05 Jul 2020, 5:31 pm
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Chain wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Sorry Mr. Chain, but your ideal bonobo-like prehistory never existed 
. Homo sapiens evolved as a bloody species.
. Homo sapiens evolved as a bloody species.This is a total misunderstanding of how evolution works. I suppose we evolved from Adam's rib?
There were no bonobos or chimps with the split(s) happened. Yes we evolved as a species but we did not have language and culture until relatively recently.
If you want to believe that God created us 6,000 years ago...great! I am totally cool with that.
If you feel evolution is valid: There were pre-human forms and mating strategies that differ from the cultural ones that exist today. This code is still running to a degree in our heads.
As far as it never existing.
This is a theory. I am explaining this theory and the reason I see things the way that I do. I am less positive about its correctness than you seem to be about its incorrectness. I feel from observation that my theory is accurate. I did not approach this with certain prejudices, I see real world phenomenon and try to explain it scientifically.
First of all, I am atheist - I do not believe in God.
Second of all, I was referring to the split between the common chimps and bonobo chimps; hence why I mentioned a common ancestor between ( ). The split between hominin and other great apes is ever much earlier - this is a proper understanding of how evolution works.
Please learn to read posts properly before making such silly pretentious assumptions; or skip me if you just don’t like what I am saying, that’s not a scientific attitude tho.
What I was pointing out is that there were no common chimps and bonobos when the splits happened. There were forms that were similar and homo was one of those similar forms when the split happened.
The point here is that you say that I am not thinking this through because I am influenced by feminism. You are mixing concepts of matriarchy with prehuman species. There was no matriarchy at that point because there was no modern culture.
When Homo and Pan diverged from a common ancestor, they had a mating strategy. Maybe that strategy was that males had a female harem. The moderate size dimorphism does not support that view. Other great apes do have dimorphism that supports it. Males in a suitor stack do not need to be particularly large because they are competing within the stack and the stack actually provides them fairly equal sexual opportunities. The human mating strategy moved to a cultural one at some point... that may have well been some sort of "patriarchy".
Culture is a real mixed bag... we certainly don't act like bonobos or chimps at this point anyway. I am what I call EC+U+S/C. This means I have very little cultural processing happening in my head. I have a bootstrap cognition... I am "closer to the metal" in computing terms. Being this way... much more ancient parts of my brain have taken over.
(Sexual) Women who are like me, (and I have met quite a few in researching this book) more often than not, have a bunch of men giving them much more attention than most women get. What I am saying here is that this indicates that our prehuman ancestors probably had a mating strategy much closer to bonobos. People like us can really only connect in this ancient way.
All that being said, you keep hurling personal insults.
I do not think you are mean or bad or stupid. I can tell you are highly intelligent, thoughtful and compassionate. Please extend that compassion to me by being mindful that I might not like being told that I am wrong bc feminists had some idea.
This is not an ism... it is an ology.
Please read my previous posts on wp on functional cognitive typology if you want to see where I am going with this. I am back here posting because possibly some people might be interested. I might be able to get some support in writing this book. I need it because I don't have words in my head and I am so totally scattered it is amazing I can walk a straight line some days.
I do not expect anybody to agree with me without thought and I expect FAR more disagreement. I also do not expect people to question not my theory but my intelligence.
I am sorry if I sounded abrupt but I do get peeved when people tell me I am falling for propaganda... don't you?
Please forgive my for the "That is not how evolution works" comment. That was out of line as was insinuating that you were taking a theist approach to this.
I am done with this conversation. let's put it past us.
05 Jul 2020, 8:32 pm
Popcorn!
Get your hot popcorn!
<Pepe, the popcorn vendor>
Last edited by Pepe on 05 Jul 2020, 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
05 Jul 2020, 8:32 pm
Yes stick to the thread, we are supposed to be salivating over the imaginary image of the OP 
05 Jul 2020, 8:55 pm
cyberdad wrote:
Yes stick to the thread, we are supposed to be salivating over the imaginary image of the OP
<sigh>
Never left.
05 Jul 2020, 9:00 pm
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
06 Jul 2020, 1:19 am
Chain wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Chain wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Sorry Mr. Chain, but your ideal bonobo-like prehistory never existed . Homo sapiens evolved as a bloody species.
. Homo sapiens evolved as a bloody species.This is a total misunderstanding of how evolution works. I suppose we evolved from Adam's rib?
