ExploringSikhi
SPNer
- Aug 13, 2013
- 60
- 94
Yeah... no.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/biologi...chromosome-theory-men-will-still-exist-239833
You're gonna have to wait a bit longer for men to disappear. :winkingmunda:
Arts/Society What Are Your Thoughts On The Interaction Of Male / Female Relationship Of Marriage?
- Thread starter Harkiran Kaur
- Start date
- Replies 68
- Reads 15K
Yeah... no.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/biologi...chromosome-theory-men-will-still-exist-239833
You're gonna have to wait a bit longer for men to disappear. :winkingmunda:
Exploring Sikhi ji
Evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology do not go had in hand.
From the point of view of established scientific method evolutionary psychology still has a long way to go to gain acceptance as science, rather than a collection of conjectures that are then "demonstrated," using samples that are neither representative of the populations they purport to represent nor of sufficient size to allow for statistical evaluations of their accuracy/lack of statistical bias.
Evolutionary psychology fails on the scientific principle of replication because individual studies are difficult to reproduce. Even when findings may be valid for Nottinghamshire, they may not be reproducible in London. Therefore generalizing to the whole of human nature based on descriptive studies conducted with volunteer college students is shaky inference.
Evolutionary psychology in addition fails on the scientific principle of falsification because it has not to date conducted studies that control for other variables that might dispute its starting assumptions, or starting assumptions of any particular study.
Then there is always a problem arguing that principles that guide biological change are the same principles that govern behavior, values, beliefs and emotions. The theoretical arguments abound and have been contested since the middle of the 19 Century. Where are the empirical studies?
Evolutionary psychology suffers from a one-size-fits all fallacy. Men are like xxxxxx because survival depends on it. Men who do not display xxxxxxxx do not have opportunities to attract mates and further their genetic line. This reasoning is out of sync with evolutionary biology. Nature always makes room for the long-shots. The long shots make important contributions to the gene-pool, which is why biological diversity is so important.
Biological structures change/evolve in accordance with the distribution of variant forms within a species. Dominant members of a group may not be able to withstand sudden environmental pressure or change. Deviant members of a species with statistically rare traits can then contribute in stressful periods to long-term survival of the species. This is the fundamental mechanism of natural selection. Natural selection is a long-standing principle of evolutionary biology. It asserts that when a sufficient number of males and females within any species are sufficiently diverse, some deviant members may be better able to withstand environmental change. Because of this, the species will continue. Deviant members may even in time become dominant. Less robust members do not die out, but are simply represented in fewer numbers. Champions that are no longer able to withstand the stress become the new deviants, and a new norm emerges. It is almost as if biology takes out an insurance policy on species survival -- there are always some deviants in the group that may prove to be the champions when the environment shifts enough to threaten a species.
Akasha ji was making somewhat of that argument in layman's terms - albeit the video was melodramatic.
There is always a hint of survival of the fittest throughout the work of evolutionary psychology, Survival of the fittest is not a biological principle but an economic one, coined by Malthus. They have a long way to go.
Evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology do not go had in hand.
From the point of view of established scientific method evolutionary psychology still has a long way to go to gain acceptance as science, rather than a collection of conjectures that are then "demonstrated," using samples that are neither representative of the populations they purport to represent nor of sufficient size to allow for statistical evaluations of their accuracy/lack of statistical bias.
Evolutionary psychology fails on the scientific principle of replication because individual studies are difficult to reproduce. Even when findings may be valid for Nottinghamshire, they may not be reproducible in London. Therefore generalizing to the whole of human nature based on descriptive studies conducted with volunteer college students is shaky inference.
Evolutionary psychology in addition fails on the scientific principle of falsification because it has not to date conducted studies that control for other variables that might dispute its starting assumptions, or starting assumptions of any particular study.
Then there is always a problem arguing that principles that guide biological change are the same principles that govern behavior, values, beliefs and emotions. The theoretical arguments abound and have been contested since the middle of the 19 Century. Where are the empirical studies?
Evolutionary psychology suffers from a one-size-fits all fallacy. Men are like xxxxxx because survival depends on it. Men who do not display xxxxxxxx do not have opportunities to attract mates and further their genetic line. This reasoning is out of sync with evolutionary biology. Nature always makes room for the long-shots. The long shots make important contributions to the gene-pool, which is why biological diversity is so important.
