The Linguistics of Female Mate Selection

The process of using the linguistics of a culture or social group to analyze the inner mechanics of the social fabric is not a new methodology. Here, I attempt to apply it to the modern woman’s mating strategies. Maybe what I’m writing about is not news to anyone, but I think it’s interesting and still worth discussing.

Two of the colloquialisms I’ve heard exclusively used by women (meaning men don’t use them) in relationship (c wut i did thur?) to the males they are interacting with is describing them as “good (or bad) catches” and thinking about select males as “the one that got away”. Now these phrases I’m sure aren’t used by every woman, but they are used by at least a significant portion of the population, as evidenced by the recent success of the Katy Perry song. Similarly the conclusions I draw from these phrases I’m sure don’t apply to every woman, so please don’t think I’m over generalizing. This is food for thought, not some proclamation of transcendent truth.

Both of those phrases, to me, brought into mind the functioning of fishermen (fisherwomen?). Good or bad “catches”, and that “one that got away” all are obliquely referencing how a fisherman might feel about the fish that he catches. I think this is incredibly revealing (unless you knew all of this already. Remember that I am male, and as such will be forever doomed to an eternity of attempting to understand the female, but never quite getting there).

Women fish for men. They dangle their good looks, flirtatiousness, and attention into the water as a lure hoping to snag a target male. This is interesting for several reasons. First, it explains a bit of the general confusion in mate selection. Remember that lures are designed to catch fish in general, not one specific fish. Same goes for men and women. Women dangling lures in the water will often encounter unwanted advances from men they are not targeting. Furthermore men, targets or not, often have difficulty determining whether a lure is therefore actually meant for them or not. Some men respond by not biting on lures meant for them out of uncertainty, others bite on all of them, either out desperation, or out of an overriding confidence and inflated picture of themselves.

Is there a way out of this confusion? Probably not. One solution may be if women changed their strategy to be more like that of the typical male’s. If I were to continue with the fishing metaphor, (other then being the fish the fisherwomen catch) I’d describe males as more like the hill-billy hand fishers. Also note that I haven’t actually seen the show, I’m just going off of the caricature in my head based off of the title. I’m not saying this strategy is superior to the female strategy, but it is typically more efficient in determining intentions, though I’m sure many a frustrated female would disagree. If females behaved in the male way, people would be constantly reaching out and either hitting or missing each other without much in between-ness. Such bluntness, I think, would create a lot more heartache but a lot more successes as well. Overall not necessarily “better”, but perhaps a world with less confusion and mistaken intentions.

At any rate, it doesn’t really matter what possible solutions there are. We’re all evolutionarily programmed to pursue certain mating strategies to the exclusion of others. Two more notes to conclude:

-I appreciate that these assertions are gross generalizations. As i said before these are not definitive statements but rather food for thought.

-In the future I think it’d be fun to pick up on more phrases from both genders to delve into this further. Unfortunately for any female readers, In my experience male colloquialisms are generally variations along the theme of “dude, she’s so hot”. I’m not sure any exciting insights reside within that kind of dialogue.

Love and Economics

First on an unrelated note, I've decided to start posting links to new blog entries on my twitter as well as Facebook. If you're interested, you can follow me @NOTdavidu

I'd like opinions on this, so if you feel like you have something to say, please say it.

Economic theory says that the laws of supply and demand are universally applicable, so in this case I attempt to apply them to love. If you increase the supply of relationships one takes part in, do you not dilute the value intrinsic to them? Decrease the quantity of relationships supplied, and do you not increase their value? I'm not talking about the pure pleasure satisfaction that results, because while goals like that can easily be met that sort of hedonism is inevitably hollow and I think undesirable.

I'm talking about the deep and substantive relationships, the kinds that the ancient Greeks conceptualized in their word eros. The desire for two to become one. Going through the motions of having lots of "meaningful" relationships with different individuals, I think, defeats the purpose. Maybe it's just me, but isn't the point of having a meaningful relationship that it is unique in some way? If they're all equally unique and special, is it also not true that none of them are?

