"Men are programmed to spread their seed"

[Hmm]

Question for the guys: So is it true or false? If it's true, then why do men commit? If it's false, then why is this statement said so much?

[Jack Flak]

From a psychology standpoint, I think everyone without a reason* to conclude otherwise agrees fundamentally with that statement. But men can and do commit because this is not the only process in their brains. How we prioritize defines us as individuals.

*agenda

[YourLocalJesus]

This is true. To say anything else would be idealistic and stupid, in my opinion.
However, there is also a thing called love. And there is a thing called principles.
And if both are strong enough, a man will not cheat etc.

[ajblaise]

To a degree. It's nothing the human mind can't stifle if it so chooses.

[Ivy]

well said both heart and JF.

edit: and the rest of ye that posted while I dithered.

[Hexis]

I do feel that instinctually that we are probably programed to, but with restraint we dont have to follow such programing.

[ajblaise]

well said both heart and JF.

edit: and the rest of ye that posted while I dithered.

Apparently heart doesn't agree.

[Uytuun]

I remember reading about this and IIRC the commiting isn't just will it's because it's more efficient for the survival of the species.

It must have been better to have a lot of offspring (more kids, more deaths) in ancient times whereas a more focussed approach is preferred now (less kids, less deaths) ...hmm, I can't remember the specifics. Anyhow, these days it pays off to have only a couple of children in a stable environment since they will most probably live to procreate. Guess it might have something to do with becoming sedentary.

Hmm, look at Africa vs. Western world in this matter. Interesting.

[Jack Flak]

I remember reading about this and IIRC the commiting isn't just will it's because it's more efficient for the survival of the species.
Theoretically a long term pair-bond in combination with promiscuity is ideal for gene survival.

I don't think this requires a detailed explanation if you think about it.

[Uytuun]

And you will combine the two how?

[Jack Flak]

And you will combine the two how?
Infidelity of course. This is purely scientific, I don't recommend it. Gene survival certainly isn't my number one priority in life.

[Uytuun]

But infidelity will undermine the pair-bond. You win and you lose, there appears to be a perpetual status quo (i.e. what is needed for survival) that equals the contents of either 100% promiscuity or 100% pair bond.

[Jack Flak]

But infidelity will undermine the pair-bond.
Possibly, but not necessarily.

[Anja]

Tongue in cheek here.

It's said so frequently because, as a mother of a one-time teen-age boy, they leave condemning evidence all over the place.

In the Sixties I read a book by Erica Jong called Fear of Flying. There was a sentence in there that I will ever carry with me:

Postcoitus.

"And once again a man has succeeded in leaving a mess where I have to clean it up."

[Uytuun]

Possibly, but not necessarily.

See previous post for more.

I believe so, there is more than the material to the pair bond and a sexually/emotionally less available partner will have repercussions on the milieu in which a child grows up. It destabilises the pairing, pure investment is no longer focussed on the one family, it creates an atmosphere of insecurity for mother and child. And traditionally security is essential to what the woman gets out of the pair bond.

[Jack Flak]

See previous post for more.

I believe so, there is more than the material to the pair bond and a sexually/emotionally less available partner will have repercussions on the milieu in which a child grows up. It destabilises the pairing, pure investment is no longer focussed on the one family, it creates an atmosphere of inscurity for mother and child.
You're thinking emotional state, not gene survivability. All that matters in that arena is survival and mating of each offspring. With the pair-bond, the survival of the offspring of that pair is made more likely by active protection and provision by the male parent.

If other means of gene dispersion are available to the male in the pair bond, and are taken advantage of, the likelyhood of offspring of an "affair" surviving to mating age is infinitely more likely than if it isn't pursued at all.

[Uytuun]

I'd argue that both are linked, theoretically, when a woman is not guaranteed the protection of a male, when she doesn't feel safe, she will probably be less invested in the child. Think of the abortions that take place, I suppose that most of them can be associated with uncommited/unsteady couples.

Which brings us to your affair, interestingly affairs don't generally serve to generate children at all. The lady affair partner would be in the abortion scenario were she to have a child.

[Jeffster]

Harvest time is still kicking my ass.

[Jack Flak]

I'd argue that both are linked, theoretically, when a woman is not guaranteed the protection of a male, when she doesn't feel safe, she will probably be less invested in the child. Think of the abortions that take place, I suppose that most of them can be associated with uncommited/unsteady couples.

