Sexual Aggression and Risk Taking: Are We That Different from Chimps?

[phinny5608]

Excellent video.

[dltanner99]

A novel about an alternative view of evolution  see video book trailer

[mrcheesman6]

As for looking at taller people as leaders, that can be true, but self judgment is just as important. That is to say if you are looking down at everyone you feel superior and more confident, and develop leadership traits.

[fatherofben]

In the comparison of chimp behavior to human behavior:were Harlow's monkeys used?Harlow's studies found that monkeys who were raised without a mother AND without social interaction were not willing to copulate, when the females were artificially inseminated they ignored or attacked the infant upon birth, so there is no such thing as maternal instinct.Were the chimps in the example socialized or were they removed from socialization to observe if the behaviors were instinct or socialized behavior?

[albatross1977]

"women make more conservative long term investments, which is really what we need" 2:35

Really? Is that why Hillary blew all her campaign money on trying to win the first four states while Obama had a plan B putting money aside in case he didn't win the first four? I think this guy is confusing "risk" with "life threatening". The latter existing within the range of the former but they are not the same thing.

[igrajanddance]

in some states they are trying to ban the study of evolution...thats just sad...how else could u better understand human psycology and that we are not some super creatures of some sort.

[ReliableInsider]

Men and women have all kinds of primitive instincts, some that work very well in the modern world, and some that are -completely- maladaptive.

We can take advantage of the healthy instincts, but if acting on an impulse harms someone . . .

then we don't have the right to act on that impulse.

And becoming consciously aware of our instincts doesn't change the fact.

[ReliableInsider]

That's my major objection to evolutionary psychology.

(My other objection is that evolutionary psychologists don't have a shred of evidence so--and I know this sounds harsh but it's true--they're not real scientists. Shh, don't tell them. It will only hurt their feelings.)

[Keylimedelight]

Right, so all the fundamental causes for animal behaviour which we easily extrapolate from there evolutionary history are cool, but to try an apply the same method of understanding human behavior is completely without grounding or evidence.

You sir, are a chode.

[Keylimedelight]

Its important to understand that we have behaviors that are vestiges of survival mechanisms designed by natural selection to get us to reproduce as much as possible in our original evolutionary environment

For the first time a spices has the chance to be the arbiter of its own behavior not its geans. Denying ourself the context of evolution in the understsnding of human behavior is a decision to stay in the thrall of our chemistry. Only by undersanding the fundamental causes can we truly change

[ReliableInsider]

It just happens to be an area of biology that is impossible to study scientifically. 

I'm not saying it would be wrong to interview a cave man. I'm saying that there is no way to interview a cave man.

Unless someone builds a time machine.

[Keylimedelight]

are you saying that about evolution or psychology?

[ReliableInsider]

Evolutionary biology is science. Psychology is science.

"Evolutionary psychology" isn't.

It's really, really fun to talk about and I get that, and I understand why it's fun, but it's not science.

We're not descended from 21st century chimps. We're descended from mammals and apes as they existed millions of years ago. We can study their skeletons. We can't observe their behavior. We can't really even interview 21st century chimps very effectively.

[Keylimedelight]

your right, we're not descended from chimps, but we are hominids and we can make testable generalizations about behaviors we share with genetic cousins. And just as paleontologist use modern day animals to make generalizations about the behavior of similar extinct animals chimps can help us understand how early hominids behaved.

Armed with that knowledge we can then make testable theories about the development of certain baseline behaviors.

[ReliableInsider]

If it's 99% speculation, it's zero % science.

[Keylimedelight]

Its nothing more or less than the application of the realization that we are evolved creatures. Psychology is applied biology and the unifying theory of biology is evolution. If we ever want an inclusive understanding of the original causes of our behavior we have to incorporate the fact that we evolved into psychology. We are not blank slates and whats already written onto the slate is there because it evolved. NOTE: I am not trying to imply that 'it's there for justified', just that it is.

[ReliableInsider]

There is no law in this country against idle speculation.

But just don't assume that any of the conclusions they reach are true. Or that a consensus within the scientific community supports them. Because they don't.

It's important to distinguish between science and pseudoscience, but what offends me are some of the conclusions they reach. It's retardataire right-wing crap.

[Keylimedelight]

There are allot of people (NOT involved in evolutionary psychology) who grossly misapply the findings of this field and try and turn it into a justification for current behaviors. Evolutionary Psychology is the study of how we got here and why we behave the way we behave. It really pisses me off when someone says "We evolved to be bigger and stronger than women, therefor we should be in charge". That statement confuses what has been with what should be. Its called the naturalist fallacy

[Keylimedelight]

Also, EO Wilson, Stephen Pinker, Richard Dawkins and David Buss are about as far left as you can get. Your right about the right-wing being the first to jump on abusing there findings to try and justify there nonsense. But please don't let the abuse of this field by a political agenda destroy it. It is an important perspective from which to understand human behavior.

[Keylimedelight]

I tend to lean right myself (libertarian style) and I'm not a fan of Al Gore, but I'm not going to let his (in my opinion) misrepresentations and exaggerations regarding climate change in An Inconvenient Truth cloud the issue that climate change is a fact and a big problem.

The far right IS making an attempt to politics this science, please don't let them.

[ReliableInsider]

Be a caveman. Look like a cavemen. Eat with your hands. Gnash your teeth. That's fine.  I don't care.

But domestic violence is out.

[Keylimedelight]

If we want to be more than we are, we need to understand why we are the way we are. Evolution is the answer for that question regarding physiology, and it can also inform us about Psychology. Pleas don't think that evo-psyh attempts to justify ANY form of behavior. Deciding what is right or undesirable is up to ethics, not psychology. But if we want to understand ourselves enough to change ourselves, this is an important branch of psychological science. Sorry i called you a chode BTW.

[ReliableInsider]

Science is not the study of what exists.

It's not.

Science is the study of what can be studied.

I applaud scientists who wish to study chimp psychology. I imagine that doing so isn't easy.

But there's no way to apply that to human psychology because we're not descended from 21st century chimps.

We branched from chimpanzees six million years ago.

[ReliableInsider]

Psychology is fascinating and evolution tells us something about our identity.

But you can't combine the two. At least, you can't combine them the way evolutionary "psychologists" do.

[Apache1980]

geat we are doomed

[ikeike2]

How do I get in on a nice govt grant that concludes men and women are different? Who do you have to know to get these grants? Daddy?

[thaydenSK]

Why do you assume there was a government grant involved in the work?

[Bobbiethejean]

Ew. ET looks like an anthropomorphic earthworm. Definitely not cute in my book. I will of course be watching the full lecture though. : )

[felixq78]

Yes we wear hats

[lsnfoundation]

The slightly comparison between human and animal are not even a major interests in today's world.

[Andybaby]

This scientist thinks he will get laid more by putting down other men, the 'competition'.

Ugh, a potentially scientific discussion resorts to 'women are better than men' cliches. If that matador could get prestige by being a scientist he wouldn't have a bulls horn up his arse. And if women are smarter than men and could run the stock market better, then they either are too lazy to do so, or too immoral to care.

[Aaberg123]

You're quite the moron Andy.

"And if women are smarter than men and could run the stock market better, then they either are too lazy to do so, or too immoral to care."

Ever heard of rigid social structures? Who births the babies buddy?

But to point out 1 thing: "or too immoral to care. "

wtf?!

[Andybaby]

Watch the vid again. The scientist didn't say there were "rigid social structures". He said men get injured because they're DUMBER than women, and that if women ran the stockmarket, things would have worked out better. On other words more "Women are good, Med are Bad" misandry. Look up 'misandry'.

[Aaberg123]

No. That's you putting a normative judgement on the findings. Just because you are the one getting the short end of the stick does not disqualify the observations. It's a well known fact that males tend to be more aggressive, a property which has helped the survival of the group until now 'recently'.

Regarding "Rigid social structures". No, the video did not mention them, you did when you said: "too lazy to do so, or too immoral to care."

[Andybaby]

Referring to men as 'aggressive' is more feminist anti-male propaganda. Why not use the word 'ballsy', 'adventurous', or 'courageous'?

Re: the stock market, if women can do a 'better job' (like he says), then why don't they?

[Aaberg123]

Non of those words are synonymous with aggressive.

Stock market:

Rigid social structures. Why do you think there are so relatively few male nurses?

If the proposition is true about women being better at long-term investments, then a reason for them not raising fast on the corporate latter could be just that. Short-term, risky investments would be more prone to give of attention to whoever responsible; whereas long-term investments gives moderate, but steady income; low attention.

[eirefrance]

Relax, he made one passing comment about 'dumb' males in the context of being more likely to hurt themselves through risk-taking behavior. And aggressive is a neutral word not a negative one. The options you provide are all positive. I'm inclined to think you're looking for misandry here.

[Andybaby]

Cool, I look forward to hearing him make an equally flippant 'women are dumber than men' comment, and see if he keeps his job.

[d3p3ch3mod3]

Be a man.

[Andybaby]

Or somebody gonna ll get a hurt real bad?

[d3p3ch3mod3]

No. Or you'll be a woman.

[VivekisV]

I'm really enjoying this lecture

[13otany13ay]

Ah no, please, Fora! Come on! Women like children more because of genetic predisposition? I hate it when nature scientists think they do society any favour by drawing completely moronic comparisions between animals and humans.

"Look how the women dress up to impress the man. Just like the animals where... the male birds... uhm... never mind!"

This kind of nonsense is like the stuff people make up about the pyramids and how the length of their sides equals the birthdate of Hitler. Ridiculous!

[MotionFur]

"I hate it when nature scientists think they do society any favour by drawing completely moronic comparisions between animals and humans."

Humans are animals. Homo sapiens sapiens.

[13otany13ay]

Uhm, yeah, humans are animals, homo sapiens sapiens. But they are no fish and no dogs and no birds and no monkeys. The behaviour of monkeys tells us little to nothing about us. Especially because the social and cultural factor plays a much larger role in human behaviour then in monkey behaviour and even among monkeys social and cultural factors are accounted.

Some nature scientists tend to make the mistake to confuse correllation with cause/effect. Some things seem simmilar but are not.

[WhoRonPaul]

however the question remains, are chimps that much different than mickey mouse..?

[FkyGGGG]

"Are We That Different from Chimps?"...

idiot...ask you wife dumbass....

you Darwinianist....LMAO!

[Aaberg123]

Yay. Yet another Creationist. How wonderful.

Give evidence for your god, and then we'll have a proper discussion.

[FkyGGGG]

Give evidence for your everything was created from nothing.... Give evidence "ALL" life was created then recreated and recreated from that little puddle...you See Aaberg123, one can Prove G-d...this is where Faith comes in...

and belive me...its takes much much much more faith to believe Darwins.

[Aaberg123]

That really depends on what you want me to defend? The theory of evolution or the hypothesis of abiogenesis.

I never said you need to prove anything (only ever possible in mathematics). I told you to provide evidence.

"and belive me...its takes much much much more faith to believe Darwins."

Yeah, I know. You must be right; because my 20 years as a devout Christian gives me no inside knowledge on this matter.

[WhatsAfterThisPlace]

Truth is Religious people will never ever accept Evolution though they have Transitional Fossils and many bones from previous primates who were similar to us, just like CapnOordanary said "We have the evidence we win you lose" it is true and I used to be a Christian for 18 years Look at me now happier than Ever :)