing is entirely up to you of course. Your place is not in the kitchen or to be a mother, it is to do what makes you happiest.
These are also just very general traits. There is far more variance with in individual genders than there is between gender averages.
I am simply pointing out that you DO have a natural disposition towards certain activities, feelings, ect.
Listen Eli, I'm happy to have this discussion with you and don't treat me as ignorant.
Why I ask the question about nature and culture it it's because I do not feel those traits you say I am having. Honestly.
I have a higher libido than most of men I know (except in a high period of stress), I have male friends who much more care about the well-being of others than I do, and i don't feel the need to stick with a charming prince for the rest of my life. I love drink beers, say gross things, say smart things if I can, but I also love make-up and cosmetics because women in my family are very feminine. I have ambitions but I don't like power and I hate drive any kind of motor things, it's too much responsibility but I do have an very good spacial coordination. I'm much more a product of my time (education, culture and opportunities context) than a genetic equation.
So what I'm saying, it's yes we have genetic predispositions, but culture and education play far away a much more bigger role to shape who we are. That is probably our biggest difference with all other mammals.
Thus when I hear things like "in their inherent nature, women or men are like that", i'm sorry, but I don't believe it. Indonesian women are too much different from who I am to believe that we have such a big inherent nature.
Elithium: still sounds we differ on what is acquired and what is inherited traits. On height, yes I agree that it is inherited. On a person whose chemicals make them a shy introvert overcoming that...I believe they can (not all, but many).
Intelligence (remembering there are many kinds), I agree. I can never be intelligent about reading music or to be artistic with music. I can never be intelligent about rote memorizing facts without understanding them. But if I must, I will try my hardest.
I can never be a diligent student since I truly believe i don't have the chemical make up to allow me to easily pay attention and focus for long periods of time (more than 20 mnts). But I can overcome that obstacle. I refocus when I feel myself drifting away.
Maybe this point of view of mine also makes a difference:
- If I am wrong and I cannot overcome my physical and intellectual limits, I have wasted nothing but my time
- But if I am right and I didn't do anything to try to overcome my limits, I have wasted my opportunities
In the end, no matter what I believe, logic says it is better to have tried and failed. Hey it's like love! :-D
No. There are intellectual and physical limits. Your emotions are in large part determined by your chemical make up. This has a huge impact on your moods and personality. You can't just decide to be an outgoing bubbly people person when you are a shy introvert because your chemical make up does not allow you to do so. You can decide your actions, but you can not decide your thoughts.
Agree for the physical shape.
But for intellectual and personnality one, I know some who will disagree with you.
Long time before Hindouism, the disciples of Raja Yoga believed in reincarnation (and still believe it today). But the point is not there.
They develop meditation and positive thinking techniques which have impressive results in changing personnality.
They believe that you are what you do, and you do what you think.
To be short, if you constantly think your a shy person, you act like a shy person and you become a shy person.
If you stop to think and say it, and start to think the opposite, if few time or years your not a shy person anymore.
It worked very well for me, I don't stress anymore with nothing. Very impressive how I become relax compare to the crazy-stressful one I was before! Well, living with Indonesian also helped.
But it did not work for mathematic. I still hate mathematic. My mind and my committement not enough strong to become a math lover.
Listen Eli, I'm happy to have this discussion with you and don't treat me as ignorant.
Why I ask the question about nature and culture it it's because I do not feel those traits you say I am having. Honestly.
I have a higher libido than most of men I know (except in a high period of stress), I have male friends who much more care about the well-being of others than I do, and i don't feel the need to stick with a charming prince for the rest of my life. I love drink beers, say gross things, say smart things if I can, but I also love make-up and cosmetics because women in my family are very feminine. I have ambitions but I don't like power and I hate drive any kind of motor things, it's too much responsibility but I do have an very good spacial coordination. I'm much more a product of my time (education, culture and opportunities context) than a genetic equation.
So what I'm saying, it's yes we have genetic predispositions, but culture and education play far away a much more bigger role to shape who we are. That is probably our biggest difference with all other mammals.
Thus when I hear things like "in their inherent nature, women or men are like that", i'm sorry, but I don't believe it. Indonesian women are too much different from who I am to believe that we have such a big inherent nature.
