Slashdot Mirror
Just Thinking About Science Triggers Moral Behavior
ananyo writes "The association between science and morality is so ingrained that merely thinking about it can trigger more moral behavior, according to a study by researchers at the University of California Santa Barbara. The researchers hypothesized that there is a deep-seated perception of science as a moral pursuit — its emphasis on truth-seeking, impartiality and rationality privileges collective well-being above all else. The researchers conducted four separate studies to test this. In the first, participants read a vignette of a date-rape and were asked to rate the 'wrongness' of the offense before answering a questionnaire measuring their belief in science. Those reporting greater belief in science condemned the act more harshly. In the other three, participants primed with science-related words were more altruistic."
that these researchers falsified this study to detract attention from all their previously falsified studies.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
John Nash, and his Game Theory.
All rites reversed 2010
I think it'd be more fair to say that the IDEA of science (impartiality, seeking truth, etc) being a moral pursuit would make people act morally.
Anybody who has read any science news published in the past decade or so knows exactly how easily it can be to twist science to support a political or economic agenda. Case in point, science says that smoking causes cancer. How many studies were published, funded by tobacco companies, saying that it was harmless? The same can be said about the Wage Disparity, effects of HFCS and climate change to name a few.
The ideal of scientific study is great and might stimulate people to behave morally. But I'm curious if that would hold for people that believe in the lofty ideals of anything.
Moral behavior? Nah, "science" is only a justification used to confirm what people already know to be "true". If the conclusion leads the wrong way, then there is automatically something wrong. The scientist is then attacked and discredited. Read The Return of the Ugly, Racist Pseudoscientist with a Small Penis to discover how one man got smacked in the face for saying, "Hmm...that's odd." The link goes to archive.org because naturally, the post was deleted due to the response - "SHUT UP!" And then of course the flaming about his small penis.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Note: Psychological studies performed on US undergraduates generally don't apply to humans in general.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/17x/beware_of_weird_psychological_samples/
Remembering the people who were Psych majors in school, I'd say that they probably were the least representative sample of humanity possible.
Usually when I think of science I think of blowing stuff up...
This confirms my view that feminist (misandric) people think that their male hate bigotry is based on science and not on emotions, similar to the nazy germany where racism was "science".
It seems like the study's results would be consistent with either hypothesis...
Or logical thinking.
Heck, just plan "thinking" would probably do since most people don't bother to do that before reacting.
Simply using scientific language isn't exactly science. It could rather be going after specificity. If you prime me with a bunch of IF/THEN TRUE/FALSE terms and then ask if something is wrong I'm going to be more inclined to give a more literal and less nuanced opinion.
For example, is it wrong to feed the bears? Of course it is... its against the rules, encourages the bears to see humans as a food source, and makes them less inclined to gather food from the wild. So... its wrong. But at the same time its not especially immoral.
If you prime me with true false information I'll just say its wrong. But if you expand the point there might be more going on there.
I don't think science has anything especially to do with morality. It does have a great deal to do with truth seeking but its truth seeking for its own sake and not some higher calling. That is not to say scientist are not moral people or that they're not helping humanity. Merely that there is no causal link between morality and science.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Where the crap did you dig up that definition of "moral?"
The pursuit about understanding can only go one way.
Science is about truth.
Faith can be about anything. Its make believe after all.
How would you phrase it then? "Value placed on the scientific method" would be what I'd go for, but it doesn't communicate the thought nearly as succinctly as "belief in science"
It seems like the study's results would be consistent with either hypothesis...
Or logical thinking.
Except that altruism is not logical.
The relationship between religiosity and intelligence is also intriguing and not too dissimilar in its foundations.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
No low IQ people are atheists. :D
I guess that phenomenon is related to the current study on morals and beliefs in science.
scientists have above average morals.
In other news, 90% of all people say they are above average drivers.
my thoughts certainly aren't moral ;-)
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
The human cultures that are most exposed to modern scientific education are also those with birth rates below replacement levels. So, for whatever reason, scientific education is co-related with the decline of human civilization.
Not true. Humans have increased their numbers until the entire planet is full of us and vast areas of its surface have been taken over to provide us the food that we need. In an environment with massive, untapped natural resources which can be developed and exploited to serve an every increasing population you may have a point that to sustain civilization you need to grow and expand. This is arguably no longer the case.
If we want to sustain our civilization we have to find a way to switch from growth through increasing our numbers to a stable population. This is concerning because it is extremely hard to do since nature generally seems to take the "grow or die" approach...but when to grow is to die (either from fighting for limited resources or from a lack of resources) then we have to find another way and it is hard to imagine that science will not the route to finding it.
The human cultures that are most exposed to modern scientific education are also those with birth rates below replacement levels. So, for whatever reason, scientific education is co-related with the decline of human civilization. If it leads to the decline of human cultures, it is not moral.
They're also those with effective/available birth control, female equality, and education.
Don't worry, though - as soon as we build our AI's and fusion reactors, humans will have more time to boink, pursue art, and raise families. It takes science, though, if you want to do it without famine and pestilence.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
We are over populating the planet as is.
A decline in breeding is a welcome balance.
To a certain degree it is. Your genes will not survive in the long run if your species does not.
Scientists want to believe they are more moral, liberals want to believe they are more intelligent, etc etc etc and people exist to tell them what they want to hear. This is not news.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Seems right. After all, I know that thinking about religion makes me want to do evil and go out and kill people.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Where the crap did you dig up that definition of "moral?"
I went back to basics and made choices.
I am a person. Do I have value? Yes, I've decided that I do.
Does humanity have value? Yes, I've decided that it does.
So, the most fundamental basis of moral behavior has to be, "Does it cause us to destroy ourselves."
If behavior causes us to destroy ourselves, it is immoral. Full stop.
After that, I begin to consider the quality of the human experience. It is always better to exist than to not exist, but it is better to avoid suffering and afford humans dignity after the fundamental goal of survival is met.
For example, it is better if birth control makes it possible for people to have families that are more likely to survive and thrive, and afford women more dignity.
But, if every woman on Earth decided that they were going to just skip having children and focus on their careers, it would then become moral to rape them into pregnancy and force them to bear their children to term, and immoral to stand by and watch humanity become extinct because we don't have the stomach to do what needs to be done.
