This woman's behavior fascinates me.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-10-2015, 01:10 PM
RE: This woman's behavior fascinates me.
(26-10-2015 01:04 PM)epronovost Wrote:  According to what I have read on the subject, you would be right to think that its incorrect to assume that men and women have the same reaction to danger. Yet, you are wrong on the subject much like we all think that the column of the the Parthenon are straight while they are in fact crooked by design. It's an illusion. Men and women have the same instinctive reactions. It's in their conscious reactions that they differ. You are confusing instinct with deeply ingrained learned reactions and adding a tiny bit of sexism to it due to your own cultural bias. It's a common misconception and error because it seems so counter intuitive.

Would you say a mother's desire to protect her child is a biological predisposition, or culturally derived? How about a child desire to be protected by their parents? Would that also be biological predisposition? Even if these components have environmental components as well.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 01:19 PM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2015 01:28 PM by epronovost.)
RE: This woman's behavior fascinates me.
(26-10-2015 01:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 01:04 PM)epronovost Wrote:  According to what I have read on the subject, you would be right to think that its incorrect to assume that men and women have the same reaction to danger. Yet, you are wrong on the subject much like we all think that the column of the the Parthenon are straight while they are in fact crooked by design. It's an illusion. Men and women have the same instinctive reactions. It's in their conscious reactions that they differ. You are confusing instinct with deeply ingrained learned reactions and adding a tiny bit of sexism to it due to your own cultural bias. It's a common misconception and error because it seems so counter intuitive.

Would you say a mother's desire to protect her child is a biological predisposition, or culturally derived? How about a child desire to be protected by their parents? Would that also be biological predisposition? Even if these components have environmental components as well.

The short, not complicated answer is that the urge for a parent (men or women) to protect his/her child is instinctive. The way it express itself be it by calling the child, holding the child, defending it, etc. is completly cultural. That's why parental technics vary so much from person to person let alone from society to society. Does that answer your question a bit?

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
26-10-2015, 01:23 PM
RE: This woman's behavior fascinates me.
(25-10-2015 02:17 AM)julep Wrote:  
(25-10-2015 01:21 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I am assuming everyone in that video is acting on instinct.....that none of them are really consciously deciding their actions. It is an interesting video because what we see is the primitive parts of the brain working. This is fast thinking at work.

She flees before the man, but when she realizes the man isn't with her, her instinct is to turn back and cross into harms way to be with the man. She then moves behind the man like he is going to protect her.

I also find it interesting that she instinctively grabbed her coffee.

Both of them "instinctively" grab their coffee. The man "instinctively" grabs his computer as well. (If you're going to try to draw some gender role conclusion here, it's "interesting" that he prioritizes his computer and his coffee over his companion)

He clearly alerts her and they both move away, but in different directions due to their different angles to the threat. I see her moving to the side because she is trying not to turn her back to the vehicle yet trying to avoid tripping by walking backwards, and then she runs for the back of the store as the other three people are doing. Safety in numbers thinking, sure; keep with your social group in a crowd, yes; and also some confusion about the safest path/area compounded by the store layout.

Both pairs, employees and customers, move closer to one another and ultimately towards the back of the store. Definitely both males have a better view of what is happening due to position at the start of the incident, though.

My first conclusion was that she may have been moving towards a door (off stage) to the left, although with hesitance, because she wasn't sure if she could get out of there quick enough.

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tonechaser77's post
26-10-2015, 01:27 PM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2015 01:32 PM by epronovost.)
RE: This woman's behavior fascinates me.
(26-10-2015 01:10 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 01:04 PM)epronovost Wrote:  @Heywood Jahblome

According to what I have read on the subject.....

Read this article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8380429.stm

Notice that this article mention that men and women have different reactions, not instincts and don't mention definitively if the cause is due to sexual phenotype or cultural upbringing. The idea that women have a more «emotional» relation to their environment is well known and documented, but we cannot be certain if it's linked to their sexual phenotype or cultural differences. Gender based studies have demonstrated that boys and girls are usually treated and raised very differently from the moment they are born. Girls being raised to be more sociable and boys more active. This of course stimulate different portion of the developing brain of a child which in turn could lead to the difference in information processing observed by those study. Like I said before, there is a common misconception around in the concept of instinct and ingrained reaction. They are not the same, don't have the same origin or the same fonction.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 01:32 PM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2015 01:38 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: This woman's behavior fascinates me.
(26-10-2015 01:19 PM)epronovost Wrote:  The short, not complicated answer is that the urge for a parent (men or women) to protect his/her child is instinctive. The way it express itself be it by calling the child, holding the child, defending it, etc. is completly cultural. That's why parental technics vary so much from person to person let alone from society to society. Does that answer your question a bit?

Couldn't we say these instinctual urges are also present in male, female relationships?