I know a few adults who found their spouse during their time in college, and I'm really starting to appreciate now how rare of an accomplishment that is. Maybe the culture was different then, but right now there seem to be zero social institutions in place to facilitate the types of relationships I'm talking about. Everything is about drunk hookups at frat parties and bars. As a side note, I'd like to add that it's nearly impossible to initiate a meaningful relationship or even friendship with anyone while drunk. Drinking should be used to solidify preexisting relationships and not to initiate them, for they, like hedonism are invariably hollow. Given the prevalence of the alcohol in college, the task of the romantic is made that much more difficult.

But back to the initial topic. I know that the process of dating and hooking up is working, albeit circuitously, toward finding a real relationship and that it's not realistic to expect to be able to jump into a deep and profound romantic attachment, but I feel like the process itself inevitably reduces the value of the end result. Say you date a few people. Then you end up in a deeper relationship with one of them. Then you break up. Then the process repeats again, and again, until finally one person agrees to stay 'till death do ye part. That's a slightly depressing yet realistic conception of love as we know it. Do it enough times, and it seems like you never were really searching for anybody, but only using those people to either not be single or to satisfy your own carnal desires.

I know that the preexisting social norms governing courtship exist for a reason, mainly because that in general they work. That eventually people do hopefully find that one person. Of course their track record is not all that great, given that we have extraordinarily high divorce rates of people who supposedly did find that one person, but whatever. But what we have now is ultimately a sham. I decry the culture of hookups for it's lack of deeper significance and creating an illusion of purpose in which it shields itself. I decry it for eradicating any institutions that facilitated otherwise. I decry it for enabling a mentality of hedonism as an end in of itself.

Drunk hookups are fine if you recognize that they are hollow, and that the participants are just using each other for the satisfaction of their own pleasure. Thats fine if you understand that. But please don't fool yourself into reading a deeper relationship in one created by hedonism.

On the flip side of this, I find hope in not assigning profound significance to many relationships so that the value will increase of the few that actually are. I know you can't get that far in a relationship without having a few go sour first. But each one that does should be forever seared into your skull and it should burn every time you hear their name. If not, maybe you need to cut back the significance you assign to your relationships or just not fool yourself otherwise. I think that's a good measure of knowing you had something worth while.

Romney-Paul 2012

If any of you have been following the republican primary, I'm sure you'll agree with me in saying that it's been a little nuts. Poll numbers have soared and crashed in equal measure as the right has struggled to find the candidate that's not Romney. Each time the momentum shifts to a new not-Romney, that candidate has found some way to screw it all up. And so the momentum shifts to someone else. Donald Trump was a frontrunner at one point. Thats nuts.

From my perspective, people don't like Romney because he's flip flopped on a variety of issues, as well as not appealing to the core of conservative principles that the right wants in their candidate. Despite all of that, he's still managed to always be among the top tier candidates. My guess why is that despite ...whats usually true... republicans aren't stupid. They know that of the current candidates Romney has had the most broad-based support, and is the candidate that can best appeal to the moderates and independents in the general election and thus has the best chance of actually taking the white house in november.

Romney looks presidential. As superficial as that is, it really matters. I think the right wants a Romney with those core conservative principles and non-flip-flophish-ness. Thats what Rick Perry was supposed to be. Too bad the man's an idiot. The one candidate that has always stood on his principles (which I certainly respect, although not the principles themselves) and does have that appeal to the conservative base is Ron Paul. Paul's had a track record of not being taken seriously by the world of politics despite his consistent support. I think this is because he doesn't have that broad based support to moderates and wouldn't win the general. Republicans not being stupid, he hasn't built up a huge amount of support.

So the right needs the looks and wide-spread appeal of Romney with the core principles and steadfastness of Paul. So instead of creating some monstrous two-headed siamese hybrid of them, why not declare Paul as a vice presidential candidate (assuming that it's allowed by the rules of the primary)? Independents voting the top of the ticket would have a moderate republican, while the right would have a dependable and principled candidate in the vice presidency. This would also essentially be an endorsement of Romney by Paul, which might help assuage any fears of a flip flopper in the white house.

