Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (212481)	1/12/2007 12:58:45 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Damn, not a single aspect of my Nobel Prize winning theory was new. It was a lot longer ago than May 2006 that I came up with all that stuff, but it is obvious that the thinking and data about it has been going a lot longer than that too, including the post-natal depression. Thanks for the link. I sometimes think women are not fit to have children. Reading their silly replies confirms it. They say [several of them] "I had no trouble bonding". Which shows they misunderstand what is being discussed. It's not that you TRY to bond and succeed. The point of the hormones is that not only do you bond, you bond whether you like it or not, try or not. You just suddenly find yourself in thrall to powerful emotions. It's a bit like saying "I had no problem becoming heterosexual". It's not something one chooses or succeeds at. It's more like being run over by a truck. "I had no trouble being run over by a truck". Well, no, I guess not. It's also funny that they say "It's just a man trying to get into women's business and what would he know about having children". As though thinking and data have anything whatsoever to do with being male or female. Except that women are less intelligent than men, so men should be doing such thinking and the women having the babies. Which isn't to say some women aren't smart enough to do such research, but obviously they are few and far between, or aren't replying to such studies [though a few did] as the effect of natural childbirth. I used to think women were actually as intelligent as men, despite their smaller brains and that the mental deficits in certain areas were simply due to earlier puberty and full brain size being attained. Which causes fewer experiences such as developing mathematical talents at an age when it becomes a foundation of brain process. Which means on average women are not as good as men at maths [and other things experienced later in life] and that the world champions at maths and science are men. Now I think women have other reasons they don't succeed as well as men. Earlier puberty, less intelligence [perhaps due to smaller brain], and probably lack of testosterone. Women are not as aggressively competitive as men. Maybe other reasons too. Males have to compete to get women, and women pick and choose and reject the losers who are eugenically removed from the gene pool. Women are eugenicists - men are happy to have anything carry their genes and rumour has it will even try to get sheep to do so. Women will only carry the genes of reasonably good males. They commit to a lot when the let a male supply half their baby. The bloke doesn't make a big commitment and even rape is considered a reasonable relationship often enough. It's not just humans either. I have seen a dog try to get a cat act as a DNA carrier and dogs will try to get human legs to carry their DNA too. On the other hand, I have seen bantam hens invite me to mate with them. I wondered what the heck it was doing and realized it was in mating position. Maybe the chickens had grown up in our yard and I was the nearest looking thing to a male rooster so it figured it better get in position. It wasn't just me. The children wondered what it was doing too. But it wasn't interested in laying eggs in a convenient place for me to be the father and help look after the babies. It was amazing at hiding its nest around the place. I doubt the bantam thought "Ah, I'm doing well at bonding with him". I think all these things are just floods of chemistry making us do things, or at least have a strong propensity to do, though humans can use their minds to control their actions to some extent. The other silly thing is that the women and men claimed that they couldn't love their babies more. Which is dopey because they don't know how they would love their babies if doped up with the chemicals. Sure, I think I love my children and grand child and am bonded. But I would bet that if such things could be properly measured, the mothers were a LOT stronger in their bonds. My breasts don't leak milk when my baby cries, for a start. The women who had both natural and caesarian would need to have their credibility checked [by natural do them mean ZERO pain relief or simply vaginal] and also, the claim of something doesn't make it true. They might think they have the same bonding and certainly want to say so because of course they want to love their children equally, but if actual bonding process could be measured without their thinking bias, it might be quite a different story. What people say, and what is true, are often quite different things. Then there is the fact of post natal depression. If not due to the chemistry, what is it? I think the bonding process is not so simple as oxytocin. There is also other stuff going on. I'm sure nature brings a lot of guns to bear on ensuring babies are looked after by both male and female and tribe. Nature would be derelict in its duty if it didn't do everything possible. And it does. Rather obviously by casual study of the whole business. It's not just the mother who gets dragged in. The male and relatives do too. Obviously, there's more to bonding that pain and oxytocin. But that's a vital aspect. It is well-known that mammal mothers go nuts if their babies are attacked. So do other mothers from ducks to crocodiles. Here's the latest on female intelligence: lagriffedulion.f2s.com Unintelligent women would say "3 IQ points? That's nothing. People vary more than that from breakfast to lunchtime testing". Which merely confirms they are not in the high IQ cohort. Mqurice PS: Unintelligent women would also say, "Yeah, well, unintelligent men would say the same thing". Which is also true, but it would spoil the fun if I had simply written "Unintelligent people" instead of "unintelligent women". In fact, that would be a good intelligence test question. More women than men would think that 3 IQ points is insignificant. We could even predict the proportion of women who would get it wrong. It would be just enough to show a 3 IQ point difference. Unintelligent women and especially those who dislike maths would NOT be able to follow that. Do you agree? Giggle... BTW, this has major foreign affairs implications. What with all the abortions and all the caesarians, bonding issues for children, and depression in their mothers and fragmented relationships resulting from that, not to mention the tons of Prozac etc, the USA is likely to be prone to get involved in wars and have trouble bonding with other countries. Chinese killing off all their female babies and having one child per family has major implications too. Hordes of love-starved little emperors meet swarms of Prozac-soaked Americans. This should be fun. Pass the nukes!!