Hence my comment about more variation with in the genders than between ;-)
These are just generalizations and can not be applied to any particular person.
Also, please do not think I said you are ignorant. I do not feel you are nor intended to imply that, simply pointing out that stating that people do not have genetic traits is denying a fact, ie ignorant. Sometimes people let wishful thinking rule over what they know to be true though.
The reason I was rebuting you was your initial statement implying that the "generic" social roles are a product of culture and nothing else. I was simply trying to answer your original question by pointing out that who you are is made up of both nature and nurture, as I stated in my first post.
"in their inherent nature, men are stronger than women". This is a statistical fact and easily demonstrated. However, it does not apply to every man and every women. A very strong woman is stronger than a very weak man.
Again, there is a distinction between stating norms/averages/mediums/ect. and stating some is a certain way because of their gender/ethnicity/ect.
Agree for the physical shape.
But for intellectual and personnality one, I know some who will disagree with you.
Long time before Hindouism, the disciples of Raja Yoga believed in reincarnation (and still believe it today). But the point is not there.
They develop meditation and positive thinking techniques which have impressive results in changing personnality.
They believe that you are what you do, and you do what you think.
To be short, if you constantly think your a shy person, you act like a shy person and you become a shy person.
If you stop to think and say it, and start to think the opposite, if few time or years your not a shy person anymore.
It worked very well for me, I don't stress anymore with nothing. Very impressive how I become relax compare to the crazy-stressful one I was before! Well, living with Indonesian also helped.
But it did not work for mathematic. I still hate mathematic. My mind and my committement not enough strong to become a math lover.
I am not saying you can not change certain aspects of who you are. I am simply stating that there are limits to what you can change, and those limits include your mental and emotional states.
Hence my comment about more variation with in the genders than between ;-)
These are just generalizations and can not be applied to any particular person.
Also, please do not think I said you are ignorant. I do not feel you are nor intended to imply that, simply pointing out that stating that people do not have genetic traits is denying a fact, ie ignorant. Sometimes people let wishful thinking rule over what they know to be true though.
The reason I was rebuting you was your initial statement implying that the "generic" social roles are a product of culture and nothing else. I was simply trying to answer your original question by pointing out that who you are is made up of both nature and nurture, as I stated in my first post.
"in their inherent nature, men are stronger than women". This is a statistical fact and easily demonstrated. However, it does not apply to every man and every women. A very strong woman is stronger than a very weak man.
Again, there is a distinction between stating norms/averages/mediums/ect. and stating some is a certain way because of their gender/ethnicity/ect.
Oh kalau begitu I follow you!
But don't forget, you say men are stronger than women if you just consider 1 kind of physical capacity : the muscle volume. But if you add other kinds of strengh, like physical endurance, the conclusion is much more men and women are differently strong.
Oh kalau begitu I follow you!
But don't forget, you say men are stronger than women if you just consider 1 kind of physical capacity : the muscle volume. But if you add other kinds of strengh, like physical endurance, the conclusion is much more men and women are differently strong.
Uh, no, men are stronger in endurance as well. People used to think that women would be better at endurance as gender bias dropped away but it never panned out. I read an interesting article on this very topic about a year ago (focused on marathon runners).
Let me see if I can find it on google.
Not the same one but an interesting read on it.
http://faculty.washington.edu/crowther/Misc/RBC/gender.shtml
Mens bodies are more effecient.
Women have more fat.
There are some areas where women have more endurance of course. Generally, mens will win out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans
Uh, no, men are stronger in endurance as well. People used to think that women would be better at endurance as gender bias dropped away but it never panned out. I read an interesting article on this very topic about a year ago (focused on marathon runners).
Yeah, after posting I think about it (I know, I should think before posting...) and marathon came to my mind. Sorry, I was wrong.
There are some areas where women have more endurance of course.
Yeah, waxing!
Yeah, after posting I think about it (I know, I should think before posting...) and marathon came to my mind. Sorry, I was wrong.
Yeah, waxing!
You can have that one :-P
lone_ranger
19-01-11, 20:08
And shopping would be another. Wasn't it Eli who said something about gatherers? :)
And shopping would be another. Wasn't it Eli who said something about gatherers? :)
Explains my wife...