Gingrich, the current front runner, is a house of cards. The only reason why he has any support is because he's the only remaining feasible not-Romney and the momentum he gained off of Cain's fall. If the Romney campaign were to make the major announcement of Paul as VP, it would totally swing momentum back to Romney. Any republicans out there can correct me if i'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure nobody's really thrilled with Gingrich as the nominee.

I'm not saying I'd vote for them, nor am I sure of how they'd do next year in the general, but I do think that they'd have a lock on the Republican nomination.

The Modern Smothering of Artistic Expression

I feel like, deep down, we're all artists. We all have an inherent and deeply human need to express ourselves. To take what is internal and externalize it for the world to see. To express our individuality, to communicate to others what we're feeling and how we perceive the world, and to leave those sentiments in some form for those in subsequent generations to remember and know us by.

I feel like back in the day, all of our ancestors were dancers, painters, musicians, and singers. Nowadays, a very small percentage of us engage in such endeavors. One obvious reason is that few of us would be considered good enough to make a profession and livelihood out of it. Although this is rather obvious, it's highly significant. Back in the day when our species lived in tribes, we all made our living by hunting and gathering and had time to pursue whatever medium of self-expression we wanted. Contrast that with the modern man, who spends his day at a job 9 to 5, who'd get fired if his boss found him painting or playing the guitar when he should have been working out the terms of the merger or something.

The most important reason that I wanted to discuss here was about how our current society makes us afraid to express ourselves, a brand-new concept to humanity. We have the technology to send pictures, videos, and music around the world and back again almost instantaneously. The artwork of the best of the 7 billion of us on this planet can therefore be witnessed by the world, and that artwork has become the unconscious standard for our own artistic expression. Not only is this standard ridiculously high and unreasonable, but it is also historical. Today's art can be judged the world-over by every piece of art ever created. So, not only are you being judged against the creme de la creme of 7 billion people, but also by the billions of people before us. Picasso, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Botticelli.

Having seen the greatest art our species has ever created, we feel inadequate when our pencil drawing doesn't turn out to be the next Sistine Chapel or Last Supper. Our ability to experience the best art of our species has stifled our own individual desire for creative expression- we fear the mockery of our fellows, who too judge our art by the same global and historical standards.

Note that the effect is even more pronounced in industries like musical entertainment. Many of us play instruments, but far fewer of us create original pieces. We fear that we won't be able to create the next Free Bird or Stairway to Heaven, and will be judged by such by our peers. This standard is even more ridiculous in our current context. Modern pop music has essentially made a science out of creating music that will sell eg. Justin Bieber, Miley Cyrus. That's how our creative work is judged. The effect is that we fear what we might create in our own work.

There are several problems with all of this. One, self expression is very, very important for one's psychological well-being. It's the same feeling as being furious for some reason, and then spending a lot of time in your room yelling and screaming and punching things, then feeling better afterwards. It's like adding Mentos to Diet Coke. Keeping those locked securely inside the bottle means the pressure will build until it explodes. Release the top, and the mixture will pour out, leaving the bottle structurally sound.

Second, it precludes us from participating in a pleasurable activity. Being afraid of trying to create art means that you will never be able to experience the pride of a completed work. Also, it's usually pretty fun in general.

Third, it's changed our meaning of art. We look at something our friend drew as technically art, but not art in the sense of a Da Vinci-an work of art. It's made us not appreciate art that's sitting right in front of us. As a beholder, think of art as a way to experience the feelings of somebody else. Whatever your friend drew is merely a physical representation of whatever was inside of them they wanted to express. Appreciate the art not in terms of how it compares to somebody else's, but the sentiments and emotions behind it. The best will make you feel as they did at the time. That's true art.

The Case Against Facebook (I appreciate the irony)

I've recently been inspired by a south park episode, of all things. I'm going to try and minimize my use of facebook from here on out, and I will observe the effect (as objectively as I can) it has on my life. It may sound like a trivial thing to do, and I don't know, maybe it is. The point is that I'm going to find out.

