Evolutionary biology acknowledges that the most likely women to reproduce and survive were those who could switch loyalties.
Enough of that pop culture "evolutionary biology" shit. You idea isn't biology, it's coming up with a vaguely scientific-sounding justification of contemporary female behavior. It's also unfeasible and unprovable, because to prove there is no such experiment we can carry out to prove how humans evolved.
The reality is that humans are extremely capable of adopting many vastly different types of behavior, mainly to adapt to their environment. In the current environment of Western societies, it is beneficial for women to adopt selfish duplicitous behavior, so they do so. But this doesn't mean that they can't be better people. They simply choose not to be better people.
Evolutionary biology is incorrect here. It's evolutionary psychology -- which is basically splitting hairs.
One of the hardest red pills I have ever had to swallow is that the vast majority of women (even my PhD wife) are logically deficient and rely on feelings. When you rely on feelings you can justify any of your actions because it "felt right/good."
Evolutionary biology is incorrect here. It's evolutionary psychology -- which is basically splitting hairs.
Yes, it's usually called "evolutionary psychology" but it's bullshit no matter what it's called. Actual evolutionary biology can be a useful science. Evolutionary psychology not so much.
One of the hardest red pills I have ever had to swallow is that the vast majority of women (even my PhD wife) are logically deficient and rely on feelings. When you rely on feelings you can justify any of your actions because it "felt right/good."
She isn't logically deficient then. She is morally deficient. You are married to a time bomb. Good luck!
Yes, she's a time bomb if she uses feelings to derive moral principles of what's right and wrong, your words were:
When you rely on feelings you can justify any of your actions because it "felt right/good"
Someone willing to justify their any of their actions based on their feelings has no moral core. Sure, everyone, both men and women, often rationalize their wrongful behaviour away, but at the end of the day what's stopping people becoming truly evil is their conscience which (eventually) steps in to say "stop". What you described above is someone who is willing to override their conscience for "any of their actions" if the action, for example, makes them happy. Unlike TheImp, I don't believe women are all morally-deficient, so not all women are like that. But anyone that fits that description is.
I wasn't disputing this. I simply said that it is their "default mode" to not be.
Not, you implied women 'evolved' to be duplicitous. This argument is always evoked by people pushing biological determinism.
Historical records show a huge amount of war...
Yes, I'm sure there are historical records in support of your idea. It doesn't prove anything because you are simply backfitting the data to fit what you have already decided.
In the end, it's a completely pointless and unnecessary argument. All that matters is observing their behavior now and pointing out how this is bad behavior. There is no need to try to tenuously link that behavior to "evolution"; that simply detracts from the main point.
Enough of your tradcuck bullshit. Tradcuck ideas are not traditional. They are feminist. Actual traditional societies valued men over women.
Humans are not pigs or dogs, and if you think human behavior is as limited as that of dogs or pigs, you are the one that needs a biology lesson, not me.
Enough of that pop culture "evolutionary biology" shit. You idea isn't biology, it's coming up with a vaguely scientific-sounding justification of contemporary female behavior. It's also unfeasible and unprovable, because to prove there is no such experiment we can carry out to prove how humans evolved.
The reality is that humans are extremely capable of adopting many vastly different types of behavior, mainly to adapt to their environment. In the current environment of Western societies, it is beneficial for women to adopt selfish duplicitous behavior, so they do so. But this doesn't mean that they can't be better people. They simply choose not to be better people.
Evolutionary biology is incorrect here. It's evolutionary psychology -- which is basically splitting hairs.
One of the hardest red pills I have ever had to swallow is that the vast majority of women (even my PhD wife) are logically deficient and rely on feelings. When you rely on feelings you can justify any of your actions because it "felt right/good."
Yes, it's usually called "evolutionary psychology" but it's bullshit no matter what it's called. Actual evolutionary biology can be a useful science. Evolutionary psychology not so much.
She isn't logically deficient then. She is morally deficient. You are married to a time bomb. Good luck!
She's a time bomb because she uses feelings before logic?
That is quite literally nearly every woman, mate.
Yes, she's a time bomb if she uses feelings to derive moral principles of what's right and wrong, your words were:
Someone willing to justify their any of their actions based on their feelings has no moral core. Sure, everyone, both men and women, often rationalize their wrongful behaviour away, but at the end of the day what's stopping people becoming truly evil is their conscience which (eventually) steps in to say "stop". What you described above is someone who is willing to override their conscience for "any of their actions" if the action, for example, makes them happy. Unlike TheImp, I don't believe women are all morally-deficient, so not all women are like that. But anyone that fits that description is.
Because as we know, the brain isn't an organ and thereby the study of living organism's anatomy and behavior resulting from it is completely useless.
Not, you implied women 'evolved' to be duplicitous. This argument is always evoked by people pushing biological determinism.
Yes, I'm sure there are historical records in support of your idea. It doesn't prove anything because you are simply backfitting the data to fit what you have already decided.
In the end, it's a completely pointless and unnecessary argument. All that matters is observing their behavior now and pointing out how this is bad behavior. There is no need to try to tenuously link that behavior to "evolution"; that simply detracts from the main point.
Enough of your tradcuck bullshit. Tradcuck ideas are not traditional. They are feminist. Actual traditional societies valued men over women.
Humans are not pigs or dogs, and if you think human behavior is as limited as that of dogs or pigs, you are the one that needs a biology lesson, not me.