Which brings us to your affair, interestingly affairs don't generally serve to generate children at all. The lady affair partner would be in the abortion scenario were she to have a child.
It didn't even occur to me that we were talking about the Modern Day. I wasn't.

I was referring to the much greater span of human existence spent in the rawer environment in which our psychologies were built.

[Anja]

Harvest time is still kicking my ass.

"As they reap, so shall they sow." :smile:

Oopsie. Got it backwards. How INFP is that?

[Uytuun]

Jack,

Neither was I.

I'm sure you can see the general principle behind what I'm saying. People are as efficient as is necessary for survival, which is in its own way probably optimal in its non-optimising nature. Overpopulation.

[Hmm]

Theoretically a long term pair-bond in combination with promiscuity is ideal for gene survival.

I don't think this requires a detailed explanation if you think about it.

Yikes. That's a scary thought.

Tongue in cheek here.

It's said so frequently because, as a mother of a one-time teen-age boy, they leave condemning evidence all over the place.

In the Sixties I read a book by Erica Jong called Fear of Flying. There was a sentence in there that I will ever carry with me:

Postcoitus.

"And once again a man has succeeded in leaving a mess where I have to clean it up."

:shock:

[ptgatsby]

Theoretically a long term pair-bond in combination with promiscuity is ideal for gene survival.

I don't think this requires a detailed explanation if you think about it.

I have to disagree. This strategy is only effective when a minority of the population engage in the behavior. The reason for pair bonding is to secure resources for the children (hence the concept of mate guarding in a relationship). When a female cheats, her genes gain diversity but maintains resources. When a male cheats, his genes gain diversity and uses someone elses resources.

However, if everyone engages in the behavior, there is no support for long term pair-bonding, as there is no way to identify the children you have. IOW, if that was the standard, defecting and mate guarding would be optimal (your children would gain from increased resources, whereas others would not due to the inability to determine where their resources would go).


The way we are designed, however, make the OP true. Just as all humans are programmed for sex, so are we programmed to find mates to have sex. This is true for men and women, but women are less prone to it because of the resource requirements. They still defect an awful lot, though.

[ygolo]

I have to disagree. This strategy is only effective when a minority of the population engage in the behavior. The reason for pair bonding is to secure resources for the children (hence the concept of mate guarding in a relationship). When a female cheats, her genes gain diversity but maintains resources. When a male cheats, his genes gain diversity and uses someone elses resources.

However, if everyone engages in the behavior, there is no support for long term pair-bonding, as there is no way to identify the children you have. IOW, if that was the standard, defecting and mate guarding would be optimal (your children would gain from increased resources, whereas others would not due to the inability to determine where their resources would go).


The way we are designed, however, make the OP true. Just as all humans are programmed for sex, so are we programmed to find mates to have sex. This is true for men and women, but women are less prone to it because of the resource requirements. They still defect an awful lot, though.

Please explain further. What "resources" are you refering to, adn why would it be different between genders in the way you suggest?

Isn't a womb a very precious "resource?"

Anyway, I will admit the instinct is alive in me, but I have never acted on it. I believe in monogamy.

[ptgatsby]

Please explain further. What "resources" are you refering to, adn why would it be different between genders in the way you suggest?

Isn't a womb a very precious "resource?"


Extremely, and that's pretty much the reason why women need to preserve their children. Because, for them, it costs a great deal of energy, risk, time and so forth to have children, for them to maximize their gene carry through, they benefit more from having more of their children survive. They have a large upfront cost to each child.

Men, on the other hand, have virtually no cost in terms of energy, risk, time and so forth. They gain far more from having multiple mates (gene diversification) and lose far less if their weaker children die off.

However, also note that in order for this strategy to be effective, you need many mates. And of course, this means a minority of men will be able to use this strategy - most will have to settle for zero or one mate.

Those that have one mate (call it the average male) and cannot attract or support more, will tend to mate guard (to avoid spending resources on other males children). And those with zero mates will attempt to get women to cheat, as they likely cannot provide the resources required for the woman to leave her long term mate.

I say it in nearly every thread that this comes along - males have the most to gain from marriage. Otherwise most of us wouldn't ever have a mate... It is the unfortunate tendency for women to be attracted to 'superstar' males, and for those males to horde the female's attention.

(Resources, historically, would mean protection/security, food, social status, less hardships (ie: work) and a whole range of other things we now take for granted.)

