Evolution @ MindSay

Here is a great video concerning optimistic evolution from Reason.  Pay attention to when Ridley discusses the influences of Adam Smith and other early economists on Darwin.

Okay, so - think about this: You're all grown up and an elder relative tells you that as a tiny baby, you always did something. Now, learned behavior is one thing - but what about primal instict, and natural selection of the subconscious? Ah, sounds deep and theoretical, no? It's not, don't worry. Check this out, it just might be fun.

 

Alright - let's talk SEX. Oooh, big bad word. It's the 3 letter equivalent in this world to all other fathomable 4 letter words. Now, from a guy's perspective:

You have 4 women's photos in front of you, and you have to pick just one with which to have a real dating relationship with based on attractiveness, sense of personality, and possible marital worth. These five gals are:

 

1. A gorgeous girl, but seems to be pissed. She's in a stiff black suit, squared heels, hair in a tight bun. Her glasses are perched high atop her nose, and she has the air of a wealthy elitist. She holds her pose with hands clasped in front of her near the level of her hips, and she's upright, head straight ahead. She does not look away, nor downward.

 

2. Another gal, average figure, naturally pretty face. She's in nothing but a pair of men's boxers, a big t-shirt, and a pair of fold-down socks. She's flopped on the floor, reading a book. Her smile and expression are playful, honest, and youthful. Her hair's pulled into a ponytail, with a few whisps left about her face. Pillows thrown about her, she's half-laying propped on one arm while otherwise laying belly-down.

 

3. Our next femme is in a tight red dress reminiscent of lingerie. Tall stilletto heels, garterbelts and fishnet hosiery. She's wearing dark but moderate makeup, hair is long and down. She has an aggressive facial tone, with eyes that say bedroom and fight in one go. Her pose is forced and unnatural, her figure enhanced, but near Barbie-eque perfection. She's very tanned, manicured and waxed - constantly on check for any flaws.

 

4. This girl is a bit over her thinnest weight, but not heavy. She's athletic of build, shorter hair in a fun, almost flirty/bohemian style. She has as much as possible in a haphazard attempt at an updo in a hairclip, bright, loving eyes. She wears a pair of athletic pants and a sports bra with a nicer shirt over it. She seems to want to talk, and she's leaned against a parkbench talking to a child. No makeup, and has a homemade muffin by her purse for lunch.

 

5. She's average height and weight and she's wearing a light cotton summer dress to her knees.Her makeup is light and complimentary.. Her hair is down, soft and wavy. She smiles sweetly and her eyes sparkle with innocence.

 

Okay - got the images in your head? Great! Now, let's see what happens.

Guy likes # 1 because : She's very snobbish, seems to be mentally an elitist, and probably very dominating and brusque in attitude. Too tightly wound, it's a conquest to over-rule her and see her "relax" a little. Besides, she's got a career of her own, so no money fears with her. She seems to hold her own, and very educated.

 

Guy likes #2 because: She's relaxed, youthful, honest, open, and mischevious. Very girl next door, almost innocent, a childlike purity and naivety seem to be her gift as well. She's not high maintenence, and would probably be adventurous and experimental, and more likely to be humorous and casual.

 

Guy likes #3 because: She's a trophy. She's perfection, a living doll to show off and stare at. She goes out of her way to look just right, and is very meticulous about her image. Probably a great jawdropper at parties, and someone who with in public, would turn all heads with respect and envy.

 

Guy likes #4 because: She's got a blend of mothering instincts, outdoorsy, tomboy, homemaker, honesty, commitment, and an air of dedication to her. She's not a femme fatale, but she's got beautiful, sparkling, smiling eyes, a sense of humor and imagination. Not a great trophy to show, but perfect to introduce to anyone and have them fall for her heart and smile.

 

Guy likes #5 because: She's a safe bet. She's respectful, kind, and is the ultimate good girl. She may not be sexy, exciting, adventurous, sponateous or boldly free, but she's a traditional gal, the work of many years bringing up the perfect Christian wife, and marraige ready.

 

 

SO what does this show?

 

It's a primal instict that shows where we're led to subconciously.

