Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & blawgs
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Law & Letters
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
ADW blog
Father Z
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
The Anchoress
Whatever
For your amusement, have you seen this report in Psychology Today: "Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature"? The way I reckon, it's the perfect kind of thing to be subjected to the rigorous analysis of Stubborn Fact-checkers. Well, maybe there aren't too many facts to check per sae, but I suspect the conclusions could use a healthy dose of logical examination.
Read the full report for the explanations, but here's the list:
1. Men like blond bombshells (and women want to look like them)
2. Humans are naturally polygamous
3. Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy
4. Most suicide bombers are Muslim
5. Having sons reduces the likelihood of divorce
6. Beautiful people have more daughters
7. What Bill Gates and Paul McCartney have in common with criminals
8. The midlife crisis is a myth -- sort of
9. It's natural for politicians to risk everything for an affair (but only if they're male)
10. Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist
Have at 'em, folks.
Our RSS feed
Hey...I've already done my time...
...dealing with the idiot sociobiological crowd in grad school. I'm not getting drafted into this fight! (My time in the reserves is over too!) :-)
It is sad though. "Look, everything old and stupid is new again!" (And still stupid.)
I'm thinking men benefit nicely from polygyny...
I'm thinking the guy gets the better end of the stick with polygyny, myself (and doesn't that word sound a bit dirty?). One, it's statistically unlikely for ALL of them to have a headache on the same night. Two, when 3 or 4 of them are in a nagging mode, you can go visit with #5 and ignore the others. Three, fewer dishes for you to do, and hey, odds are at least one of the women is willing to mow the lawn...
The only downside I see is paying for 4 or 5 closets full of shoes! (ducking)
As the authors point out,
As the authors point out, men get the bigger benefit from polygyny ONLY when they're the guys with the wives. Those who get crowded out of the market by a lack of available women have a different assessment.
I think most of their reasoning is rationlizingly specious, though. :-)
Suicide Bombers
Most appear to be Muslim though often from more secular backgrounds. The majority of bombings come from the perceived injustice of occupation.
Recent studies have shown couples without children tend to be happier. Most items appear to be correct, though I am not sure I buy the reasoning stated. Number ten seems a bit stretched.
Not buying it
The majority of bombings come from the perceived injustice of occupation.
I say, bull. If the "strategic goal" of suicide bombings is to cause the withdrawal of ocupying troops, as Pape claims, it's got a truly lousy track record of success. That may be the most common stated goal. The majority of suicide bombings are simple acts of terrorism, fueled by fanaticism, hatred, and a sense of impotence on the part of the bomber. I submit that the planners of suicide bombings don't really expect to accomplish any goals other than hurting those they hate.
I agree but.....
before 9/11, the majority of terrorist bombings were carried out by Sri Lankan groups who are not Muslim. The majority of Muslim suicide bombings before 9/11 were carried out by more educated and non-poverty stricken individuals (there goes the poverty argument). It is true, as Al-Ansari (see my link on the open thread) points out, that suicide bombers are fueled by hatred. The stated goal besides "kill the infidel" is "the infidel is on our land". I would agree with you, but in the case of Palestinians, they do hope bombings will wear down the Israelis. Of course, what then, given the destruction of Israel motif? Do they expect Israel to negotiate their extinction? As I said, up until the last decade, Muslims did not constitute the majority of suicide bombers, nor were they the first. You are right about their emergent behavior and the extremist interpretation of the Koran wedded to hatred of Jews and everything unIslamic. The effectiveness of this approach as well as the mantra "drive out the infidels" will be seen in Iraq, Yes? However, blowing up other Muslims to achieve their stated goals reveals the rather irreligious mindset below the surface of Muslim suicide motivation.
Did I say a word about
Did I say a word about Muslims?
In Iraq, it's quite clear--the intent of the AQ suicide bombers is to terrorize and subjogate Iraqis, and the vast majority of all the suicide bombers in Iraq are not Iraqis. Blowing up Iraqis doesn't chase Americans away. Getting rid of the Americans is part of the goal of AQ, but it's hardly the goal of the bombings. The goal there is to cow the Iraqis, to reduce their will to resist.
Yeah, the "root cause" thesis has been long-exploded. Terrorism is about hate and fanatacism.
No disagreement....
Good thread at Centerfield.
This appears to be the case in the suicide terrorists of 9/11. I was referring to the programmed, not the programmer, the "majority" which would be after 9/11, Muslim. Muslim brainwashing has utilized occupation as an exploitable issue in some Muslim populations that already blame occupation for their suffering. Hatred and religious conditioning provide fertile ground for pathology, even in people not apparently prone to pathological behavior. Many bombers like those in Glasgow did not have poor and hateful lives, nor inadequate education, though one didn?t know much math. The perceived injustices in the mind of the bomber become an instrument to program.