That partiochical beliefs, and gender roles the see men as protector, woman as the nurturer, are structured on top of biological predisposed urges?

That why me and my wife see the conduct of the man in the clip from the film as inappropriate, is because of similar predisposed inclinations governing why we might see a mother who abandons her child as inappropriate? That it's not an entirely cultural or environmental construct behind it.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 01:34 PM
RE: This woman's behavior fascinates me.
(26-10-2015 12:48 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 10:37 AM)julep Wrote:  Blowjob claims to be drawing some kind of sex-role conclusion from the video posted. Other people (including me) are disputing his interpretation and conclusions. Blowjob's opinion seems to be that the woman on the film is so incapable that she walks into the path of the bus because she's following her instinct to seek shelter behind the man. He is also making the sexist insinuation that women especially are creatures of instinct, i.e., not as good at thinking as menfolk.

As we're mammals, certainly biology is part of our reaction to threats and stress. I've certainly reacted to a dangerous situation affecting me and my child by protecting the child first without consciously weighing the situation. I never have cowered behind a man. First, I never felt the need, and also, in my experiences most of the serious threats to my safety have come from men, unfortunately. Experience, biology, personality, and other factors are all at play in crisis situations too.

However, when discussing a real-life circumstance, referencing a scene from a fiction movie to support a position is problematic IMO.

Julep's post is interesting because it shows another unconscious instinctual behavior. That unconscious instinctual behavior being to demonize those who have opinions different than your own. Notice how Julep starts his post with derisive name calling and then goes on to just straw man. For instance, I never once claimed that women are especially creatures of instinct or that woman's thinking is not as good as a mans. In fact I said that I thought the woman was being more rational by moving perpendicular to the threat.

I am not even being critical of women or men. These two examples, I believe, were acting on instincts. They were thinking fast which happens in the primitive parts of the brain. This isn't stuff we have a whole lot of control over so why would I be critical of it? I find it interesting that the man is primarily interested in retreating away from the threat while the woman has a strong interest in being with the man. An impossible experiment I would like to do is replace the man with another woman and see if they act the same. I suspect if that experiment was done both women would have moved together from the get go.

I am being critical of people interpreting the situation under the assumption that a typical man and typical woman would have the same instincts. I know no reason to believe this to be true.

Well, you didn't ever bother to answer my first reply (on page 1 or 2) in which I disagreed with your interpretation of the video and gave my reasons for such. I don't agree that the woman's behavior is due to "a strong interest in being with the man" and presented what I think is the more reasonable interpretation of such. With no reply from you to that post, I constructed my own interpretation of your viewpoint, based on your replies here and elsewhere.

Your viewpoint as you articulate it doesn't convince me. You argue that the woman's need to be with the man led her to put herself into harm's way--it seems that you are saying she has an impaired ability to be rational or control her reactions in the face of a threat.

As your self-selected forum name is intentionally noxious, I don't feel calling you Blowjob is demonizing. The name definitely reflects my dislike of your online persona, but I don't see you as a lesser human being or not human.

I wonder if I should be flattered or resentful that you think I'm male.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 01:45 PM
RE: This woman's behavior fascinates me.
(26-10-2015 01:27 PM)epronovost Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 01:10 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Read this article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8380429.stm

Notice that this article mention that men and women have different reactions, not instincts and don't mention definitively if the cause is due to sexual phenotype or cultural upbringing. The idea that women have a more «emotional» relation to their environment is well known and documented, but we cannot be certain if it's linked to their sexual phenotype or cultural differences. Gender based studies have demonstrated that boys and girls are usually treated and raised very differently from the moment they are born. Girls being raised to be more sociable and boys more active. This of course stimulate different portion of the developing brain of a child which in turn could lead to the difference in information processing observed by those study. Like I said before, there is a common misconception around in the concept of instinct and ingrained reaction. They are not the same, don't have the same origin or the same fonction.

That article explains both the man and woman's behavior and substantiates my interpretation. I'm not sure but I believe the areas of the brain noted are primitive areas. You might be right, that these observations of the effects of learned behaviors but I suspect they are hard-wired.....at least to some degree
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 01:52 PM
RE: This woman's behavior fascinates me.
(26-10-2015 01:34 PM)julep Wrote:  Well, you didn't ever bother to answer my first reply (on page 1 or 2) in which I disagreed with your interpretation of the video and gave my reasons for such. I don't agree that the woman's behavior is due to "a strong interest in being with the man" and presented what I think is the more reasonable interpretation of such. With no reply from you to that post, I constructed my own interpretation of your viewpoint, based on your replies here and elsewhere.

I didn't reply because I am not in a position to say your interpretation is wrong. We are all just giving our opinions here. I read it and silently disagreed with it. Its not like these people were wired up with brain probes when this happened so we don't really know anything for fact except what we can observe.....which is just their actions. We have no direct observations of their brain states.