 

Maybe Guy has dated young "princess" types and yet, is always eyeing the librarian.

Maybe he's been having sex with the Barbie-esque gal, but only feels truly alive when he sees our 4th girl jog by, stopping to pick up a softball and toss it back out before falling squarely on her butt with a soft laugh.

 

We are attracted to what we mentally want. I think this is why, just artistically, from what I noticed:

 

Dark, serious shades, hard lines, bold = nature's mountains, hard-wood trees, rocks, and shadows - unwavering and solid. (#1)

 

Pastel shades, sparkling, fluttery, and soft = delicate flowers, soft scents, breezes, butterflies and sand - softly yeilding, pure, fragile, memorable. (#2)

 

Colorful shades, seductive and eyecatching = animal kingdom's warning of *poisonous*, therefor, a forbidden.

(#3)

 

Haphazard combinations of all of the above = nature in general, and much like birds, the colors are present but less vibrant in females, and a mottled effect occurs - mysterious mixes of breeds and origins of home, sunrise/sunset, seasons, sky, earthy, unknown. (#4)

 

White,yellow, pale = in the mating world of bugs, animals and even fish you'll find that quite a few of the females waiting to be mated with are more blandly colored, and have more white and pale shades to their feathers and wings. They aren't usually the more extravagant of species, but are consistent and hardy. (5)

 

SO what you get is the basic idea that we, just like animals, are attracted to certain things NOT because we choose to be, and not because it's a learned trait, but rather out of nature's way of ensuring diversity and lineage continuing in mankind. As long as the corporate chairwoman lusts secretly after her dad's gardener, we all know that truly, we're still all just animals at the end of the day.

 

So there's your useless sex-ed theorem for the day, lol! Tomorrow, emotions - and why some of us (or them)have more of one than another. For example we all know these two: one man is a total cynical ass, vs. the man who believes/feels everything and is so sensitive he's accused of being a girl.

 

And there's more - but you'll see, you'll start thinking," Omg, that's so-and-so! That's exactly what he's like!" And maybe - we'll quit deciding who best suits our wants and dreams by their looks one day, vs. how we feel when we see them frumpy and chucking a wayward ball back to left field, eh?

 

One can always hope...

Lilli

I have been developing an hypothesis about the nature of ears and hearing. The premise is that hearing in humans, as in all of nature, arose primarily as a defence mechanism. It allowed the critters of the forest to either determine if something they could not see was about to be a threat to them or whether it was to be dinner for them.

Music came along  much, much later in the evolutionary roll out.

I have discussed this with some scholars in both the music and biological sciences. Diana Deutsch at USC, a developer of psychoacoustic audio illusions commented, February 2008,  that this line of inquiry was "very interesting" and that she would "ponder them" some more. There are several I have yet to hear back from. But I'll keep refining my thoughts and emails.

My main idea here is that music is fundamentally foreign to hearing evolution, in the longest view. In the shorter view; less than 100,000 years, music may have locked it's "molecules" into friend-or-foe "receptors" that were already present in the human brain. This would help account for such things a tribe-specific ritual music and national anthems. These, I think, are meta-affects. In the mico aspect hearing is still very much a safety feature, hence car horns, alarms and other "foe" or caution evoking sounds on the one hand and favourable, pleasing sounds such as meat cooking, the sound of a favored loved one or pet, or jovial laughter on the other.

It is, therefore, easy to understand how the Us vs Them mentality forms around musical genera. Metalers vs Punks, Country vs Rap, Classical vs anything else. The crux of the biscuit here is that, I believe, people make broad safety-based assumptions about people based upon the music those people listen to.

Try this: go to a place where some good-ol'-boys are and tell them that you like Rap. The first thing you will be exposed to is racist attitudes. It's almost invariably so. Why? Hate stems from fear. If you fear ethnics, you will learn to associate there "anthems" with that fear. It seems that, regardless of the quality of the music, the anthems - such as Rap is the Urbanites - will evoke that sense of fear and anathema in the mind of some listeners. I think this could be studied with fMRI.

Now, I am sure there is much more to this and I am still studying to work out my hypothesis to the level of testing, but I'm sure I will make some more interesting observations here in the next little while.