[millerm277]

Question for the guys: So is it true or false? If it's true, then why do men commit? If it's false, then why is this statement said so much?

About the last thing most guys want to do is "spread their seed". Child support sucks. :D

[ygolo]

<resources explained>

That makes sense in a way.

For some reason, I read your previous post to be from the perspective of what would be the most "efficient" society (largest population to least "resources"). It seemed to me that you could not produce a large society without woumbs. But I suppose the resource needed to sustain life are more relevant than those needed to create it.

[Mondo]

This is because men are not only programmed to spread their seed.
They are also 'programmed' to help raise a family- to ensure their offspring's survival.
This often 'causes' men to commit.

[ptgatsby]

That makes sense in a way.

For some reason, I read your previous post to be from the perspective of what would be the most "efficient" society (largest population to least "resources"). It seemed to me that you could not produce a large society without woumbs. But I suppose the resource needed to sustain life are more relevant than those needed to create it.

Yup, in all situations, we are a product of genes that survived. So the strategy that our genes play with us is only along of what "let our genes get us to this point now".

Obviously society has changed dramatically and our genes are being left in the dust. Socially optimal is vastly different than genetically optimal!

The social part of our genes manifesting is... uhh... a lot less pleasant, actually. Lots of war, rape and so forth :huh:

[ajblaise]

This is because men are not only programmed to spread their seed.
They are also 'programmed' to help raise a family- to ensure their offspring's survival.
This often 'causes' men to commit.

Yeah I agree. While women might have more of a capacity to nurture, I think nurturing, to a lesser or maybe just different degree, comes naturally to males as well.

[Anja]

I'd like to hear support for that idea, Mondo.

[heart]

Before the advent of blood testing and DNA how can it be known how many babies men have raised thinking them to be their own and yet were someone else's, especially if the woman tends to go for the same "type" of man. So it's all relative who spreads their seed where.

[ptgatsby]

I'd like to hear support for that idea, Mondo.

If you are referring to men committing, I would guess that you could see it in every male that does commit :D The question as to if they are programmed to commit is a matter of degree. Women cheat a lot as well, so it is difficult to say that they are programmed commit, although we could say they do it more.

(The reason rests in the mixed strategy that men use. The less a male is able to attract mates, the more they gain from committing. Since both trait groups piggyback on each other, they will tend survive together. )

[Ivy]

I believe I have also read that we tend to see the woman's mate's features in her offspring, even when that offspring is not biologically his child.

[Mondo]

I'd like to hear support for that idea, Mondo.


Anja, a reason why I think this would be the case is that if men desire to spread their seed, they want to ensure that their offspring survive and thrive in the future to keep spreading their seed.

[ptgatsby]

I believe I have also read that we tend to see the woman's mate's features in her offspring, even when that offspring is not biologically his child.

Being adopted, I can vouch for that :D We see what we expect :)

[entropie]

What seed is meant exactly ? I am not a botanist ?!

[Mondo]

Ah ,it is the seed which is extracted from a certain kind of pleasure

[entropie]

Ouh.. then its no topic for me :)

[entropie]

Anyways, why isnt the thread in the philosophy department ?

[CzeCze]

"Men are programmed to spread their seed"

Eeeeuw! :sick:

Unless said 'men' are farmers I just find that phrasing um, unpleasant.

Biologically speaking, neither men nor women are genetically 'programmed' for lifelong monagamy. But civilization, higher thinking, spirituality, free will -- basically all that stuff that elevates us from monkeys and eagles gets in the way of living life solely for our baser instincts.

[whatever]

As a side note- I once read in an evolutionary psychology book that the concept of cuddling post-coitus came about as a manner for a man to make sure that no other guy could get there and be competition in the knocking up department. :)

And the idea that women are meant to nurture is kind of shit- there are a lot of bad mothers out there, and for goodness sake, my poor dear dogling responds to being called asshole :doh:

[Orangey]

Eeeeuw! :sick:

Unless said 'men' are farmers I just find that phrasing um, unpleasant.

Heh, like that one Bible passage about spilling one's seeds on the ground?

[ajblaise]

As a side note- I once read in an evolutionary psychology book that the concept of cuddling post-coitus came about as a manner for a man to make sure that no other guy could get there and be competition in the knocking up department. :)

hmmm maybe that's why we don't care for it anymore.... sex is usually done in closed off rooms.