But what evolutionary trait causes womens obsession with shoes??
lone_ranger
19-01-11, 20:15
Explains my wife...
But what evolutionary trait causes womens obsession with shoes??
Or handbags for that matter.
Or handbags for that matter.
Berries had to be put in something... I can fathom the bags...
shoes though??
Shoes: they have to protect the soles of their feet. And look good doing it :-D
lone_ranger
19-01-11, 20:21
Comfortable shoes permit the wearer to walk longer distances to buy more shoes.
Comfortable shoes permit the wearer to walk longer distances to buy more shoes.
Like they buy comfortable shoes :-/
Snowy city
19-01-11, 20:26
Mens bodies are more effecient.
Women have more fat.
Staring at my belly.... sigh....
There are some areas where women have more endurance of course. Generally, mens will win out.
Yes, woman are strong... We (I don't have any experience yet he he) give birth to baby....
Man are also strong... they are being circumcized.. he he he he
How about man-boobs? Why do they often occur? Lowering of testosterone and increase of estrogen when aging? I have a trainer (bra) at the ready just incase.
Hombre de Maiz
20-01-11, 08:27
I have a trainer (bra) at the ready just incase.
A bro or a manzier? Remember the Seinfeld episode?
Bra because they in fact are a part of reality outside tv land. Anyways eventually if I gottem I may as well get a pushup to show some cleavage once in a while. Grats can you help me out on this one?
Bra because they in fact are a part of reality outside tv land. Anyways eventually if I gottem I may as well get a pushup to show some cleavage once in a while. Grats can you help me out on this one?
This is just wrong...
Hey if you had seen my legs, you would retract that statement.
Man bra is so 90's. Today it's compression shirt. If you're gonna tuck the manboobs away, might as well take care of the love handles.
Are people still saying anything is "so" and then a date? Ive never heard a man say it.
My friend told me about an indigenous exclusive women group living in Papua's jungle. Once a year, some of them meet men from another clans in a designated area and have fun. What my friend say, male babies are give, throw up or just kill while they keep babies girl. But I cannot find information on the topic, so I guess it's a myth (but I don't have many time to search).
Heresay.
Of course I believe in evolution. What I'm saying is it's not scientifically prove that nature has a priori gave us all those different characteristics. Women see more color then men, this is prove.
Actually, only one woman so far, and possibly a few million in the world. Not all women.
Some women may see 100 million colors, thanks to their genes
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
By Mark Roth, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Susan Hogan can't be sure, but it wouldn't surprise her if she turned out to be a tetrachromat.
Graphics
How the human eye sees color.
The Ishihara color test.
A tetrachromat is a woman who can see four distinct ranges of color, instead of the three that most of us live with.
A genetic test would be needed to verify whether Mrs. Hogan truly fits that description, but it could help explain why the interior decorator can hold up three samples of beige wall paint, "and I can see gold in one and gray in another and green in another, but my clients can't tell the difference."
It may be impossible for us trichromats to imagine what a four-color world would look like. But mathematics alone suggests the difference would be astounding, said Jay Neitz, a renowned color vision researcher at the Medical College of Wisconsin.
Each of the three standard color-detecting cones in the retina -- blue, green and red -- can pick up about 100 different gradations of color, Dr. Neitz estimated. But the brain can combine those variations exponentially, he said, so that the average person can distinguish about 1 million different hues.
A true tetrachromat has another type of cone in between the red and green -- somewhere in the orange range -- and its 100 shades theoretically would allow her to see 100 million different colors.
That may be why Mrs. Hogan can look out the windows of her Mount Washington home and tell the relative depths and silting of the three rivers at the Point by discerning the subtle differences in their shades.
"I have a very hard time even giving names to colors because I see so many other colors inside them," she said.
Dr. Neitz, who conducts his research with his wife Maureen, said only women have the potential for super color vision.
That's because the genes for the pigments in green and red cones lie on the X chromosome, and only women have two X chromosomes, creating the opportunity for one type of red cone to be activated on one X chromosome and the other type of red cone on the other one. In a few cases, women may have two distinct green cones on either X chromosome.
