• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The co-evolution of advanced human culture and liberal thinking:

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sounds rather flimsy about the dialing back of violence given more humans have been killed by war in the past century than any century previous. As well we are still a violent species that slaughter each other wholesale when given a chance.

What I can buy into is a more collectivist society forming 50,000 years. I have no idea if a skull shape has anything to do with it. The skull shape could also be a result of selective breeding due to more available males to choose from with the female population. In other words the huge brow was not an attractive feature. When given the chance the female population didnt procreate with that population and that trait died out as a result.
 
Genx87 said:
Sounds rather flimsy about the dialing back of violence given more humans have been killed by war in the past century than any century previous. As well we are still a violent species that slaughter each other wholesale when given a chance.
Click to expand...

No we don't.

Western society is less violent now than it used to be by an order of magnitude. At one point violence was practically a Game of Thrones type daily occurrence.

Violence doesn't necessarily mean killing.
 
Veliko said:
No we don't.

Western society is less violent now than it used to be by an order of magnitude. At one point violence was practically a Game of Thrones type daily occurrence.

Violence doesn't necessarily mean killing.
Click to expand...

You are kidding us right? Killing is the ultimate form of violence. Western society in the past 100 years killed in record numbers. So did Eastern and African cultures.
 
Killing is merely one form of violence and Western society in the past 100 years has also seen record population growth.

Violence used to be a daily thing, right down to the ways that parents chastised and punished their children. Crime is lower than it was and is still falling and things like the Geneva Convention have been brought in due to the horrors of war whereas before no-one cared about that kind of thing.
 
Veliko said:
Killing is merely one form of violence and Western society in the past 100 years has also seen record population growth.

Violence used to be a daily thing, right down to the ways that parents chastised and punished their children. Crime is lower than it was and is still falling and things like the Geneva Convention have been brought in due to the horrors of war whereas before no-one cared about that kind of thing.
Click to expand...

Tell that to people that live in North Philly, Camden, NJ or Wilmington, DE.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
You're the one claiming liberals kill less people and have better thought processes due to lower testosterone. How do they procreate with the issues that are seen with lower testosterone levels?
Click to expand...

They don't . . . much. Hence the evil plot of immigration: Give us your tired, your poor, your communal-minded communists yearning to be free. 😉
 
Genx87 said:
Sounds rather flimsy about the dialing back of violence given more humans have been killed by war in the past century than any century previous. As well we are still a violent species that slaughter each other wholesale when given a chance.

What I can buy into is a more collectivist society forming 50,000 years. I have no idea if a skull shape has anything to do with it. The skull shape could also be a result of selective breeding due to more available males to choose from with the female population. In other words the huge brow was not an attractive feature. When given the chance the female population didnt procreate with that population and that trait died out as a result.
Click to expand...

Think about what you are saying. I gathered from the article that testosterone and brow ridge size and aggression are mutually proportional. Isn't it much more likely that less aggressive fathers were selected by females because they make more nurturing fathers and thus better mates. But even if they liked less brow ridge that would, if the information above is correct, which I assume it is, that still means that females also liked less testosterone. So we come to the same place one way or the other, less violent males.

What you need to do to dispute this theory is to prove that testosterone isn't associated with aggression and brow ridge dimension.
 
Perknose said:
They don't . . . much. Hence the evil plot of immigration: Give us your tired, your poor, your communal-minded communists yearning to be free. 😉
Click to expand...

And here all along I thought they just wanted more Democrat voters when in actuality they are looking for breeding stock.
 
This happened 50,000 years ago? Earliest cave paintings are 30,000 years old. We were essentially a hunter-gatherer nomadic society until about 12,000 years ago. Hmmmm....slow learners I guess.
 
Last edited:
justoh said:
Americans must think the words are always synonymous? Is that in the constitution or something?
Click to expand...

In the political entertainment industry, it's much easier to only have two groups. Vilification, blame, rage, and hate are easier to produce and direct if you only have one target. Also, virtually everything becomes "us versus them", so every issue is black and white. For the media it's a panacea, as they almost don't have to investigate anything, simply read press reports and always interview extremists. Because the spectrum in either party is so wide, it's easy to find people on the fringe of any issue. So liberal is always Democrat and conservative is always Republican.
 
Last edited:
bryanl said:
Is this an example of high testosterone?

John Wayne wearing a cowboy hat, smoking a cigarette, and carrying a purse:

tumblr_lm1rctiG6Z1qcs4zto1_500.jpg
Click to expand...

Check where his eyes are, he was just "playin' the game". 😀

Edit: Oh, and posting in a Moonie/Steamer troll thread! Guys, don't get mad, you let the idiot get you worked up, and that's how he gets his jollies.
 
Last edited:
Greenman said:
In the political entertainment industry, it's much easier to only have two groups. Vilification, blame, rage, and hate are easier to produce and direct if you only have one target. Also, virtually everything becomes "us versus them", so every issue is black and white. For the media it's a panacea, as they almost don't have to investigate anything, simply read press reports and always interview extremists. Because the spectrum in either party is so wide, it's easy to find people on the fringe of any issue. So liberal is always Democrat and conservative is always Republican.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think the qualities you describe are those that scientists have found distinguish conservative from liberal thinking with the result that such appeals to group loyalty and fear mongering sensationalism are just the kind of phenomena that galvanize conservatives rather than liberals and therefor just the kind created by the cunning sycophants who use their understanding of the CBD to achieve the objectives of wealthy special interests at the ballot box and earn a paycheck thereby.
 
justoh said:
why do people think liberal= us democrat? There's a whole world out there!
Click to expand...

Do you actually think there is a valid explanation for this?

To them liberal = liberal = communist = someone who is somehow weak and cowardly and terrifying and somehow threatening the very existance of conservatives at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top