There were no bonobos or chimps with the split(s) happened. Yes we evolved as a species but we did not have language and culture until relatively recently.
If you want to believe that God created us 6,000 years ago...great! I am totally cool with that.
If you feel evolution is valid: There were pre-human forms and mating strategies that differ from the cultural ones that exist today. This code is still running to a degree in our heads.
As far as it never existing.
This is a theory. I am explaining this theory and the reason I see things the way that I do. I am less positive about its correctness than you seem to be about its incorrectness. I feel from observation that my theory is accurate. I did not approach this with certain prejudices, I see real world phenomenon and try to explain it scientifically.
First of all, I am atheist - I do not believe in God.
Second of all, I was referring to the split between the common chimps and bonobo chimps; hence why I mentioned a common ancestor between ( ). The split between hominin and other great apes is ever much earlier - this is a proper understanding of how evolution works.
Please learn to read posts properly before making such silly pretentious assumptions; or skip me if you just don’t like what I am saying, that’s not a scientific attitude tho.
What I was pointing out is that there were no common chimps and bonobos when the splits happened. There were forms that were similar and homo was one of those similar forms when the split happened.
The point here is that you say that I am not thinking this through because I am influenced by feminism. You are mixing concepts of matriarchy with prehuman species. There was no matriarchy at that point because there was no modern culture.
When Homo and Pan diverged from a common ancestor, they had a mating strategy. Maybe that strategy was that males had a female harem. The moderate size dimorphism does not support that view. Other great apes do have dimorphism that supports it. Males in a suitor stack do not need to be particularly large because they are competing within the stack and the stack actually provides them fairly equal sexual opportunities. The human mating strategy moved to a cultural one at some point... that may have well been some sort of "patriarchy".
Culture is a real mixed bag... we certainly don't act like bonobos or chimps at this point anyway. I am what I call EC+U+S/C. This means I have very little cultural processing happening in my head. I have a bootstrap cognition... I am "closer to the metal" in computing terms. Being this way... much more ancient parts of my brain have taken over.
(Sexual) Women who are like me, (and I have met quite a few in researching this book) more often than not, have a bunch of men giving them much more attention than most women get. What I am saying here is that this indicates that our prehuman ancestors probably had a mating strategy much closer to bonobos. People like us can really only connect in this ancient way.
All that being said, you keep hurling personal insults.
I do not think you are mean or bad or stupid. I can tell you are highly intelligent, thoughtful and compassionate. Please extend that compassion to me by being mindful that I might not like being told that I am wrong bc feminists had some idea.
This is not an ism... it is an ology.
Please read my previous posts on wp on functional cognitive typology if you want to see where I am going with this. I am back here posting because possibly some people might be interested. I might be able to get some support in writing this book. I need it because I don't have words in my head and I am so totally scattered it is amazing I can walk a straight line some days.
I do not expect anybody to agree with me without thought and I expect FAR more disagreement. I also do not expect people to question not my theory but my intelligence.
I am sorry if I sounded abrupt but I do get peeved when people tell me I am falling for propaganda... don't you?
Please forgive my for the "That is not how evolution works" comment. That was out of line as was insinuating that you were taking a theist approach to this.
I am done with this conversation. let's put it past us.
Jeez, I said the two species split from a common ancestor; which means I am fully aware they were neither chimps nor bonobo, but a common ancestor species; and full aware that Pan and Homo didn't have the same species of today back in their split. I am fully aware that all apes of today are modern apes - only creationist people confuse these things.
And you started with the insults and belittling when you started accusing me of believing earth is 6000 years only. I took that as an insult. lol
But fine, all well.
06 Jul 2020, 12:56 pm
Chain wrote:
pre-cultural females were the so called "alphas" with a bunch of males vying for a chance to mate. As a female rose up through the ranks of females, she would build a "harem" of males with a primary male. The fittest male would become her primary choice for mating. It is a pretty simple strategy but culture has obscured these old patterns (patriarchy, blech!).
Bonobos have the closest strategy today.
I agree with you on many levels,
but I don’t think it’s just about the fittest male or the “alpha” male, that a female would chose to mate with. As a female you have to make sure, to give birth to a strong baby and to avoid incest or genetical mismatches.