That's a ridiculously extreme example that will never actually come to pass, of course, but it illustrates the way in which behaviors become moral or immoral depending on the situation.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Not really. Earth can easily sustain 10 to 14 billion humans with a good use of technology. That could go into the hundreds of billions if we could accept getting our protein from algae vats.
The association between religion and the belief that âoe I am pure and you are going to hellâ is so ingrained that merely thinking about it can trigger more immoral behavior, according to a study by researchers at the University of Kansas. The researchers hypothesized that there is a deep-seated perception that my religion makes me better then you â" its emphasis on myth-seeking, self-importance and irrationality privileges above all else. The researchers conducted four separate studies to test this. In the first, participants read a bible passage of a date-rape and were asked to rate the 'wrongness' of the offense. Those reporting greater belief in religion condemned the victim more harshly stating âoeshe probably deserved itâ. This was also followed up with the strong believe that if it was a âoerealâ rape then her body would just reject any possibility of pregnancy.
love the taste, hate the texture
Sounds like a nice example of "correlation does not imply causation". They have found two beliefs associated with the same sort of bias and managed to demonstrate that they occur together in some people.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Reeeeeeealy? Weapons research? (physical, chemical, biological, your choice) Profitizing common herbs into expensive medicines? Researching social engineering? Moral? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Except that altruism is not logical.
It's extremely hard to find an example of pure altruism that doesn't have benefits for one's self or family/community.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
And where would the rest of the biosphere live if we rock into the hundreds of billion.
What is our goal ? To fuck until we can't move ?
Our basic nature is to breed. We can follow that or grow up.
See the above AC post for a perfect example of my point. Note, how the right-wing mindset approaches the issue of rape: it's the fault of the woman for wearing the wrong kind of clothes (seducing those poor, innocent, helpless men into raping them). Such attitudes indicate the typical connection between right-wing ideology, and assigning less blame and approbation to the rapist in a date-rape scenario (she must've deserved it for inviting him in for drinks, right?).
Science does not remove belief. It removes the baselessness of belief. Belief in that which is proven is viable under science. Belief in that which is disproved is not. There are shades of grey in between those two absolutes.
To get metaphorical, belief is tempered by the flame of science. The ephemeral wisps of faith are burned away, leaving behind a purer stronger truth.
how is sharia based on science and reason? Apostasy and Heresy are punishable by death under sharia, where they should be rewarded and encouraged under a scientific and reasonable system of law.
The study was published in March and was discussed here in March, with 315 comments: http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/03/30/1857216/does-scientific-literacy-make-people-more-ethical
An ideology / process by definition does not morals, aka amoral. Only scientists are moral.
Science doesn't ask "Can we build nukes?" nor "Should we build nukes?" only _scientists_.
There is a correlation between atheism and intelligence. But there are still plenty of idiotic atheists out there.
This all seems to assume that a birth rate below replacement ends inevitably with extinction, which is stupid, nonsensical gibbledypoop. The fact that we aren't currently keeping up doesn't mean we wouldn't pick up the pace if the planet started to get a little sparse. There are seven billion people, and I see nothing wrong with having a few less, as long as we're doing everything we can to keep the current batch alive. Letting people die is unethical, but not cranking out new ones isn't even on the scale.
This is you: http://www.xkcd.com/605/
whoosh....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The researchers performed four studies, and only one was looking for mere correlation. Unfortunately that is the only one the summary mentions. One of the other studies primed the subjects with scientific words in a crossword puzzle, and just thinking about those words caused people to behave more morally. Now I am not sure how good the controls in their experiment were but it looks like they tried to remove correlation from the other three studies.
You can attack their methodology, but based on their research there really was a causal relationship between scientific thinking and moral behavior.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I think this may be in response to at least one other study showing a similar effect when subjects were primed with religious concepts: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/18/9/803.abstract
I am not suggesting we should. But we can build up and down. We don't really need to spread out that much until we are well on our way into the 10s of billions. The point I am making is that we are a long long way from being genuinely overpopulated if we actually used our technology.
Our basic nature is to breed. We can follow that or grow up.
The fundamental duty of all living things is to recreate themselves. After you do, something changes inside you that causes you to realize that you're not the center of the universe. That's called "Growing Up".
If you haven't bred yet, you're still a child. You shouldn't be allowed to vote, any more than any other mewling babe.
That is the biggest BS I have read in a while. There are plenty of people that have bred multiple times and yet to grow up or actual act like adults or they let their kids run wild (being non-responsible towards their kids because they are selfish as parents.)
We need to step up and stop.
Breeding is over. We can kill anything we can grasp...extinct anything larger than a medium dog.
We can farm anything anywhere we want.
What is our goal. We won. We can breed all we want now. Challenge over.
All that is left to beat is insects, virus's and bacteria. The more we fuck the more they grow....so we need a new angle.
Asimov's Trantor had, if I remember correctly, 40 billion at its peak and that was basically one planet-wide city. Or you could go up an order of magnitude or two and use Coruscant at a trillion people. Of course if you do that, you run into a problem or two or three. If you're wondering if a webcomic author is a good authority on the physics of a fictional city, he's not just a webcomic author.
Of course, we COULD use that science to send some of those billions of people to planets or celestial bodies other than Earth. Keep a few billion folks on Earth, send a couple million to orbiting habitats, and put the rest on Mars and its moons as well as Earth's moon.
I've been putting together a system that I think would be effective in pulling us out of this nosedive. I started in on an essay to explain it at one point, though I haven't worked on it recently... been designing the software needed to support it.
http://slashdot.org/journal/492191
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
In my scientific mind, I believe that most of the "harm" done by rape is just people being pissy little coddlefish. We stand up a whole horrific narrative about rape, burn it into everyone's mind, and then wonder why it's so damaging when someone gets raped. People who don't buy into it see it as an experience to be survived or escaped, and have no abnormal psychological trauma. Many people develop more psychological trauma after being raped due to the whole "group support" thing, feeling like they're not feeling hurt enough because everyone's telling them their experience was so terrible--they begin to believe it more strongly, it becomes worse.