Again, the appeal of hating evil Western ideas, their perceived domination and military occupation are issues exploited by Islamic programmers in what is essentially terror and subjugation. As the 1946 Intelligence Report indicates, the cultural and economic conditions amplify these perceptions, rightly or wrongly. They suggested that it was critical for world stability to change this unstable dynamic now affecting almost a billion people..
The primary slogan used by AQ in Iraq from the start was to drive out the US. Besides the Sunnis, the Iraqis were not so eager for us to leave then. This caused AQ to change tactics. They started beheading many people including foreign journalists and aid workers. You are right that long ago the first slogan was replaced by observable changes in terror tactics. Many now believe increased troop numbers could have changed this escalation.
You are right about what AQ is doing in Iraq. Importing foreign Sunnis to blow up Shiites and Americans, IS part of AQ's deeper agenda to subjugate Iraqis. Blowing up Sunnis IS part of creating that extremist AQ leadership in Iraq by which to subjugate Iraqis. They must eliminate their rivals or rule them. By destroying the legitimate Sunni/Kurdish nationalists along with the extremist Shiites, AQ hopes to create either complete subjugation of Iraqis (not likely) or the most unstable state of civil war. They seem to think such a terrorized state favors their ascendancy to domination. Blowing up Iraqis causes Iraqis go after each other and may eventually achieve civil war ignition. In such a reality, AQ believes the US would pull out. There is only one thing that stands in the way of their predicted Sunni hegemony beside the Shiites marching in and slaughtering them; that would be if enough Sunni and Kurdish nationalists go after AQ and eliminate them.. The Sunnis have become the most outspoken advocates of our staying for this reason. That part of the surge seems to be working. The idea that our presence in Iraq is the reason AQ murders Iraqis is profoundly defective and I?m sad to hear so many Democrats say this. That was not what I was talking about.
In any case, Muslims did not represent the majority of suicide bombers until this last decade, nor do they typical conform to the poor, uneducated fundamentalist image root cause theory often invokes.
A recent Frontline documentary from Israeli prisons was rather shocking. The level of hatred and inhumanity is quite disturbing coming from people with families and children, who are now serving multiple life sentences for murdering women and children. For this they are happy.
Fatal flaw of the "truths": they're all about male sex drive
And/or, all about male reproductive drive. Every single one of these items can be reduced to it. Apparently it's the main factor behind all human activity, female behavior too. Kind of a "unified field theory." And since I happen to think "human nature" is not so easily contained within the explanation of any single reductionist explanation, the list falls apart.
They're certainly amusing, though. So, if I had to provide a "thoughtful" response to each item individually, for just about all of them (excluding the Muslim one) it would be: DON'T TELL MY WIFE.
They're all about
They're all about reproductive success strategies--both male and female. Gee, THE drive of all species. Primarily male, but note the discussion of polygyny being better for women.
This reminds me....
...of the book by an historian a few years back that said the entire motivation behind British imperialism was the desire of British men to have sex with non-white women.
Well maybe not the entire
motivation, but a large part. I have met numerous Englishmen who agree. Some say it was the motivation behind European exploration. To go where no white man has gone before......South Park made the same claim about English pedophiles.
Interesting that at Columbus Circle in NYC there are an ususual number of female Indians, Chinese, Latinos and Africans who stroll along the sidewalks circling a tall statue of Columbus. Perhaps that explains the large number of loitering (single?) white males.
Let's not forget the
Let's not forget the disinclination to live ordinary lives of ordinary British poverty. The British military and overseas trading were the only real possibility of wealth (or even a usable pension) for many. If they survived, that is. Population pressure didn't leave a lot of opportunity lying about in Merry Olde England.
Blondes
Men like blond bombshells (and women want to look like them)
My man is white (Scots-German from North Dakota)and loves my natural and - ahem - purchased locks. And I am a black woman from the South.
I've dated many white men in my life and no one asked me about my non-blonde looks (but then you've heard of those legendary reactions from black women - Madea is no joke ;) So assumption no. 1 is shot in my book.
ps. I've had many natural blonde girl friends in my life. With the attitude they get from some guys (as well as the stupid jokes), I'm so glad I'm a natural "brunette"
Rachel
I don't put bumperstickers on my car for the same reason I don't sell advertising space on my pants? James Lileks
Hey, Rachel!
Nice to finally have you registered...
Are you sure you're not just so stunningly beautiful as to be the exception who proves the rule? ;-)
As for the attitude some guys present, yeah, I'm not sure how women put up with us sometimes... I have a little mantra I like to run through my head when I'm talking with a good looking, buxom blonde (or brunette for that matter): eye contact, eye contact, eye contact...