Chain wrote:
This is what I refer to as "suitor stacking". She watches, then chooses the fittest male (s). All my primal sisters do this to different degrees. I find it fascinating! If they think I am in their suitor stack, they get two middle fingers from me... like come on sis, just because I care about you doesn't mean I am in the stack! 
My primal sisters do not know they are doing this and I know they genuinely care for the males in their suitor stacks. The code is running in the males as well, so it is not just them creating the stack!
Oh and they generally get REALLY pissed off when I talk about this!
I don't really care if they do. I think they are awesome just the same. We did not ask to be born the way we were. Primal males have a bunch of stuff going on too that may be less than comfortable to talk about.
Anyway... this is the last piece of this puzzle. Believe it or don't
Addendum: We all run this code so both genders are equally part of this. I do not want people to think this theory is one sided. And also... this is simply part of the evolutionary model and will be in the book.
My primal sisters do not know they are doing this and I know they genuinely care for the males in their suitor stacks. The code is running in the males as well, so it is not just them creating the stack!
Oh and they generally get REALLY pissed off when I talk about this!
I don't really care if they do. I think they are awesome just the same. We did not ask to be born the way we were. Primal males have a bunch of stuff going on too that may be less than comfortable to talk about.
Anyway... this is the last piece of this puzzle. Believe it or don't
Addendum: We all run this code so both genders are equally part of this. I do not want people to think this theory is one sided. And also... this is simply part of the evolutionary model and will be in the book.
This is so funny.
06 Jul 2020, 5:57 pm
Chain wrote:
LunaticCentruroides wrote:
But wouldn’t you say the NT’s are the ones that seem to have more of an “animal” (mainly) in social settings? Even if I see it the way you see it... if I think about it. But we as Aspies, still seem to be the ones being rational, that notice every detail in social interaction, which we process through analyzing? I’m still trying to explore my own brain a lot. It’s so contradicting.
A human is an animal with culture. We have a very tenuous grasp on culture. It has lots of unspoken rules and small talk and strangeness. We don't run culture. We are more primal... I call it animal as a way of working with it but honestly it really cannot be labeled.
LunaticCentruroides wrote:
When I was younger(and sometimes it still happens) looking someone straight in the eyes that looks into my eyes back, is like looking into the sun. It’s bright and hurtful, as if there’s information coming in, which you don’t want to have in your system. But meanwhile it seems to be the opposite. People can’t keep up with me, looking at them.
That is EXACTLY my experience... not surprising. When I was young... the information overload was intense. Eyes were painful. Then they became pleasurable.... now I am cautious again. I love female attention and hate it at the same time. With men, the eye look can threaten them. I have used this to my advantage in the past to get aggressive men to back down.
LunaticCentruroides wrote:
My spirit animal is a Dolphin by the way
I LOVE IT! Smart, graceful, playful, compassionate swims deep and sharks are no match for them
oh... did I forget intense?My wife is a hummingbird
small, fast, feisty and somewhat aggressive. (she punches me when I make jokes about her name "Thu" pronounced like 2) It's so interesting to see, how identical we are on so many things.
06 Jul 2020, 6:09 pm
Pepe wrote:
Chain wrote:
Switch genders.
pre-cultural females were the so called "alphas" with a bunch of males vying for a chance to mate. As a female rose up through the ranks of females, she would build a "harem" of males with a primary male. The fittest male would become her primary choice for mating. It is a pretty simple strategy but culture has obscured these old patterns (patriarchy, blech!).
Bonobos have the closest strategy today.
Are you calling LC a quasi monkey?
True,
The men have gone all ape over her.
I'll take that as a compliment.
06 Jul 2020, 6:49 pm
06 Jul 2020, 8:26 pm
Has insight into our biology in any way answered your questions LC?
06 Jul 2020, 9:25 pm
cyberdad wrote:
Has insight into our biology in any way answered your questions LC?
Haha
Sometimes we have to go to the core of the issue, ain't we?
06 Jul 2020, 10:20 pm
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
07 Jul 2020, 1:18 am
07 Jul 2020, 3:26 pm
07 Jul 2020, 6:04 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Making friends |
20 Jul 2026, 12:47 pm |
| Is it weird I feel I'm not meant to make friends? |
12 Jul 2026, 2:22 am |
| Late diagnosed, high-masking female, looking to make friends |
18 Jul 2026, 6:16 pm |