In other words: society's complete demonization of sexual crimes (not just violence, but child molestation) creates most of the pain and suffering from these crimes. Society should instead treat these as crimes, determine that they don't fit in with the so-called rights they feel people have (that is, those guarantees which people require in order to feel secure in society--impossible to guarantee, but supported by enforcement via physical force), and handle them as such. Stop telling victims that they are now damaged, and instead tell them to build a bridge and get the fuck over it and that the criminal perpetrator is the one who bears blame and is defective.
Second, people believe in a just world. This is required for normal human psychology--people believe in a just world because it's required for them to rationalize the world's problems away. Bad things don't happen to good people; bad things happen, but good people get a break and will come out better in the end. Otherwise life is despair. The truth is bad people only need to get away with it and their lives are a hell of a lot better than moral, upstanding folks'. In fact, if you want to make the world a better place to support you, you should be a cutthroat morally bankrupt robber baron until you're rich enough to effect positive change on the communities around you, which achieves both at once.
Science also tells us that women are not men; but people use "scientific" arguments to argue that they're the same. No social or physical differences, no intellectual differences, nothing. Women and men think exactly the same way and are just as capable at all tasks in exactly the same situations at all times. Scientifically this is bunk. Women are more socialist and emotional than men in general. Popular political opinion tends to be egocentric: people want what's good for them, or what sounds good to them; men going "I want/need XXXX for free that I can't afford and rich people should pay for" and women going "we should all share and get along, and nobody should have to go without food and doctors" will garner the same output but are obviously not the same thinking.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The human cultures that are most exposed to modern scientific education are also those with birth rates below replacement levels
Which is good, because the Earth is beyond carrying capacity. Increasing the population when we're about to run out of petroleum based fertilizers and become unable to feed billions of people is immoral.
So, for whatever reason, scientific education is co-related with the decline of human civilization.
Population is not the same as civilization. Civilization is not even proportional to population.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I said nothing about intelligence, or individual variation. Yes, individual people can be right-wing and smart and rational and scientific. However, you are an exception, and on average, the overall population will generally correlate far-right-wing ideology with Fox News-style anti-intellectualism, and (tepid) progressivism with more "sciencey-sounding" NPR-style media.
Except that altruism is not logical.
It's extremely hard to find an example of pure altruism that doesn't have benefits for one's self or family/community.
Not so hard. People donate money/materials to non-local charities, etc... In my case, I also give money to friends in need (no strings attached), some I (still) haven't seen in 20 years, but only occasionally talk/email with. I've given about $70k to friends in the last 7 years. The only self-benefit is to my karma.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The problem today is that scientists can't do anything without acceptance from the moral masses. Want to cure cancer, you can, just don't you dare have a cage full of diseased mice in your lab because that is wrong. Want to cure genetic diseases, you can, just don't you dare try to use stem cells because some people consider that abortion. Want to solve world hunger, you can, just don't you dare splice a tomato gene with an eggplant. Want to prove the world is round, you can, just be respectful of those that believe in 2000 years of lies and intolerance to truth.
I agree there are obvious scientific research that is immoral and unacceptable, but the problem now is that if this study is a truthful indication of the state of scientific research today, then science will fail, and with it, our civilization will collapse.
It is a common theory that the Roman Empire fell is because in essence stupid people out grew the ability for the intellects to solve their problems or improve social conditions. I'm afraid the trend is repeating. FUD is the new God.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
So you've been to Quebec, eh?
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Not really. Earth can easily sustain 10 to 14 billion humans with a good use of technology. That could go into the hundreds of billions if we could accept getting our protein from algae vats.
Or other sources...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The new agers forgot to bring that little tidbit of information over. Bhagavad Gita explains it all.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
I think you just refuted your own assertion.
Contentment is the greatest wealth
- Sukhavagga Dhammapada
Contentment is the goal behind all goals.
I am a person. Do I have value? Yes, I've decided that I do.
Does humanity have value? Yes, I've decided that it does.
The trick with morality is not in making statements - it's about understanding why something is so? Why does any of us have value, and why does humanity have value? I agree that humanity has value, because in the universe we know humanity is the only sentient species. The lowest of the low has value because of the consequences of not assigning value to them. Even then, we get in to the personhood debate which is not an easy one to resolve, but can reach certain standards through reason. For example, I'd consider the right to own property to be fundamental, because few people want their shit to be arbitrarily taken away. Would a person in a coma who medically has irrevocably lost higher brain functions have the same rights? No.
So, the most fundamental basis of moral behavior has to be, "Does it cause us to destroy ourselves."
If behavior causes us to destroy ourselves, it is immoral. Full stop.
It depends on what how you define destruction.
After that, I begin to consider the quality of the human experience. It is always better to exist than to not exist, but it is better to avoid suffering and afford humans dignity after the fundamental goal of survival is met.
Existence is not always better than non-existence. Dignity sometimes comes through non-existence.
For example, it is better if birth control makes it possible for people to have families that are more likely to survive and thrive, and afford women more dignity.
But, if every woman on Earth decided that they were going to just skip having children and focus on their careers, it would then become moral to rape them into pregnancy and force them to bear their children to term, and immoral to stand by and watch humanity become extinct because we don't have the stomach to do what needs to be done.
That's a ridiculously extreme example that will never actually come to pass, of course, but it illustrates the way in which behaviors become moral or immoral depending on the situation.
I agree it is situational. Morality is not simple. On the rape example, it's a difficult choice where I feel morality may give way to pragmatism. To return to the example of property; what if you were to collapse in the street, and the only way to save you was to quickly drive you to hospital? I have a car, but I refuse to offer a lift because I'm late for dinner. It's my car, but with this information the moral choice to me is to take my car and save this man's life. What then if the reason you collapsed was because you tried to mug a well armed victim? You're right - it's situational, and also can be influenced by factors.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Science has certainly been used for bad ends and bad people have certainly done science. Maybe science is taking on the trappings of a new faith. Faith in a good future for all or some such thing. It may be that scientists are coming to be viewed as a new priestly caste whose tireless pursuit of truth places them on a higher moral plane. Peer review would suggest a higher moral standard. Faith needs to be prescriptive and in some cases predictive and it needs to tell a story the tribal members can subscribe to. The posted study may be an inkling of science as a religion, as faith. I post this tongue firmly in cheek but with a little concern given my species seemingly timeless need for a faith. Past faiths have relied on moral laws handed down to the faithful and in impoverished environments those laws have been used to pass moral judgement and to accord entitlement to resources. To the scientifically illiterate science today represents the new laws of the universe and the applied sciences give us most of what we have. Our old minds in a new age may just be dressing up science in priestly robes. Or it may be complete nonsense or both.