[whatever]

hmmm maybe that's why we don't care for it anymore.... sex is usually done in closed off rooms.

but it's so much more fun if it isn't! :holy:

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I think that the OP is probably correct, biologically. But due to our mutant intelligence as a species, we're routinely expected to subvert our biology for a higher purpose. Things like racial equality, gender equality, vegetarianism, charity and nonviolent mediation of disputes are examples of things that we are expected to accomplish by allowing our intelligence to tame our biological urges. This makes me think that the idea of "spreading your seed", as biologically viable as it is, should be tamed as well.

[Orangey]

I think that the OP is probably correct, biologically. But due to our mutant intelligence as a species, we're routinely expected to subvert our biology for a higher purpose. Things like racial equality, gender equality, vegetarianism, charity and nonviolent mediation of disputes are examples of things that we are expected to accomplish by allowing our intelligence to tame our biological urges. This makes me think that the idea of "spreading your seed", as biologically viable as it is, should be tamed as well.

Ehrm...why do you think that racial inequality is biological?

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Ehrm...why do you think that racial inequality is biological?

Because hate is a part of the human condition, IMO. We will find reasons to hate and be violent. If race didn't exist, we'd choose hair color or height or some other dumb thing. I think race is a giant red herring compared to the human impulse to divide and fight.

[Orangey]

Because hate is a part of the human condition, IMO. We will find reasons to hate and be violent. If race didn't exist, we'd choose hair color or height or some other dumb thing. I think race is a giant red herring compared to the human impulse to divide and fight.

Then racism and the attendant racial inequality is not biological, but the motivation to dominate and be violent is. It seems to me that it's a perverse mixing of that biological impulse + intellect capacity to justify said behavior with ideologies of racial inferiority/threat. But racism and racial inequality are not themselves biological.

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Then racism and the attendant racial inequality is not biological, but the motivation to dominate and be violent is. It seems to me that it's a perverse mixing of that biological impulse + intellect capacity to justify said behavior with ideologies of racial inferiority/threat. But racism and racial inequality are not themselves biological.

But racism is the preferred avenue of that impulse in today's world. Hence that is why I chose it as an example of biological urges that are expected to be surpressed by intelligence.

[whatever]

if we wish to discuss racism..... (http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/politics-history-current-events/6766-racism-split-i-m-voting-republican-thread.html) ;)

[ajblaise]

But racism is the preferred avenue of that impulse in today's world. Hence that is why I chose it as an example of biological urges that are expected to be surpressed by intelligence.

Racism is caused more by someone's social environment than anything biological.

Maybe on some base level we are programmed to feel threatened by anything different than us, I agree with that.

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I don't wish to discuss racism. I was just defending a tangenital portion of a larger point addressing the OP.

[ptgatsby]

Racism is caused more by someone's social environment than anything biological.

Maybe on some base level we are programmed to feel threatened by anything different than us, I agree with that.

I don't wish to discuss racism. I was just defending a tangenital portion of a larger point addressing the OP.

Although it is an aside, it is a very important point.

Racism is the natural outcome of our biological programming; cheating is also a natural outcome of our biological programming. Traits are blind to the social outcome. Any set of behaviors that are linked to our inherent nature are prompted by such traits.

Both are subject to various social pressures, sure, but our traits aren't a strict code on how to act. They are just small programs that have survived time and prompt actions in line with that. The "different than us" trait is racist, just as "find more mates" is 'cheatist', within a social context.

It is important to separate the manifestation of the traits, which must have environmental roots, and the traits themselves.

(It is worth noting that we don't want to think we are programmed for racism because being racist is less socially acceptable than cheating, which is generally an accepted condition. )

[Orangey]

Although it is an aside, it is a very important point.

Racism is the natural outcome of our biological programming; cheating is also a natural outcome of our biological programming. Traits are blind to the social outcome. Any set of behaviors that are linked to our inherent nature are prompted by such traits.

Both are subject to various social pressures, sure, but our traits aren't a strict code on how to act. They are just small programs that have survived time and prompt actions in line with that. The "different than us" trait is racist, just as "find more mates" is 'cheatist', within a social context.

It is important to separate the manifestation of the traits, which must have environmental roots, and the traits themselves.

