Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
Cuts right to the bone :cryblood:
-
Embed this notice
@TrevorGoodchild The existence of pair bonding shows that this is not correct.
Pair bonded people form a pathway in the brain such that the association itself *becomes* the benefit.
Besides, if I were to apply this tactical nihilism to itself, then the rule becomes meaningless. Literally everything in nature only takes place because there is some perceived benefit.
-
Embed this notice
@WandererUber @TrevorGoodchild The law is specific to animals, not humans. He saw humans as the opposite dynamic due to the patriarchy (in a positive sense). With shifts from patriarchal family dynamics you may see more animal-like interaction, or not, no society has done all the crazy changes we are going through before.
-
Embed this notice
@Zettour @TrevorGoodchild He said it doesn't apply because of the judicial structure of patriarchy. But he is incorrect in the biological sense. I am well aware of the changes. These are biological certainly. This law is still incorrect.
There are animals who have a similar pair-bonding mechanism and they also stay monogamous their whole life. And the diversity of neural mechanism is far greater in humans so some may have a lower pair bonding effect, i.e. a seasonal bond forms.
Guess what's gonna happen if you test for that and sort by race.
Same thing that always happens.
-
Embed this notice
@WandererUber @Zettour @TrevorGoodchild >Same thing that always happens.
Every world statistic ever
-
Embed this notice
🤔 all those statistics have something in common.