Biological structures change/evolve in accordance with the distribution of variant forms within a species. Dominant members of a group may not be able to withstand sudden environmental pressure or change. Deviant members of a species with statistically rare traits can then contribute in stressful periods to long-term survival of the species. This is the fundamental mechanism of natural selection. Natural selection is a long-standing principle of evolutionary biology. It asserts that when a sufficient number of males and females within any species are sufficiently diverse, some deviant members may be better able to withstand environmental change. Because of this, the species will continue. Deviant members may even in time become dominant. Less robust members do not die out, but are simply represented in fewer numbers. Champions that are no longer able to withstand the stress become the new deviants, and a new norm emerges. It is almost as if biology takes out an insurance policy on species survival -- there are always some deviants in the group that may prove to be the champions when the environment shifts enough to threaten a species.
Akasha ji was making somewhat of that argument in layman's terms - albeit the video was melodramatic.
There is always a hint of survival of the fittest throughout the work of evolutionary psychology, Survival of the fittest is not a biological principle but an economic one, coined by Malthus. They have a long way to go.
ExploringSikhi
SPNer
- Aug 13, 2013
- 60
- 94
spnadmin Ji,
apologies for not replying sooner, I have been busy with University coursework and have not had an opportunity to reply. I am still a bit short on time, so I will try to keep this short.
I feel like this is the cornerstone of your argument. While I agree with most of your post, about biological evolution making allowances for genetic variations, the importance of these variations in the event of radical environmental change, I fail to see how this in any way downplays the credibility of evolutionary psychology.
Evolutionary psychology, like evolutionary biology, does not state that "a male with xxxx will survive and a male who does not have xxxx won't, in a given environment", if that was the case, I would agree with you that it is rigid and too narrow to be true.
Evolutionary psychology, like evolutionary biology, states that "a male with xxxx HAS A BETTER CHANCE of survival than a male without xxxx, in a given environment." It states that certain traits are FAVOURED over others, but there are no absolutes, you cannot lump 7 billion people together and paint them all with the same brush, which is why evolutionary psychology works on the principle of average, it applies to the general population, not the entire population. Even the runt of the litter may be able to procreate, he certainly doesn't have as good a chance as the more dominant offspring, but the opportunity does exist and given enough runts, some of them are bound to pass their genes on into the next generation. This allows for genetic variation, because there will always be individuals who manage to slip through the cracks and defy the odds.
Everything else in your reply ties into what has been said above. What you have written aove is 100% true, but again, it does not in any way disprove evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology is far from rigid. If the environment goes through a radical change, causing the makeup of the gene pool to alter along with it (because the fringe members of the gene pool now have a better chance of survival than the general population), then the "favoured traits", as per evolutionary psychology, also change. They do not stay the same. If tomorrow, aliens landed on Earth and proceeded to kill every female who preferred a mate who was taller than her, and they remained on Earth and continued to carry out these killings anytime a woman who had a natural attraction to taller men was born, then evolutionary psychology would no longer state that taller men have a reproductive advantage over their shorter counterparts, the favoured traits would change, this is the opposite of narrow and rigid.
apologies for not replying sooner, I have been busy with University coursework and have not had an opportunity to reply. I am still a bit short on time, so I will try to keep this short.
I feel like this is the cornerstone of your argument. While I agree with most of your post, about biological evolution making allowances for genetic variations, the importance of these variations in the event of radical environmental change, I fail to see how this in any way downplays the credibility of evolutionary psychology.
Evolutionary psychology, like evolutionary biology, does not state that "a male with xxxx will survive and a male who does not have xxxx won't, in a given environment", if that was the case, I would agree with you that it is rigid and too narrow to be true.
Evolutionary psychology, like evolutionary biology, states that "a male with xxxx HAS A BETTER CHANCE of survival than a male without xxxx, in a given environment." It states that certain traits are FAVOURED over others, but there are no absolutes, you cannot lump 7 billion people together and paint them all with the same brush, which is why evolutionary psychology works on the principle of average, it applies to the general population, not the entire population. Even the runt of the litter may be able to procreate, he certainly doesn't have as good a chance as the more dominant offspring, but the opportunity does exist and given enough runts, some of them are bound to pass their genes on into the next generation. This allows for genetic variation, because there will always be individuals who manage to slip through the cracks and defy the odds.
Everything else in your reply ties into what has been said above. What you have written aove is 100% true, but again, it does not in any way disprove evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology is far from rigid. If the environment goes through a radical change, causing the makeup of the gene pool to alter along with it (because the fringe members of the gene pool now have a better chance of survival than the general population), then the "favoured traits", as per evolutionary psychology, also change. They do not stay the same. If tomorrow, aliens landed on Earth and proceeded to kill every female who preferred a mate who was taller than her, and they remained on Earth and continued to carry out these killings anytime a woman who had a natural attraction to taller men was born, then evolutionary psychology would no longer state that taller men have a reproductive advantage over their shorter counterparts, the favoured traits would change, this is the opposite of narrow and rigid.