(It is worth noting that we don't want to think we are programmed for racism because being racist is less socially acceptable than cheating, which is generally an accepted condition. )

That all sounds very reasonable, but I still wonder why racism should have been the chosen manifestation of said 'trait'. So I think it may be a little reductive to stem it to one biological 'cause', if you will, because the presence of a trait does not account for why 'race' (however you define it, since many factors can be used to delineate race) is the factor used to define 'us vs. them'. I am more inclined to say that social conditions determine what the separating factor is to be at any given time (race, class, gender, whatever), and that the 'trait' is manifested through one of these. The actual 'cause' of any given type of racism, then, is social, but the tendency to think in ways that separate humans is biological.

And I think that you said a lot of this in your post that I quoted, but I have issues with statements like 'we are programmed for racism' because while racism may be a manifestation of a biological trait, the presence of the trait does by no means guarantee that racism itself should exist (it is arbitrary, and any other differences between groups of people could have been chosen as the means through which the trait shows itself).

[EffEmDoubleyou]

And I think that you said a lot of this in your post that I quoted, but I have issues with statements like 'we are programmed for racism' because while racism may be a manifestation of a biological trait, the presence of the trait does by no means guarantee that racism itself should exist (it is arbitrary, and any other differences between groups of people could have been chosen as the means through which the trait shows itself).

It is true that other differences could have been chosen as the means I quoted. But why choose other differences when racism is the 800 pound elephant in the room? I'm not going to choose another difference just because this one is socially problematic. Lots of biological facts are socially problematic, chief among them being that women are the only gender capable of giving birth. It doesn't make them less true.

[ajblaise]

The "different than us" trait is racist

It's not necessarily racist in that racism is just a social manifestation, and only one possible manifestation, of what "fear of the different" can cause.

[Orangey]

It is true that other differences could have been chosen as the means I quoted. But why choose other differences when racism is the 800 pound elephant in the room? I'm not going to choose another difference just because this one is socially problematic. Lots of biological facts are socially problematic, chief among them being that women are the only gender capable of giving birth. It doesn't make them less true.

But what I'm saying is that racism is not a biological fact. That humans have a biological 'trait' that impels them to violence and domination is a fact, sure. That people and groups of people have different physical features is also true. But what is not a fact is that those two facts should necessarily combine to make racism. That has a social birthplace.

We may still retain this 'trait' of ours without retaining racism. The one does not necessitate the other.

[Anja]

As a side note- I once read in an evolutionary psychology book that the concept of cuddling post-coitus came about as a manner for a man to make sure that no other guy could get there and be competition in the knocking up department. :)



I'm pretty sure this is an urban myth, whatever. I have it on good hearsay that most men roll over and go to sleep. Now what's the biological purpose of that? ;)

[Anja]

Thanks for responding to my question pt and Mondo. I still am having trouble with that "conditioned to commit" idea. Genetically or socially?

[Lucifer]

To replenish lost energy ?

[EffEmDoubleyou]

But what I'm saying is that racism is not a biological fact. That humans have a biological 'trait' that impels them to violence and domination is a fact, sure. That people and groups of people have different physical features is also true. But what is not a fact is that those two facts should necessarily combine to make racism. That has a social birthplace.

We may still retain this 'trait' of ours without retaining racism. The one does not necessitate the other.

Well, to be technical, you've got me. I can't dispute anything you're saying. But I maintain that just because those two things don't have to necessarily combine doesn't mean that they don't combine, and often, to the point where racism can be seen as, if not a biological imperative, then an inevitable byproduct.

[Orangey]

Well, to be technical, you've got me. I can't dispute anything you're saying. But I maintain that just because those two things don't have to necessarily combine doesn't mean that they don't combine, and often, to the point where racism can be seen as, if not a biological imperative, then an inevitable byproduct.

Oh, of course they do combine! But I think that viewing it as an inevitable byproduct of our biology makes it seem as though resistance is futile, and creates a sort-of 'who gives a shit about racism, it can't be cured anyway' defeatism, which is false and based on the false premise that biology dictates racist attitudes (putting it out of our control, in other words).

But I think I've derailed this thread enough, hehe. I apologize, good readers, for this digression (on my part, anyway).

[Lucifer]

Men are programmed to spread their seed because we are mammals.

[Orangey]

Men are programmed to spread their seed because we are mammals.

I am glad that you are able to attend to the issue with such nuance and sophistication :D.