But it's unlikely, Dr. Neitz said, that all of the women with four types of color cones will have the potential for superior color vision, because for many, their two red cones will be so close to each other in the wavelengths they detect that they won't see things much differently than a three-color person does.
He estimated that 2 percent to 3 percent of the world's women may have the kind of fourth cone that lies smack between the standard red and green cones, which could give them a colossal range.
Finding tetrachromats through genetic screening is one thing. Proving they can see tens of millions of additional colors is another.
One research group that believes it has identified a true tetrachromat is headed by Gabriele Jordan of Newcastle University in Great Britain.
Dr. Jordan started by working backward from certain "color blind" boys to their mothers.
About 8 percent of the world's men have color deficiency, which is the term vision researchers prefer to color blindness.
Most of them inherit two red or two green cones along with the standard blue cone, making it impossible for them to distinguish between red and green peppers, or tell how well-done a steak is, or pick out matching clothes.
Dr. Jordan's team used vision tests to identify more than a hundred schoolboys in the Newcastle area with that kind of color deficiency.
She knew that the mothers of those boys would have either two red or two green cones, and she is now in the process of testing those women to see which of them might be "strong tetrachromats," as she put it.
To single out such women, she came up with a clever test. Each woman looks into an optical device that shows her three tiny discs in rapid succession. Two of the discs are a pure orange wavelength and the third is a nearly identical mixture of red and green. The women aren't told which is which.
Dr. Jordan reasoned that women with two distinct red cones would see the red-green disc differently than the orange discs.
Of the 20 women she has tested so far, only one was able to instantly and accurately identify the red-green disc each time. She is now conducting genetic tests on the woman's saliva to verify whether she has the genes for distinct red cones.
Dr. Jordan said that the woman, who has not yet been identified, is a physician near Newcastle.
For a doctor, she speculated, super color vision might give her the ability to tell whether a patient is ill just by noticing subtle changes in skin tone that a normal doctor wouldn't see.
Based on Dr. Neitz's estimates, there could be 99 million women in the world with true four-color vision.
But before they pat themselves on the back for their superior evolution, he said, it's important to note that humans are just getting back to where birds, amphibians and reptiles have been for eons.
Those creatures have long had four-color vision, but a key difference is that their fourth type of color detector is in the high-frequency ultraviolet range, beyond where humans can see.
In fact, that finding allowed scientists to figure out recently why the males of some species of birds did not appear to have brighter plumage than the females, Dr. Neitz said.
The problem was in the observers, not the birds, he said. When those species were viewed through ultraviolet detectors, the males had markedly different feathers than the females.
In a similar way, he said, our eyes aren't capable of seeing the world the way a true four-color viewer perceives it, and so we have no way of knowing how many advantages that might give to the tetrachromats.
"There are many things in the world that are physically different from one another that you can't tell apart now" with three-color vision, he said, but a four-color woman presumably would see the distinctions.
And sometimes the edge may just be aesthetic.
Which could be why, when Susan Hogan's husband puts a new piece of fruit in their fruit bowl, "I have to rearrange it so the colors go together right," she said with a laugh.
First published on September 13, 2006 at 12:00 am
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06256/721190-114.stm#ixzz1Be1hk0GP
Theorically, human can be mature by 3 or 5 years old. Put a group a human in the jungle with a life expectation around 30-35 years old, and you will probably find very mature and clever little children.
Most foolish statement of the year.
Listen Eli, I'm happy to have this discussion with you and don't treat me as ignorant.
Hard not too.
Actually, only one woman so far, and possibly a few million in the world. Not all women.
Not me who start this idea.
Most foolish statement of the year.
Relax, 2011 is just starting.
Hard not too.
Did you have a good week KW? Seems you need to do free bashing. Why don't you go jogging?
My friend told me about an indigenous exclusive women group living in Papua's jungle. Once a year, some of them meet men from another clans in a designated area and have fun. What my friend say, male babies are give, throw up or just kill while they keep babies girl. But I cannot find information on the topic, so I guess it's a myth (but I don't have many time to search).
I guess your friend was an Indonesian dreamer having stolen the classical Greek legend of the Amazons. Look it up.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.