What you describe is a distorted view of a small part of the system I'm designing, I call it LIFE. What language/protocol are you thinking of using?
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
What if it is their fault? What if the science actually backs that up? Why do women wear high heels shoes when what it's communicating to the male is 'I'm lordosing and ready for sex'? Why do they reveal their breasts when they know the effect it has on males? Doesn't science know how easy it is to override the 'thinking/civilized' mind? Would you walk into an impoverished neighbourhood wearing money for clothes?
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
I'm always skeptical of these types of studies. I mean who are they surveying that says date rape is okay?
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
How many of us would be enough for you ?
I mean we can clearly breed un-opposed.
What is the goal.....More is better...Biology is broken. We won.
Most likely? All the stupid people who accept religion just because would accept atheism just because.
That is the wrong question.
There is no amount of people I consider "enough".
Overpopulation does not occur when you have more than "enough", it occurs when you have to many.
And the 7 odd billion people we have now are not to many. Every one of us could live a western lifestyle if we used our existing technology reasonably. That means building a metric crap ton of solar energy plants in the desert. That means removing sequestered fossil fuels as our transportation energy source. That means building an effective global power and communications grid. None of these things are beyond our reach. We have more than enough wealth, material and labor available. What we really need is power and we can get that from simple sunlight.
Then you look at the socio-economic trends of the western civilization, and your overpopulation problem naturally evaporates as birthrates decline. The population will plateau, it already is in most of the developed world.
The beauty of science is that you don't have to believe in it, in the sense of 'to believe' meaning 'to accept on someone else's authority.' I point this out because I have a feeling I would be ranked extremely highly on this 'belief in science' scale while I consider myself to not believe in science at all; the authority of science derives from empirical testing and reason, not belief.
Dead people make good fertilizer. Come up with a better analogy.
Ever heard of Prions?
Dead people do NOT make good fertilizer.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
So what they are saying is that society has so emphasized science that its pursuit has taken on the trappings of an ideology.
The only self-benefit is to my karma.
So you don't feel completely ambivalent about making these donations?
I'm not saying you should - "giving is its own reward" is probably a more ancient saying than modern English - just that being charitable makes most people feel good.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
So its we are focused on profit !
We could all live well for now on the resources we have.... For a while. Ok the clock would still be ticking.
True. But we are ruled by greedy apes that will not let go until their cold dead hands are pried loose. When will we get over that ?
I believe you're confusing "benevolence" and "altruism". Altruism is putting others before yourself, inherently putting you at a disadvantage. That is illogical. You can do more good for others by taking care of yourself and being charitable. That would be benevolence.
Why do women wear high heels shoes...
Have you ever considered asking a woman about why she chooses the clothing she wears, instead of simply assuming that all women's lives and decisions revolve around becoming receptacles for your penis? Ever think someone might want to wear clothes that they find attractive (or, perhaps just comfortable), without doing so to beg for non-consensual sex? Would you consider a man wearing spiffy attractive clothes to be asking to get ass-raped by any homosexual who found them attractive? Are you so psychotically out-of-control that you can't keep your dick in your pants at the sight of a little cleavage or tall shoes? Note, many human societies permit women to be topless without constantly being raped... it's not a "natural, scientifically-proven fact" that the typical male is so helplessly weak-willed that they can't hold back from rape sprees at the slightest provocation. If you have personal problems with this, then please take a tiny bit of personal responsibility and lock yourself up away from human society, rather than demand every female wear burqas to prevent your uncontrollable rape-rages.
The problem today is that scientists can't do anything without acceptance from the moral masses. Want to cure cancer, you can, just don't you dare have a cage full of diseased mice in your lab because that is wrong. Want to cure genetic diseases, you can, just don't you dare try to use stem cells because some people consider that abortion. Want to solve world hunger, you can, just don't you dare splice a tomato gene with an eggplant. Want to prove the world is round, you can, just be respectful of those that believe in 2000 years of lies and intolerance to truth.
I agree there are obvious scientific research that is immoral and unacceptable, but the problem now is that if this study is a truthful indication of the state of scientific research today, then science will fail, and with it, our civilization will collapse.
It is a common theory that the Roman Empire fell is because in essence stupid people out grew the ability for the intellects to solve their problems or improve social conditions. I'm afraid the trend is repeating. FUD is the new God.
There has been a push during the last 50 years to de-emphasize the study of philosophy when pursuing degrees in college and universities. Many have put forth that the lack of basic understanding that comes from studying the great philosophers is what leads to the issues you point out for both scientists and the public. In short, what you are really asking is at what point is too much too much? Where does the line get drawn between moral and immoral? Science cannot answer that question, but philosophy can.
Alas, we don't require philosophy to be studied in most of our degree programs any more, so people make invalid philosophical arguments with potentially devastating results. Even primitive man understood that when throwing a spear a small error in initial trajectory led to a large error at the target. With modern societies lack of sound philosophical underpinnings, the possibility for those small errors is great and the likelihood of large errors or unintended consequences therefore even greater.
It's not FUD being the new god, it's ignorance.
As always it all depends how you look at things.
I'm not sure that thinking that the all powerful being who created the entire universe cares about you personally and more than that cares about your opinions on things and will make adjustments to the plans of his omniscient mind according to them has humility at heart.
So to quote "And the 7 odd billion people we have now are not to many"
What are we needing. cause breeding wont fix it ?
We could live well forever, the clock would not be ticking as you put it. I am talking about a permanent population. We have no need to use non-renewable materials. We could power all of North America with a solar thermal power system covering a square less than 100 miles on side. Make it a little bigger and we can turn sea water into fresh water and refill the Ogallala aquifer. Put a similar one on each continent and completely end the worlds reliance on fossil fuels. This requires no new technology.