[ptgatsby]

And I think that you said a lot of this in your post that I quoted, but I have issues with statements like 'we are programmed for racism' because while racism may be a manifestation of a biological trait, the presence of the trait does by no means guarantee that racism itself should exist (it is arbitrary, and any other differences between groups of people could have been chosen as the means through which the trait shows itself).

I agree in general. Racism has a ton of social characteristics. However, there is no trait that makes up "programmed to spread seed", just as there is no trait that "is" racism. All traits are behaviourally blind - they lack any sort of intelligence, even though we talk about them as if they do.

The traits that make up racism can be called racist simply because they automatically trigger on "differences", with race being a very major one. Just as men cannot be programmed to actively seek out multiple mates, they can be programmed with a series of traits (lack of bonding, sexual urges, etc) that emulate that condition.

I don't want to argue that racism is a defacto standard and should be accepted - I do want to point out that when we talk about "being programmed", they are equivalent. This is a subjective issue - in many parts of the world, racism is accepted more than "male cheating", for example. In the US, racism would of been more acceptable than "men being programmed to cheat" not that long ago.

It's not necessarily racist in that racism is just a social manifestation, and only one possible manifestation, of what "fear of the different" can cause.

That would be like saying sexual urges can only result in sex some of the time. The trait itself influences more than just the tangible outcome - most of the time, it operates below awareness, but still operates.

I would say the opposite - that the lack of racism is a social manifestation, just as is gender equality and marriage is. All operate against programming, and all are more socially optimal (presumably, anyway, given how far we have advanced from our more tribal roots!)

[Jack Flak]

I have to disagree. This strategy is only effective when a minority of the population engage in the behavior. The reason for pair bonding is to secure resources for the children (hence the concept of mate guarding in a relationship). When a female cheats, her genes gain diversity but maintains resources. When a male cheats, his genes gain diversity and uses someone elses resources.

However, if everyone engages in the behavior, there is no support for long term pair-bonding, as there is no way to identify the children you have. IOW, if that was the standard, defecting and mate guarding would be optimal (your children would gain from increased resources, whereas others would not due to the inability to determine where their resources would go).
Of course I know this. No one would ever gain any advantage whatsoever if everyone used the same methods with the same ability. It's a competition. Would like to reiterate once again, I think the whole business is rather sociopathic, and I don't condone it.

[Lateralus]

Question for the guys: So is it true or false? If it's true, then why do men commit? If it's false, then why is this statement said so much?
Why do these ideas have to be mutually exclusive? Many men get married, then cheat. It's the best of both worlds (if your conscience can handle it).

[Anja]

Eeeeuw! :sick:

Unless said 'men' are farmers I just find that phrasing um, unpleasant.



Lots of farming terminology among some men. "Plowing" a woman? You can name just about everything in a tool chest (nail, screw, hammer) and it has some sexual connotation. It's all about "doing." Get 'er done. Men's work! :newwink:

[BryNTP]

Lots of farming terminology among some men. "Plowing" a woman? You can name just about everything in a tool chest (nail, screw, hammer) and it has some sexual connotation. It's all about "doing." Get 'er done. Men's work! :newwink:

I replaced the radiator in my jeep yesterday. Oh yeah, I replaced it real good.

[gomi]

I recommend reading "Sperm Wars" by Robin Baker. It will quite possibly change your whole perception of relationship dynamics.

My personal take on relationships is...oh...wait. I'm not on INTPc. Almost forgot, people have 'feelings' here...

*tucks opinion down and away* :unsure:

[kuranes]

Lots of farming terminology among some men. "Plowing" a woman? You can name just about everything in a tool chest (nail, screw, hammer) and it has some sexual connotation. It's all about "doing." Get 'er done. Men's work! :newwink:
I knew a woman in the "Cultural Studies" department ( at a university that offers a degree in that ) who told me that she wanted to start some momentum on using the word "engulfed" to make it more of a womens' pro-active term, but obviously her contemplated crusade never got off the ground. ;)

[Beat]

"Programmed to spread our seed"? Isn't that just a complicated way to say we can be horny mofos on a semi regular basis, finding ourselves momentarily captivated in lustful desire towards random women we don't know and will never know? Yep, no argument.
:run:

[Lithium]

Question for the guys: So is it true or false? If it's true, then why do men commit? If it's false, then why is this statement said so much?

Genetically it's true. But socially we're programmed to be monogamous. Due to the church.