Exploring Sikhi ji
Perhaps you have narrowed this down to the understanding that evolutionary psychology is governed by laws similar to those of evolutionary biology. If so, then we have to next explore whether perceptions, thoughts, ideas, orientations, preferences - all under the lid of consciousness - are governed by laws similar to those of evolutionary biology. Evolutionary psychology is inclined in that direction, academic psychologists seem to be increasingly caving in to the bullying of their EP counterparts. No one has investigated with biologists are willing to take a stab at this debate. Do biologists believe that evolutionary psychology is governed by laws similar to those espoused by biology?
Perhaps you have narrowed this down to the understanding that evolutionary psychology is governed by laws similar to those of evolutionary biology. If so, then we have to next explore whether perceptions, thoughts, ideas, orientations, preferences - all under the lid of consciousness - are governed by laws similar to those of evolutionary biology. Evolutionary psychology is inclined in that direction, academic psychologists seem to be increasingly caving in to the bullying of their EP counterparts. No one has investigated with biologists are willing to take a stab at this debate. Do biologists believe that evolutionary psychology is governed by laws similar to those espoused by biology?
- Jul 11, 2012
- 274
- 640
- 62
Sorry if this is on the wrong thread.
I am not a punjabi speaker, so please forgive me if I'm misreading, but I was wondering about something I encounter.
Whenever I read a hukamnama and then check the commentary with the text, it often seems to start with the words: "He bhai!..."
To me this sounds like the commentary is directed to a brother. If this is the case, why is it assumed the Sikh is male?
Again, I do not speak punjabi and may well be reading this wrong, so I'd appreciate any answer.
Waheguru :blueturban:
I am not a punjabi speaker, so please forgive me if I'm misreading, but I was wondering about something I encounter.
Whenever I read a hukamnama and then check the commentary with the text, it often seems to start with the words: "He bhai!..."
To me this sounds like the commentary is directed to a brother. If this is the case, why is it assumed the Sikh is male?
Again, I do not speak punjabi and may well be reading this wrong, so I'd appreciate any answer.
Waheguru :blueturban:
Brother Onam ji
I take your point. And cannot answer your question. For clarification
This is the link to the thread from Darbar Sahib of the hukamnama for Saturday, November 2, 2013.
The hukamnama does not begin with "O brother!" in the Gurmukhi or English translation. You do see it in the katha, or commentary as you say. When hukamnama is taken at Gurdwara it begins with the raag and mehl.
http://www.sgpc.net/hukumnama/indexhtml.asp
Would you also let me know if you are seeing Gurmukhi fonts at the link..
I take your point. And cannot answer your question. For clarification
This is the link to the thread from Darbar Sahib of the hukamnama for Saturday, November 2, 2013.
The hukamnama does not begin with "O brother!" in the Gurmukhi or English translation. You do see it in the katha, or commentary as you say. When hukamnama is taken at Gurdwara it begins with the raag and mehl.
http://www.sgpc.net/hukumnama/indexhtml.asp
Would you also let me know if you are seeing Gurmukhi fonts at the link..
- Jul 11, 2012
- 274
- 640
- 62
SPNadmin ji,
Thank you for the reply. I checked the link and indeed it looks as I said. There is a column after the hukamnama called, I think, "Panjabi Viakia" which I assume is an elaboration of the text. This is where it often begins with "He bhai!".
If this is indeed directed towards a male Sikh reader, I wish it would rather be assumed that both male and female would equally want to be edified by partaking in Gurbani. Otherwise it might serve to perpetuate the unfortunate inclination to nudge kaurs into kitchen and child-rearing while singhs take care of big affairs.
Waheguru eternally.
Thank you for the reply. I checked the link and indeed it looks as I said. There is a column after the hukamnama called, I think, "Panjabi Viakia" which I assume is an elaboration of the text. This is where it often begins with "He bhai!".
If this is indeed directed towards a male Sikh reader, I wish it would rather be assumed that both male and female would equally want to be edified by partaking in Gurbani. Otherwise it might serve to perpetuate the unfortunate inclination to nudge kaurs into kitchen and child-rearing while singhs take care of big affairs.
Waheguru eternally.
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