We get rid of the greedy apes as soon as people stop buying into the idea that we are overpopulated. The markets work to their advantage based on the idea of artificial scarcity, because it is exactly that... artificial. Once people realize that, then you can smash their little monkey skulls and start building the future.
Regardless of your crazy-bitch tirade: Does it matter to your lungs what excuse you have for smoking? Regardless of what a woman's reasons for dressing like a slut are, if she's putting her body into a known biological trigger for copulation when she doesn't want to copulate she's just being ignorant and stupid. We might have dreams and ideals of what reality should be like but one shouldn't try living in those dreams and ignoring reality.
p.s. As an aside, most women cite the feeling of power it gives them. What's cosmically funny is that most women don't seem to realize that the source of the power is sexual, and then they get all upset. One day you and them will grow up and accept responsability for your actions.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Lol and breeding would stop this ?
Your on my side. Fool.
Where the pest that needs to stop.
The first gaping hole I see in the study is that the scientist did not also have a group of participants who fill out questionnaires and do word scrambles and whatnot using non-scientific words and concepts, and see if that also makes a difference in how the groups respond to the date-rape case.
So they've only found evidence for half of their claim. They present no evidence that thinking about science, specifically, affects the subjects' morality more or less than does thinking about anything else.
The more scientific papers I read, or read about, the more I despair that a great many scientists don't understand scientific rigor.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
oops, one more thing. Try handing out high heeled shoes in all those primitive societies with bare breasts. They know what lordosis means!
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
The only self-benefit is to my karma.
So you don't feel completely ambivalent about making these donations? I'm not saying you should - "giving is its own reward" is probably a more ancient saying than modern English - just that being charitable makes most people feel good.
You're correct that I "feel good" (or, at least, not bad) about being able to help and actually helping my friends (and a few charities), but I'm not sure I'd qualify that (or any change in my karma) as a "benefit" to myself/family/community with regard to the the original poster's comment, though perhaps I'm not looking through the same lens. Regardless of my karma, a coffee at Starbucks still costs $1.50 (or whatever) - and my wife is still dead [ Remember Sue... (as I've mentioned before) ] ....
I helped out because I have more than I need and they needed more than they had - through no major fault of their own.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I'm always skeptical of these types of studies. I mean who are they surveying that says date rape is okay?
The filthy slut who was asking for it, obviously.
It doesn't say science depends on morality or that science is inherently moral, immoral or amoral. It says that when people think 'scientifically' they tend to consider moral issues more often or in greater depth. That may because those understanding the scientific principles are also aware of the lack of inherent 'morality' in them. So they are motivated to think beyond the pure science.
Have gnu, will travel.
Here's the first 2 lines of the conclusion synopsis: These studies demonstrated the morally normative effects of lay notions of science. Thinking about science leads individuals to endorse more stringent moral norms and exhibit more morally normative behavior.
"lay notions of science" = shit people think might be scientific - for some people this includes homeopathy. For nearly everyone it includes some totally bogus nonsense.
"exhibit more morally normative behavior" = behave more in accordance with mainstream dogmas and shibboleths - in the Southern USA in the 1950s, this would definitely include being OK with brutal beatings of gays and "uppity" black people.
Altruism is actually wise selfishness.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
This ISN'T a stable society. It's a society that has been below replacement levels of reproduction for several generations. We're in the middle of a crisis of too many elderly and not enough young. You're living in a bubble untarnished by reality. If you search for key words such as "Demographic Winter" or "Ageing Population" there are plenty of numbers to substantiate the simple truth that we are REALLY FUCKED.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your ideals and preconceptions...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
"Conservative" is a ridiculous word to use here (indicating some nostalgia for preserving the status-quo systems of a mythical "good old days"). But, dogmatic? Sure. I'm absolutely dogmatic. I take it as God-given dogma to consider all humans as humans worthy of dignity and respect, including the approximately half of the species without penises. Oh, and I'm Christian, too --- but far too conservative in my Christian beliefs to be a fan of the nineteenth-century heresies that inform present-day "fundamentalist" Christianity.
Is this starting to sound like "Science as religion" to anyone else?
I mean, science as a METHOD is brilliant and irrefutable; hypothesis, test, prove/disprove, repeat.
But there seems to have a been a cascade of quackery articles talking more about "science" as a CREED than science.
And that is a huge mistake. ANYTHING can become dogma. Anything.
-Styopa
Science also tells us that women are not men; but people use "scientific" arguments to argue that they're the same. No social or physical differences, no intellectual differences, nothing. Women and men think exactly the same way and are just as capable at all tasks in exactly the same situations at all times.
Citation?
Scientifically this is bunk.
The "bunk" isn't science's, it's yours. You seem to be using your concept of "science" as your personal cover for your symptoms of psychopathy.
Intelligent people are programmatic bugs, that actually care in spite of the "intelligent creators" design.
The "intelligent creators" only care if you procreate, because you are food, and they will show up some day.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
In epistemically less rigorous contexts, like our everyday lives, testimony is perfectly fine. I am willing to accept that there is water in a bottle I buy from a store simply because it's labelled as being water. What's special about science is that we can crank up the epistemic rigour all the way and (in principle) find out for ourselves whether a claim that is being made is true or false. There are plenty of domains where this is not the case. Religion (which you mentioned) is one, and so are certain social situations (unless you're willing to involve, say, Jerry Springer). In practice we often do end up relying on testimony, but, again, the beauty of science is that I (you (we, as a species)) don't have to.
So, it's kind of like the concept of Free-as-in-Speech in Open Source.
There is far too much code out there for any one of us to examine by themselves. Many of us haven't read through any, yet alone tried compiling any of it. But, even those of us with no programming skill like the idea that it is at least possible for us to do these things, as the limits are set by our own technical skills and available time.
So even though an End User like myself may have no personal understanding of the Source Code I'm using, I still place greater confidence in the trustworthiness of the software I'm using, when I know it is possible for others to do that examination, even if nobody I personally trust has actually has checked that particular piece of code.
Otherwise known as "enlightened self-interest".