Being monogamous keeps order because if we weren't there wouldn't be enough girls to go around as only a few men would have all the choice. Notice how few men 'get it' in society to the larger number that don't. The conflict this would caused would be phenomenal.

[mlittrell]

Question for the guys: So is it true or false? If it's true, then why do men commit? If it's false, then why is this statement said so much?

False. It makes men happy. And because most people aren't very intelligent.

[NoahFence]

We're also "programmed" to club things that annoy us with an antelope's thighbone. This doesn't get used as an excuse very often when someone cracks a skull.

"But Your Honor, my instincts said to kill him!!"

Best breeding strategy for a male: spread the offspring far and wide, while selecting a small handful of offspring to nurture and protect.

Best breeding strategy for a female: half your offspring from a committed male who will help nurture and protect them, the other half from the best genetic samples you can find. Don't tell the committed male that he's raising someone else's offspring, so he'll help with them as well.

Breeding strategies are just one of many things we inherit from our animal past. I recommend sentience for decision-making, however. So are we programmed? Yes. Does it make a shit of difference? Not really, unless you're more animal than human.

[Kaizer]

I believe I have also read that we tend to see the woman's mate's features in her offspring, even when that offspring is not biologically his child.
Being adopted, I can vouch for that :D We see what we expect :)
SO true. I wouldn't have been able to tell if this one kid was adopted cause she looks so much like her adopted mother.

[Kaizer]

& isn't racism about safety in numbers?

[EffEmDoubleyou]

You need to find a willing co-conspirator to "spread your seed", and I'm betting that's a hell of a lot more complicated now than it was in primitive times. Men in modern times may override their programming and choose to commit because of the effort involved in spreading it around.

I know that sounds like a wiseass answer, but I bet there's some truth to it.

[Victor]

Computers are programmed - men are free.

This question resonates with MBTI which presumes we are programmed by our personalities.

But this is presumptuous.

The fact is that men write programs.

How sickening that the men and women here want to turn us into personality programs.

So it almost seems natural to say we are sexually programmed.

Let is be said very clearly - things are programmed, men are free.

When you program something, you treat it as a thing.

When you program someone, you are turning them into a thing.

This is called reification.

And reification is the profoundest hatred of a person - masquerading as rationality - but looking for advantage.

[ZiL]

Computers are programmed - men are free.

This question resonates with MBTI which presumes we are programmed by our personalities.

But this is presumptuous.

The fact is that men write programs.

How sickening that the men and women here want to turn us into personality programs.

So it almost seems natural to say we are sexually programmed.

Let is be said very clearly - things are programmed, men are free.

When you program something, you treat it as a thing.

When you program someone, you are turning them into a thing.

This is called reification.

And reification is the profoundest hatred of a person - masquerading as rationality - but looking for advantage.


Yeah, while I don't doubt biological drives, I also don't doubt the ability of people to water down science into pop-psych crapola in order to make excuses for their infidelity.

I'm not saying I disagree with the "spread the seed" idea at all, but there are a lot of things that we tend to do naturally if uninhibited by our advanced cognitive abilities. Like NoahFence said - you don't tend hear the biological drive talk when somebody bashes another's head in.

On the whole, I think our society looks to science for answers - scientists are in a way like our gods and shamans. And while science is a powerful tool for understanding and discovery, when scientific knowledge is watered down and funneled sloppily into the social sphere - when it is used as an all-purpose excuse for socially questionable behavior...as mentioned by others in this thread, what is socially optimal is not necessarily genetically optimal, and our higher cognitive abilities give us control over how we act on drives.

[Orangey]

Yeah, while I don't doubt biological drives, I also don't doubt the ability of people to water down science into pop-psych crapola in order to make excuses for their infidelity.

I'm not saying I disagree with the "spread the seed" idea at all, but there are a lot of things that we tend to do naturally if uninhibited by our advanced cognitive abilities. Like NoahFence said - you don't tend hear the biological drive talk when somebody bashes another's head in.

On the whole, I think our society looks to science for answers - scientists are in a way like our gods and shamans. And while science is a powerful tool for understanding and discovery, when scientific knowledge is watered down and funneled sloppily into the social sphere - when it is used as an all-purpose excuse for socially questionable behavior...as mentioned by others in this thread, what is socially optimal is not necessarily genetically optimal, and our higher cognitive abilities give us control over how we act on drives.

+1