Humans not designed for monogomy

[El Orans]

So then it is just these particular scholarly research reports that you suggest we ignore?

You know what they say: There are liars, archliars and statisticians...

 

[G.Guptal]

No...IMO SOME research are like polls...when was the last time you were polled? Some research is good...What we are saying is that SOME people attempt to justify their behavior by throwing studies around such as it is natural...without having accountability for their behavior...

If multiple indpendant research shows that humans as well as most other species are designed not to be monogomous, then how would a person make themselves "accountable" as you put it for following the manner in which men and women are designed by being promiscuous?

 

[SmokingMirror]

If multiple indpendant research shows that humans as well as most other species are designed not to be monogomous, then how would a person make themselves "accountable" as you put it for following the manner in which men and women are designed by being promiscuous?

This statement is of course based on the deeply flawed belief that instinct, by its nature, absolves accountability for action(s), which is - not to put to finer point on it - metaphysical tosh.

What I'm more curious about is why this thread exists at all. True, this is a non-diving related section, and, true, this is a non-diving related thread, but neither does it seem to be a particularly profitable one so far. It starts not only without the usual premise or question for discussion, but without anything at all beyond a terse statement of why it's not in another section, and a few hyperlinks. It then descends rapidly into an irrelevant argument over whether or not research in general is or is not likely to be falsified and/or edited. The only deviation being goofystan posting an opinion which, judging from your response, seems to have struck a nerve.

I note from your other posts that you were rude to a member in the Alcohol thread, and become agressively confrontational on the monogomy subject in the What to do about a Cheater? thread, neither of which are likely to (a) endear you to the community here, or, (b) make us take you seriously.

I appreciate this does seem to be an important topic for you, G.Guptal, but the only conclusions I can draw from this thread and your responses thus far are either that you have started it to seek verification from other posters on your own opinion or possible behaviour (I'm not in a position to say), or you started it through a refusal to accept that the Cheater thread was closed without your contribution being considered important enough for a response.

Not that this really helps us understand what it is you actually want to discuss, and continuing to post with a mixture of confrontational aggression and pseudo-intellectual arrogance isn't going to help anyone, least of all yourself.

So, putting the question of questionable (ho ho) research aside for a moment, G.Guptal, please expand upon your point. What is it you feel you need to tell us?

 

[garyfotodiver]

Good Heavens! To think that I missed this scholarly debate untill today!

Reminds me of the king's statement in the musical "The King and I." You know, the one about the bee going from flower to flower, but the flower cannot go from bee to bee.

 

[cowprintrabbit]

I think DandyDon needs to welcome him and encourage him to fill out his profile

 

[gfisher4792]

Well, he also hasn't been around since New Year's Eve, and judging from his posts, is really looking for a debate on monogamy.

 

[archman]

Well, he also hasn't been around since New Year's Eve, and judging from his posts, is really looking for a debate on monogamy.

To be fair, this has been a longstanding hot topic in sociobiology for decades. It's far from resolved by the experts... judging from what I've experienced, consensus is still a long way off. Myself, I agree with the large percentage of behavioral scientists that sit on the fence. Both arguments have very good points to them.

 

[gfisher4792]

To be fair, this has been a longstanding hot topic in sociobiology for decades. It's far from resolved by the experts... judging from what I've experienced, consensus is still a long way off. Myself, I agree with the large percentage of behavioral scientists that sit on the fence. Both arguments have very good points to them.

Yeah, I remember studying some of this in my classes, and one point that stuck in my head was not so much the specific point of whether or not humans were designed for monogamy or not; in a much broader sense, are humans ultimately responsible for their actions, or are they just following their DNA? Is there freedom of choice, or are you preprogrammed? Of course, this argument has been a topic in the field of law as well as seom believe that criminals aren't responsible; that's just the way they were born. Personally, I believe that you're responsible/have freedom for your choices, DNA or not.

 

[ShakaZulu]

I don't need any test to prove this theory, I know it............

 

[SueMermaid]

I don't get why GG is so adamant and argumentative about this theory. *shrug* Whatever.