I heard some statistic about how the average person spends some large amount of time on facebook, and I always thought it didn't relate to me. Whenever I do homework on my laptop or anything else on it, it's become almost habitual for me to open up facebook. The justification being in my mind, that I'm not spending my time on facebook only using facebook, that I'm multitasking and concentrating mostly on other things. The truth is though, and I'm sure that many of you can relate to this, is that the multitasking ends up really hurting your productivity and focus on the other thing you really need to do.

In many cases, it's simply become a time waster. Often on sunday nights like these with little homework due the next day, I'd pass time sitting on facebook, watching youtube videos, etc. Thats the thing though. It's just passing time. I've really come to appreciate how time is a valuable thing, and it's really important to allocate what time you have doing things that are actually important and useful. If the past 3 hours are anything to go by, I'm going to have a lot more time to allocate to things I enjoy.

Back home I really enjoyed reading for pleasure, both fiction and non fiction. Some of the books I read really transformed me into who I am today. In college the passion has dimmed somewhat. My thoughts have been that college reading and general school work has kept me busy and away from reading what I love, but thats really not true. I've simply spent too much time doing things that act as a screen saver for my mind. As soon as I finish this post, I'm going to read a book from the long queue I have waiting for me.

In a broader more sociological context, I'm interested to see how this is going to affect my interpersonal relationships. Especially under current conditions, we as a population have come to rely more on virtual relationships as substitutes for real, face-to-face interpersonal relationships. The problem with virtual relationships is that they are virtual. They don't fulfill our deeply human needs for close interpersonal contact and relationships. They're hollow, a sham of what a meaningful relationship is, and ultimately meaningless. So, I attempt to lessen the presence of virtual relationships in my life, and hopefully substitute more humanistic face-to-face-type relationships. We'll see.

I'm not saying that I'll never be on facebook. Like any addict there'll be a time period where I'll have to consciously stop myself from using the site. And again, if the last 3 hours are a good indicator, this process will be pretty arduous. Similarly, facebook itself is a useful tool for getting in touch with people when you want to. I won't deny that value, and I'll certainly use it as such when I need to (like posting this blog entry). The point is though, is that from now on, I will use facebook. Facebook will not use me.

Reconciling Science and Human Existence, or The Cheerful Existentialist

I don't have a definite plan in mind for this post. What often happens though, is that as I write it forces me to think deeper and deeper about a subject until I end up somewhere i never planned to be.

I'll start by assuming a fundamental base of science and logic, in things like evolution, modern cosmology, etc. Recent work that I've seen by Stephen Hawking and other string theorists suggest that universes themselves have the capacity to spontaneously spring into being. I won't go into the details of how this work, mostly because I dont understand them myself (though i encourage you to google around for it yourself), but what I will focus on is how this affects human purpose. This base-principle immediately cancels out a need for god(s) as we commonly understand the term, although if you want to call the elusive theory of everything god, then go right ahead.

This essentially rules out objective purpose to human existence, leaving only subjective purpose or that which we give ourselves. On first glance, this seems to be very dark and sobering, and this is the wrap that existentialists have been dealing with since the philosophy's inception. I disagree. Liberated from the shackles of someone or something else giving purpose and meaning to us, we are free to choose our path for ourselves and make our lives what we want them to be. This freedom can be a burden for the indecisive and the submissive, but for others it is empowering to an extraordinary extent. It may be corny to quote Palahniuk, but it think it applies here: "It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything."

Ruling out objective purpose also has ramifications for human morality. The lack of something objective to give us morals again implies that they're inherently subjective. I basically covered this in "Why Every Moral Philosopher Ever to Philosophize Was Wrong", so I won't go into great detail here. This too has a bright side however, in that we are free to act with or against our societally agreed-upon morals because we choose to. Not because we face divine retribution if we don't. This is why people who use "atheist" with a negative connotation implying 'immoral' realllly piss me off. I have faith (somewhat ironically) in humanity in that we can act morally towards each other because we choose to, not because we face eternity in a pit of fire if we don't. Ghost stories like those keep immature minds in subjugation. Mature minds know better then to fear the boogeyman.

Life itself appears to be the product of the energy, matter, and fundamental dimensions of our universe. Meaning that given the prerequisite proteins and certain other conditions, life will inevitably be produced. Besides precluding the existence of a god, I think this impacts us in that it pierces the concepts of uniqueness, supremacy, and importance that we associate with ourselves and Earth. The probability of those proteins and energy and other matter mixing in a way to form life may be astronomical, but the size and timeline of the universe are even more astronomical still. A gambling man would bet heavily on the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, but he would not bet on the chance we will ever meet in the vast cosmos.

I guess the last bit to explore involves the future of our universe (as it was explored in "The Last Three Minutes" by Paul Davies). Many of us, myself included, have entertained notions of some part of us living forever, whether it be in our biological descendants, our accomplishments, etc. but the possibility of this is inevitably tied up in the ultimate fate of the universe (which remains uncertain). Regardless of whether the universe is steady-state or dynamic, it seems ridiculous to suggest that any part of humanity can live forever. This fact may again appear dark and gloomy, but its really no different then confronting your own death. Maybe not the most cheerful of comparisons, but it is something that you can come to terms with and accept.

This is a very post-modern-style post in that it disenchants a lot of the Marxist superstructure we've constructed in our lives. I guess the lesson in this is that we may not have an inherent purpose in our existence, but that in of itself is no reason to despair. For instead of a world built by others for us, we build our world as we see fit. A burdensome freedom, but a freedom nonetheless.

Marx: The Powder Keg

This semester I'm taking a social theory class and an introductory political philosophy class, and in the social theory class we've started by examining the works of Karl Marx. Needless to say theres been a ton of crossover and tons of food for thought. I'd imagine that there'll be a few more political/societal posts in the near future.

For those who haven't studied him, Marx's mere name brings about feelings of horror and aversion because of the historical geopolitical things done in his name. Understand that the man himself is very much different from what his followers have done, and note further that his "followers' aren't actually enacting what Marx had advocated. Names like Che Guevara, Castro, Cienfuegos, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, etc. deserve negative connotations, Marx's name does not.

That being said, I've really enjoyed studying his works. I think of him as a brilliant analyst of capitalism and the society that it creates. I had one particular insight about the effects of his works that I thought i'd share here.

Marx saw that capitalism sharply divides society into two general classes: the have's and the have-not's aka those with capital and those without. He saw that over time capitalism deepens those class divisions to the point where the lower classes would be oppressed to the breaking point. They (the proletariat) would then revolt, over throw the capital-owners (the bourgeoise) thus ending capitalism. He was wrong however, and to further explore why i'll reference the work of Eric Hoffer.

Eric Hoffer is another brilliant mind, and I highly, highly recommend his book "the True Believer". Hoffer noticed that mass movements (like the kind that Marx envisioned) do not come about by the horribly oppressed finally rejecting their position in life. In fact, those born into abject poverty and who have never known anything else will not revolt. Those that are ripe for a mass movement are those that are both in abject conditions and have also seen that there is a possibility for a better life. The middle-class merchant who experiences a series of business failures and thus falls into poverty is more ripe to join a mass movement then the man held in life-long servitude.

Back to Marx. I agree with him that unfettered capitalism does lead to sharply divided classes, and that eventually the gap between the two would be huge. (Note that we in the US now do not have unfettered capitalism, but capitalism with government regulation and the gaps between classes are lessened [though i still think theyre huge]). Keeping in mind Hoffer's work however, those who had always been in abject poverty would not revolt. Their life-long servitude would essentially make them into a wet powder keg.

This begs the question, then why have so many revolutions occurred in history bearing Marx's name? The truth is that there are many people living in abject poverty throughout the world. Marx gave them the vision of a better future. His (though vague) picture of communism incited the abjectly poor into action by giving them hope. Although Marx's theories predict that the revolutions were inevitable, the truth is that they never would have happened if Marx himself hadn't written them down.

Anyways, I feel like i've been writing for long enough. Expect more Marx/political philosophy/sociology posts in the near future.