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
This ISN'T a stable society. It's a society that has been below replacement levels of reproduction for several generations. We're in the middle of a crisis of too many elderly and not enough young. You're living in a bubble untarnished by reality. If you search for key words such as "Demographic Winter" or "Ageing Population" there are plenty of numbers to substantiate the simple truth that we are REALLY FUCKED.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your ideals and preconceptions...
Birth rates globally are still above replacement levels (2.36 per woman of child-bearing age), albeit just by a hair (2.33 globally is break even), but are falling. You are assuming that trend will continue indefinately, probably falsely.
Also note the "break even" fertility rate falls as infant/child mortality rates fall. In developed countries, 2.1 is break even; in developing countries it ranges from 2.5 - 3.3 due to higher mortality rates. As medical science improves (and existing advances become available
in poorer nations), replacement level should fall closer to the ideal 2.0.
Source Total fertility rate
On the off chance that you're not trolling, FYI the world is greatly overpopulated. We are NOT going to lower the birth rate to our extinction, but our overpopulation itself may well do so. We are undergoing a mass extinction right now that is entirely due to habitat loss.
Fewer kids need to be born. I stopped at two.
Free Martian Whores!
Your understanding of "reproducibility" is flawed.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
No low IQ people are atheists. :D
So since the link didn't say that, can I assume you're not an atheist? Because that was, if you'll pardon me, a really stupid thing to say. I know for a personally observed fact that that statement was incorrect. There's a fellow I drink with who's an atheist. He is completely illiterate and spent ten years in prison for murder when he was young, neither of which are indicators of superior intelligence. He's in his early seventies, has never paid into Social Security and has no pension and works construction for little more than minimum wage. Now tell me that guy has a high IQ.
What your link said was that there's a correlation between atheism and analytical minds, which makes perfect sense.
Free Martian Whores!
You are in need of some serious help.
Seldom have I seen someone go to such lengths to justify their own psychopathy.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Because there are enough "illogical" people that do things to help others we, as a whole, do not have to be as much at each others throats. That's where the benefit to oneself comes in. If everyone goes by the code "fuck you; get your own" you are much more likely to encounter someone that goes by the code "fuck you; I'll take yours".
I know you're just being a douchebag, but in all seriousness, right now I'm trying to design an effective way for mesh networks to scale. My system presupposes their existence, and the tech isn't quite there yet. I believe that by making all the nodes aware of their location on the earth, and by making the nodes intelligent enough to discriminate between peers based on the broadcast power of the peer, I can solve the problem. But it takes time. The rest of the necessary technology has already been invented, this is the remaining key to the puzzle. Depolying it will be a whole different matter... ideally, something can be put together that can run on existing devices, so people can, if they wish, install the software and begin the process of administering their affairs using the new system.
If billions of people can be presented with the choice "From now on, we will ignore existing systems of authority and govern our affairs using this system. Anyone who attempts to use force to compel you to honour the rules of the old system is a violent criminal, and we will all co-operate to stop them. Do you agree?", and they say "Yes", and they KNOW that 9 out of 10 people they see on the street ALSO said yes, then the existing systems will fall. What will they do with their newfound power? I don't know. Evolve as a society? Kill themselves? Beats me. As long as vicious self-serving bastards are no longer able to wield them, I'll be content.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Except that altruism is not logical.
Altruism by an individual is not logical.
Altruism within a group is an extremely successful survival strategy.
Every woman I've asked about high heels has said they wear them *despite* the discomfort precisely because of the effect they have on the way men behave towards them.
But, is it because they want those men to force non-consensual sex on them, which the poster above seemed to think was the message women intend to send through "slutty" clothing choices? Surely, just because someone wants to command attention/respect doesn't mean they want to be raped by any ogling passer-by. Men wear "attractive" clothes in order to up their social status and get more attention/respect from their peers/superiors, too, but one doesn't generally say that a man wearing a classy suit is a "slut" asking to be raped, even if the clothing might be used to attract desired, consensual sexual contact. "Slut-shaming" is a ridiculously misogynist double standard used to support rapists over rape victims.
"There are two ways to slide easily through life: to believe everything or to doubt everything; both ways save us from thinking." -- Alfred Korzybsky's variation of Henri Poincare. Those who will believe anything, will believe the justifications for evil, and those who doubt everything, will doubt the justifications for good, generally to suit themselves.
It's not about morality it is that scientists can't get laid.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Bingo. The goofballs who claim altruism is illogical (including the goddess of selfishness, Ayn Rand) overlook at least one important factor: reputation effects. One example: I'd much rather dine with someone NOT inclined to stiff the waiter even if we're not likely to ever dine there again, because if he'll stiff the waiter he seems likely to jerk me around as well, given half the chance.
Accidentally posted my original comment as an anon coward, so I'm responding as the first person who posted this subject line. I hope to make an effort at protecting your faith in humanity and perhaps more specifically, in the ignorant Christians you indict. If you're just a troll, then I'm sorry I'm wasting my time, but I hope that's not the case.
I never said, nor would I ever say would refuse to take medication because of my faith. Ironically enough, I am currently applying to medical school, but I think this is a digression from your main point, so we'll move on.
I think you're talking about a good many Christians who say they refuse to give science a chance because it might possibly contradict their faith. I agree with you. That is a bigoted and fearful response that demonstrates these individuals aren't confident enough of their own faith because they fear educating themselves would cause them to lose it.
As you suggest, I don't think that faith and an appreciation of science are mutually exclusive. In fact, just as people who are frustrated with Christians because they feel that science is incompatible with faith (and I agree, I'm frustrated too), so I find fault with scientists who feel they are unable to explore faith because it is stupid and therefore incompatible with science. Neither of these extremes is true.
I admit that there are a good many Christians who are full of pride - perhaps I'm one of them. What I meant was that it does take humility to admit that I have a need to seek a spiritual solution for what I find in myself to be a spiritual problem. You asked for empiricism on this point and I simply confess that I'm unable to provide it for you, other than that I am an incomplete individual without my faith in God. I consider that a humble admission.
Just as you ask Christians to give acceptance to the idea that science is a real and honest pursuit, so would I ask you to accept that faith is an acceptable pursuit of others, regardless of whether you choose to partake in it.
"With patience a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue will break a bone."