That really is a fascinating video. There is so much humanity happening in it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 01:57 PM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2015 03:06 PM by epronovost.)
RE: This woman's behavior fascinates me.
(26-10-2015 01:32 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 01:19 PM)epronovost Wrote:  The short, not complicated answer is that the urge for a parent (men or women) to protect his/her child is instinctive. The way it express itself be it by calling the child, holding the child, defending it, etc. is completly cultural. That's why parental technics vary so much from person to person let alone from society to society. Does that answer your question a bit?

Couldn't we say these instinctual urges are also present in male, female relationships?

That partiochical beliefs, and gender roles the see men as protector, woman as the nurturer, are structured on top of biological predisposed urges?

Well, you are touching one of my field of expertise as an historian and I could write you a very, very long essay on it, but in an effort to keep it short, I will say this.

The patriarchal system (has we know it today) was developped has humanity started to «divorce» itself from the wild (or nature if you prefer) by mastering controlled food production mechanism: herding and agriculture. Sedentarism and plentier food supplies allowed for an important growth in population. It's the agricultural revolution. Women carry successfully around three times more babies and for the first time have the means to care for all of them. Abscence of contraception, easier way of life, workforce specialisation and constraint imposed by pregnancy and infant cares force women out of the widenning social arena of the arising civilisation and leave them at home to care for family unit much larger than they ever were before. Meanwhile, has our technological and social advancement continue, men occupy and dominate pretty much all fonction in society that arise since women are either children, elders or busy feeding, raising, cloathing large families (some exception apply of course). This of course include one of the most «popular» activity of mankind: war. Thus, the idea that women are weak, less intelligent and need to be protected arise without noise or lightshow as their social, economical and intellectual weight slowly diminishes. A few historical odities aside and millenia later, contraceptions, higher hygene, social constrain and better production methods will see the return en masse of women in the wider social arena. Simultanously, they start to regain a social status equivalent to men. The process is still ongoing. As their status rise, so is their public image. Women start to be representated in «stronger» position which affect the perception they have of themselves, but also the perception that men have of them. As those perception change, so is their social habits and etiquette.

So to answer you question, did the patriarchal system was developped based on a biological urge? Yes, but not the one you might expect. Women aren't naturally submissive or «cowardly». They do not seek parteners to protect them or care for them. Each seek parteners based on her needs and desire (and of course on what she can «afford») which are as diverse as men and women themselves. The patriarchal system arise due to the fact that women having children every year from age 16 to 45 and founding themselves at young age with dependants in their arms (and very little technology to help you do it) was a full time occupation that didn't allow them to participate as fully and completly in the wider social arena. This lead to a diminished status, which then lead to the creation of negative stereotypes, disrespect or downright contempt. This will then prevents them from extracting themselves from that situation, which was especially true for those women who were forced into that mold despite the fact that they didn't need to cater to a large family due to their socio-economical status or their low fertility. Basically, its a shitty deal that got out of hand because it lasted for a long time, was mishandled by most society and remained uncriticised for far too long. Does that answer your question a little bit (I know that if you are not well versed in social analysis of history, all this might sound very confusing and stupid)?

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
26-10-2015, 02:03 PM
RE: This woman's behavior fascinates me.
(26-10-2015 01:45 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 01:27 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Notice that this article mention that men and women have different reactions, not instincts and don't mention definitively if the cause is due to sexual phenotype or cultural upbringing. The idea that women have a more «emotional» relation to their environment is well known and documented, but we cannot be certain if it's linked to their sexual phenotype or cultural differences. Gender based studies have demonstrated that boys and girls are usually treated and raised very differently from the moment they are born. Girls being raised to be more sociable and boys more active. This of course stimulate different portion of the developing brain of a child which in turn could lead to the difference in information processing observed by those study. Like I said before, there is a common misconception around in the concept of instinct and ingrained reaction. They are not the same, don't have the same origin or the same fonction.

That article explains both the man and woman's behavior and substantiates my interpretation. I'm not sure but I believe the areas of the brain noted are primitive areas. You might be right, that these observations of the effects of learned behaviors but I suspect they are hard-wired.....at least to some degree

You almost have your finger on it. They are «hard-wired», but not due to biological constrain liked to sexual phenotype (AKA they do this because they are women/men). It «became hard-wired» through constant repetition, practice and observation just like the smile when you meet a new person. If you want an extreme exemple of a learned reaction that became «hard-wired» (which means the brain treats it like a reflex even if it's not one), all advanced martial artist basic attacks and parry are treated like «hard-wired» reflexes. that's why they are so fast and seems to have so much sharper reflexes. It's because they turned, with the help of training and repetition, reactions into instincts. People who have been trained has first response emergency service persons have very different «instinctive» reaction that don't relate to their sex.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: