Jump to content

Abdul-Aziz

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Neutral

About Abdul-Aziz

  • Rank
    Meson

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Philosopher
  1. iNow, There is no place for making vicious ad hominem attacks against others in the great halls of science. Either say something intelligent or don't say anything at all.
  2. Why do women avoid men of high intelligence? I once asked the noted anthropologist Donald Symons (University of California in Santa Barbara), and the evolutionary psychologists David Buss (University of Texas) and David C. Geary (University of Missouri) this rather quite interesting question: The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau once said: "Women, in general, are not attracted to art at all, nor knowledge, and not at all to genius." A close personal acquaintance of mine seems to believe that most women are physically repelled by men of high intelligence because most women are s
  3. No, my point is that a substantial percentage of women prefer "bad boys" (think the "Dark Triad" of Jonason et al) over "nice guys"; these women find "bad boys" much more attractive and more socially desirable than males who possess altruisic behaviour and personality characteristics. To everyone: Let's keep this thread open because this is a very important issue that needs to be discussed. Thank you.
  4. Have you ever considered sending an e-mail to faculty of psychiatry professors at a prestigious university? You would probably get more responses.
  5. I don't think homosexuality is entirely biological in origin, neither do I believe that it is completely socially constructed. Homosexuality is not some monolithic entity, but exists along a homosexual continuum punctuated by readily distinguishable "homosexualities", with one form of homosexuality blending imperceptibly into another form of homosexuality. Although some "homosexualities" maybe purely biological in origin, others can involve aspects of both genetics and social constructionism, and still other "homosexualities" can be entirely socially constructed.
  6. Animals, particularly mammalian species, are capable of forming close attachment bonds, however I don't think elephants and humans have the same capacity to love. Humans can provide, rear, and nurture dogs to maturity through the capacity of selfless love, whereas I'm not so sure elephants are capable of doing the same thing.
  7. Well, there is some scientific research which suggests that canines can experience learned helplessness, which is a rudimentary form of depression.
  8. In the distant evolutionary past, as well as in all pre-industrial, agricultural societies, men who possessed high levels of physical strength, athletic prowess, natural aggression, and dominance, were those deemed most capable of providing for and defending a woman and her children. In an age where might made right and tilling the land for sustenance involved an incredible amount of physical strength, it made perfect evolutionary sense for a woman to choose a warrior or a really tough "bad boy". A scholar, a poet, or a philosopher would stand no chance before a horde of wandering barbarians,
  9. I believe that, to a certain degree, mammalian species of animal and human beings share very similar emotions. For example, all of the more primitive emotions that we as human beings feel, such as pain, pleasure, loss, anger, animal attachment, fear, lust etc, are almost certainly experienced by animals, particularly by those belonging to mammalian species. However, more complex emotions such as empathy, compassion, sorrow, guilt, love, conscientiousness etc, seem to be found only in humans. Although a controversial field of inquiry, there is some evidence that certain species of animal, such
  10. I have been trying to answer everybody's questions on this thread. However, I'm only human; I can't answer 20 people at once. I did not repost all of my arguments verbatim; I have also provided a considerable amount of clarification/elaboration on certain issues. All of the research I have cited definitively proves each one of my 3 contentions. The only sources that you criticized were either deliberately misinterpreted by you or not crucial in any way to my theory. However, I am open to suggestions and willing to listen to input that may prove to be invaluable sometime
  11. The term "evolutionist" is an ideological, not a scientific construct. It is an obscurantist word used by creationists and other nonscientists to smear their opponents and silence rational dissent. The world of empirical research has no place for ad hominem attacks on others.
  12. No. What I did was elaborate on certain issues in order to provide sufficient clarification to first-time viewers of this thread. I just want people to be well aware of the issues at stake and what supporting information is available. Not only have I provided a tremendous amount of empirical research which supports all of the contentions I have made, but I have been actively participating in this debate since day one. Sometimes I cannot continue debating because of real world issues that need to be taken care of, but those are external factors of which I have no control. Otherwise
  13. All Recent Evidence Indicates That Women Prefer “Bad Boys” Over “Nice Guys” In the abstract of McDaniel’s paper, Why/Why not date a nice guy? (2005), it states: The results of the present study suggest that reasons for dating (i.e., not wanting physical contact, wanting stimulating conversation, and wanting an exclusive relationship) and perceived personality traits (i.e., sweet/nice and physically attractive) influence a young woman's desire to date a nice guy, and that perceived personality traits are better predictors of her choice of a man to date than are reasons for dating.
  14. Your wife's therapist sounds like a Freudian psycho-analyst to me. Your discussion of "parts" seems to correspond to Freud's notion of id, ego, and superego. Have you ever considered regular psychotherapy instead?
  15. I remember reading somewhere that the police, such as the FBI or New Scotland Yard, find that catching serial killers is often very difficult because the serial murderers themselves are normally people of very high intelligence and creativity. Some serial killers, such as the so-called Zodiac Killer or Jack the Ripper, are never caught because they are able to outwit the authorities for decades, if not forever.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.