Does humanity have value? Yes, I've decided that it does.
Well that's a silly assumption...
wat
Blame is not all or nothing.
BTW, you do know you're a bit crazy right? I won't hold it against you.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
True, but how much more of "some" blame do we really need to be heaping on rape victims, for daring to wear the clothing they want without considering themselves to be the sexual property of a male? I don't care if a woman walks in front of you bare naked, gyrating her hips and bobbling her breasts --- if she doesn't explicitly say "yes" to sex, you don't have any excuse for raping her, whatsoever. Claiming that a woman was "asking for it," when she wasn't "asking for it" any more than a sharply-dressed male is "asking" to be ass-raped, is downright wrong.
Of course most low IQ people are believers. Most religions protect them from being aborted in the first place.
How many farm worlds did it take to support Trantor?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Paragraph 5:
"Participants first completed a word scramble task during which they either had to unscramble some of these science-related words or words that had nothing to do with science."
Science is explicitly NOT a moral pursuit. Science is objective, morality is subjective. There would be no need for morality if things could be scientifically proven good or bad in the way that things can be proven true or false, or arguments valid or invalid.
Science does seek truth, morality does not. The best it can seek is consensus.Science is indeed impartial, morality is about picking a side. "Collective well being" may be one end goal of scientific thinking, but never at the expense of truth, and as soon as one engages in science specifically for such a goal one is no longer impartial.
Also date-rate is a poor topic for such an experiment as it is easy for most people to conclude that it is wrong based on universally shared principles (note: nothing to do with science). In fact it sounds like the researchers didn't even think twice about forming such a moral position in advance and merely compared to which degree the participants chose a moral position that agreed with theirs. Far better would be the trickier issues like political positions, abortion, polygamy, homosexuality, vegetarianism etc.
Even if the experiment was sound, the interpretation is ridiculous. The observed correlation could still be interesting, but we would need to conduct more, better, experiments and interpret the results better.
My hypothesis would be : Assuming science enthusiasts go on less dates as young singles than the general population they have less exposure to situations where tricky situations arrive, i.e. getting drunk and having sex. Many of the less-scientifically minded have probably had situations where a mistake was made, or judgement was poorly executed, and are less likely to make blanket judgements condemning certain behaviours outright. A science enthusiast that hasn't been in that situation is likely to consider himself, should he find himself in that situation, as being capable of exemplary behaviour, he may not consider himself as likely to make mistakes, have less tolerance for mistake making in general, and more prepared to take a harder moral position against the very human behaviour of making mistakes.
And what the hell is "belief in science"?
I have seen more intellectual rigour on /r/Atheism
It is simply easier for a person to just believe the same things as most of his neighbors, family and friends. No arguing needed, no or only little amounts of justification for own world view are needed. If a person, however, has a world view that does not match the world view of most people around him, this person will always have to justify this world view to them. This needs more intelligence than just going with the mainstream. Low IQ people will therefor always go with the mainstream as this is the only thing that is possible for them.
As all these studies that compare individuals intelligence vs. atheism have been done in states such as the US where the mainstream is theism, they show no low IQ people who are atheists. These studies should be repeated in states where the mainstream is atheistic and anti-religious, e.g.: China or eastern Germany. They might show exactly the opposite trend: No low IQ people are religious.
Jan
No the apes look at money. That fake number that they need to get bigger.
So its we are focused on profit !
Try stop it.
Im sorry but step up.
We can breed as much as we want. Nothing eats us.
We can farm the whole planet with tech and extinct everything above alge if we like.
Why ?
Men wear "attractive" clothes in order to up their social status and get more attention/respect from their peers/superiors, too, but one doesn't generally say that a man wearing a classy suit is a "slut" asking to be raped, even if the clothing might be used to attract desired, consensual sexual contact.
Men's clothes generally (not always) have a different function from women's. Men's clothes are not sexualized, they tend not to hug body lines, they don't reveal much skin, if any, etc. The aesthetic purpose of men's clothes is to communicate status to other men. It's non-sexual. It says, "Look at my expensive and exclusive suit." And in a community which values such displays, this raises status.
Women's clothes often (not always) hug body curves, expose the female anatomy much more so than men's, often expose significant areas of skin and also often close to places conventionally considered "intimate." Women's clothing of this sort is aimed to communicate sexiness to men. It's not meant toward other women. And it's not meant to communicate status. Just sexiness. If you notice, a woman of high status, like the queen, will generally wear conservative clothing which is similar to men's in that it hides the body's shape, doesn't expose much skin, etc.
Is this retarded? Yes it is. Is our society dumb for falling to this? Sure it is. Do women's shape or skin have to be always sexualized? No they do not, but we often do because we are idiots and it's a habit that doesn't go away easily.
Now that we are poised to be able to control another human body through a mind-link (http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/08/27/1827256/uw-researchers-demonstrate-first-direct-communication-between-human-brains), you better hope the controller has morals.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
If we take power suits for example, in both gender's situations these are used to express their namesake - 'power'. A man's power suit is more likely to be well covering, not extremely form fitting, while a women's is more likely to be tight in the 'right' places, possibly expose a small amount of breast, could very well in more conservative fields be knee length {as opposed to pants} and definitely includes high heels. The woman of course has the option of wearing a blouse with a higher neck, pants, flat shoes and a less form fitting suit but most times this will make her less competitive in the field in terms of promotion or raises due to looking unkempt. Just as a woman with un-dyed hair (salt and pepper as the men say) or no makeup will always find her position or salary lacking in contrast to her well kept counterpart.
This being said I think both sides of the argument are valid. If you don't want to be robbed, don't go driving your $120k car through the ghetto flashing money out of your wallet. If you don't want to be shot, you don't go walking through a war zone, if you don't want to be raped you don't get black out drunk at a bar in a mini skirt. On the other hand, if women feel their 'dress code' is influencing their safety then change your dress code. I chose my profession because of it's relaxed attire. I don't dye my hair, I don't wear makeup to work, sneakers and jeans. I can be valued for my contribution not how pretty I look today or what push up bra I wear.