Shushhhh....
Don't you know that American males very much prefer smooth light-skinned, blondes with huge breasts?
As long as this "truth" survives, I will continue to be blessed by a surplus of neglected and far more beautiful woman. Don't rock the boat...
P.S. I suspect there is connection between female hormonal ratios, physical appearance and personality. - Not that Freud hasn't any say in regard to male preferences. Imagine what Dolly Parton's boob looks like approaching a suckling infant. Mt Booberest for sure!
double-shhhh
As long as this "truth" survives, I will continue to be blessed by a surplus of neglected and far more beautiful woman. Don't rock the boat...
You'll spoil it!
You might want to pick another example...Ms. Parton has no children, and her original figure has been artificially maintained. I like Dolly Parton, not so much for her music but for her tireless charity efforts and wonderful self-deprecating sense of good humor. She's a treasure. (Favorite line: "How long does it take to do your hair?" "I don't know, I'm never there!")
After this post its into the off-limits file
You are right about Dolly. Strange she never had kids, She seems like excellent mother material. 9 to 5 was a good flick.
Funny how most of the examples I can think of weren't blondes to begin with. Anyway, the observation about sex drive is dead on. Seems the shrinks above have one thing on their minds.
Parton was the 4th of 12
Parton was the 4th of 12 kids from a family as poor as poor gets--one-room shack poor. After she married (at 20) she and her husband raised some of her younger brothers and sisters. The way her career went, she probably felt she couldn't do right by children and still perform. And had already put in her maternal-instinct time with her younger siblings.
Quite a complex and amazing person, actually. With a sense of humor.
Wow, a talk about Dolly that
Wow, a talk about Dolly that doesn't strike at her! I love it!
My mom looks nothing at all like Mrs. Parton, but for personality... to the core!
I am constantly amused by folks who act like you've got to be ugly to be a religious and helpful person-- Dolly still looks great in her 60s.
Dolly still looks great in
Dolly still looks great in her 60s.
She should. She's a VERY sharp businesswoman and can afford the best. As she's said, "It takes a lot of money to look this cheap!" Seriously, she freely admits to "artificial maintenance," and always with a LOL zinger attached. Good for her. As I said, I think she's a treasure, even though I don't care much for her music. She's just one of those people I can't help but admire. Especially in comparison to many of today's "celebrities."
Oy vey
Adding to Rachel's comment:
I was born blonde. Men either hated it or mercilessly patronised me. Got sick of it, went red, and got more dates. Anecdotes do not statistics make, but have at it.
As for the entire article: the main problem is a common logical fallacy of confusing correlation with causation. While men with significantly younger wives may not undergo a midlife crisis, one could easily argue that such proves what it is trying to refute: men who have younger wives HAD a crisis, hence the younger wife. Likewise, #2 assumes that because a data trend exists among many species, it must be true for us and operate in the statistically average manner.
(Anyone else feel like you could write a bunch of LSAT qustions using this? "Which of the following is the logical flaw found in the above argument?" It's just classic.)
Re: sex and reproduction: There's also the scientific evidence that women live long past menopause because children take a while to raise and they can help with the grandkids. Pardon the vernacular: if your babies' momma isn't taken care of, your babies won't be, either. Why presume that a guy can screw around with reckless abandon and not negatively influence his children? We aren't fruitflies - we invest a lot in our children. The author seems to have missed that part of biology which differentiates k-selected reproduction and r-selected reproduction....
For #3: who ever said that I want to share a guy? Maybe I would prefer a "lower-quality" guy who doesn't want to share a bed with other women. You know, that monogamous helpless emotional female instinct and all.... (eye roll).
10. Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist
I'll believe that to be true when men ask other men in the workplace if they would like to jump in the sack. The author is not even claiming that the harassment, stated goals thereof, or methods are the same between genders. Stupid question: how is it then not sexist?
5. Having sons reduces the likelihood of divorce
6. Beautiful people have more daughters
Anyone think there might be some sociological factors there - i.e. between beauty, socio-economic status, and divorce rates?
As a biological question, it would be interesting to see if certain health conditions trigger increased production of gametes with either the x-chromosome or the y-chromosome. It would also be neat to see if the mother's body favours one or the other, depending on age, health, stress, husband's fidelity, etc.
On ten, I'll offer that they
On ten, I'll offer that they perhaps mean the BS sort of sexual harassment: "ooh! He told a dirty joke!" Well, guys DO that with other guys. Ditto with having calendars with scantily-clad women on them. If they change what they do because of your sex, it's sexist.
Other than that, I rather agree.