That being said, if any female was able to be considered a cross dresser it would be me, I don't dress very feminine really ever and I've gotten plenty of crap for it. Men say women who wear dresses, makeup and heels are 'asking for it', but then turn around and get pissed off when their wife doesn't dress up for them or 'try anymore'. So which way is it? Women who dress up are asking for it, or women who dress like men aren't trying and aren't serious?
Were they cheap, crappy heels by chance? You get what you pay for when you're walking on a 3-5" stiletto.
There's a small part of me that can't tell if you're trolling, so if you are I applaud you, I bit.
While I do agree that a lot of the psychological damage that rape does it perpetuated by the media it's not for the reasons you state. The issues people (yes, male and female) face after rape tend to be a feeling of uncleanliness and loss of power. You were forced, against your will, to take someone into your own being that you had no control over despite much struggle. It's that feeling of helplessness that is the problem, which the media then personifies and amplifies. When the courts and society then rules that it was your fault you were raped, whether by walking home alone or wearing heels it becomes even more of a psychological burden.
As for scientifically men and women being built different, yes we have different hormone cycles and physical equipment. Could this perhaps tamper with our day to day thinking? Sure. However let's consider the outliers, the 'butch woman' or the 'feminine man'. What do we classify these as other than outliers? If you have a woman who is fully capable of 'masculine' thinking should she be considered one of the women still and denied whatever rights it is you insinuate to deny (whether it is a job position or voting or validity in her rape claims) due to her physical equipment and would you consider the 'feminine man' to be in the same position however reversed? Should everyone be subjected to a mental evaluation?
Citation?
NOW says women are just as strong and capable as men as firefighters. They develop muscle mass in the same way with the same effort and are by default inherently as ready as men without any special accommodation or intensive training.
Political leanings and idealism of women, their ability in leadership and technical roles, and their ability to solve complex social and intellectual problems differs from men's. The results are different, some better and some worse, depending on who is trying to do what; there are general patterns that follow gender, age, cultural upbringing, and so on. There are, again, socio-political groups claiming this isn't true and that a woman will produce exactly the same results with the same training as a man if given the same job, whether centered on physical or mental skills.
Weren't you here for the 90s? What are you, 12?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Everything has variation. There's a logical fallacy for this. It's like citing XKCD really.
People don't care about rights. They care about the dog and pony show. They care about people saying they're different, not as capable as other people at certain things, etc. Whether it's true or not, or whether it even impacts them at all, doesn't matter; they'll start screaming about it and crying about being "offended" or something.
In any case, saying that people who think rationally and scientifically are all perfect, altruistic beings with some weird belief that everyone is exactly the same. People who are rational and scientific are going to understand things about the world like how it's not fair, it's not run by karma, it's not run by a vengeful god that's specifically targeting you or going to send bad things your way for being a dick, etc. They're also going to notice patterns and accept them, because statistics are extremely useful--I know a LOT of girls who "need guy friends" or "won't have any girl friends" for reasons that aren't very nice, to say the least (apparently girls have no sense of loyalty and can't be trusted... I guess Linda Tripp would know about that).
In a scientific world, everyone would have long ago accepted my proposal that we sterilize people who violate their breeding allotment. 2 childs per person border pregnancy (if that last one is twins, well, okay, that's fine), with more by application and merit. Merit becomes increasingly difficult: demonstration of higher intellectual achievement, personal achievement, physical fitness, unique genetics, etc. This would maintain biodiversity and remove the weak; of course in our current world, it would just be a bribe haven and we'd have a lot of rich people with 20 kids... oh well. (Yes this is abridged; the entire theory is large, fairly open ended, and essentially revolves around culling congenital defects and unsustainable population expansion without creating population shrinkage or reducing biodiversity, or damaging human rights. Having 18 children is NOT a human right--I had a coworker who had 11 children and another who had 18, this is a real thing.)
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Science is just the study of observable phenomena using a using a specific set of techniques. As such, it is amoral. Human beings introduce any sort of moral structure (or lack thereof) into the interpretation of the results of such observations.
NOW says women are just as strong and capable as men as firefighters.
"NOW" could be any one of a number of possible media sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Now
I don't see any citation that people using '"scientific" arguments to argue that [men & women are] the same.'
In fact the most widely read and quoted text on the topic is "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". A 1992 book that emphasises how different men and women are. Very popular with feminists.
Weren't you here for the 90s? What are you, 12?
In in my late 40s, and have experienced at least 4 different waves of feminism over different decades. 2 with different partners who espoused them. It's a mistake men sometimes make to think that feminists are arguing that men and women are different. In fact they have all been different arguments to the effect that women are either equal or better than men. Definitely not the same.
As regards firefighters, the feminist argument tends to be that if particular women can reach the strength and other requirements required of firefighters then they should be allowed to be firefighters. Either you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding. Or the media outlet you are referring to is a particularly poor or provocative one. "Link bait" existed before the internet. Only then it was called sensationalism (and before that "yellow journalism", though I'm not THAT old.)
Men say women who wear dresses, makeup and heels are 'asking for it', but then turn around and get pissed off when their wife doesn't dress up for them or 'try anymore'. So which way is it?
Men, like women, are simply human, and therefore confused about what they want. They want it all, even if their desires are mutually contradictory. They want a sex demon in bed who becomes a prim and proper lady on command. They want someone independent who can think for herself, but who will also cook for you every day. They want the aliveness and freshness of an uninhibited woman and yet they also want proper decorum and don't want to participate in embarrassing situations which would become natural when spending much time together with a very spontaneous and uninhibited woman. Is this madness? Of course it is. We are crazy. All of us. We want all the best qualities of both the sane and the insane minds. We want safety and freedom. Etc.
I basically agree with everything you said. All the talk we hear along the lines of "she was asking for it" is complete garbage, no doubt about it. But at the same time, it's idiotic to deny the fact that our society is quite lopsided and asymmetric with regard to sexuality. We, as a society, generally don't have the same expectations of women as we do of men, just as you have noted. For example, a woman is expected to look good, but a man is not (not to the same high standard anyway). A chest is seen as mundane and boring in a man, but intimate, sexy and alluring in a woman. It's crazy to try to pretend this isn't happening. And sometimes this lopsidedness hurts women and sometimes it hurts men too. We are silly creatures and we often make life harder than it needs to be.