| Author |
Message
|
| Pendragon |
 Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 6:24 am Post subject: Nagging women and evolutionary psychology |
 |
|
Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 1160
Location: Nederland
|
Just a puzzling observation 
Evolutionary psychology tries to explain human behaviour from adaptations that we evolved mostly in prehistoric times (say 99% of human development occured during prehistoric conditions, so that's what we mostly adapted to).
One major adaptation is that women tend to have few children which they invest heavily in, while men feel a stronger urge to have more children in which they invest less time (we may not do this in practise, but most of us feel this urge nevertheless). So it seems logical that women adapted strategies to bond with their mate, to make sure he wouldnt run off without supporting his children. One such adaptation may be that human females are able to have sex throughout the year, while a lot of species do it only in specific seasons. That's a good reason for men to stick around the house rather than to wander around or run off.
But if women have such a strong incentive to keep their men tied to the nest and help nurture their offspring, then why do they nag so much more than men? Nagging seems the perfect way to get rid of a man, rather than keeping him bonded to the family. Spending a lot of money on unnecessary luxury items is also a good way to drive a man off, but at least that still pays off in terms of getting lots of resources. Nagging doesn't seem to have any pay-off, only a cost.
Actually it would've made more sense if men nagged a lot: driving your woman off the nest after a couple years makes room for new eggs in the nest, so to speak (so you can have more offspring and invest less in them).
Btw I'm clearly assuming that women nag more than men. I can't back this up with data, but I'd be surprised if anyone would disagree with the assumption  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| serpicojr |
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 17 Jul 2007
Posts: 1128
Location: JRZ
|
I'll disagree with your assumption. Let me offer two theories.
1. It only seems women nag all the time because, as you suggest in another post, men are lazy.
2. Nagging is another word for criticism and complaint, activities in which the sexes engage evenly. However, the term nagging is typically only applied to women.
Seriously, are you having relationship problems or something? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pendragon |
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 1160
Location: Nederland
|
| serpicojr wrote: |
Seriously, are you having relationship problems or something? |
That's unwarranted. Questions of conflict between the sexes and issues in bonding strategies are a perfectly normal topic in psychology. I could return the question by asking why you react so defensively, as if you feel threatened. But I don't bother, it would derail the thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Harold14370 |
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 9:17 am Post subject: Re: Nagging women and evolutionary psychology |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 1668
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Pendragon wrote: |
But if women have such a strong incentive to keep their men tied to the nest and help nurture their offspring, then why do they nag so much more than men? Nagging seems the perfect way to get rid of a man, rather than keeping him bonded to the family. Spending a lot of money on unnecessary luxury items is also a good way to drive a man off, but at least that still pays off in terms of getting lots of resources. Nagging doesn't seem to have any pay-off, only a cost.
|
Having the man hang around doesn't help if the man is not making himself useful, or sufficiently so. Hence, the nagging. Yes, I suppose they have to toe a fine line to keep from driving hubby off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Isotope
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2555
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
it always makes me feel uneasy when people try to explain every bit of human behaviour with adaptationist explanations - it smacks too much of the just-so-stories of pop psychology
e.g. humans seem to be genetically inclined to create a cultural society, but what shape or form this culture takes can vary wildly
i know there are a few behavioural traits that seem to be common for all human beings (can't put my finger on which ones they are though), but most types of behaviour are culturally diverse, hence attempts to find an adapatationist explanation are likely to fail in these cases
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| serpicojr |
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 17 Jul 2007
Posts: 1128
Location: JRZ
|
| Pendragon wrote: |
| That's unwarranted. Questions of conflict between the sexes and issues in bonding strategies are a perfectly normal topic in psychology. |
I'm not criticizing your question, I'm criticizing your assumption that women nag a lot. Frankly, I find it sexist and baseless. You also seem to think it's funny to say that women nag a lot. It's not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Selene |
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Banned
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 1060
Location: I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
|
Call it nagging or whatever
But as Serpicojr pointed out it's often complaint
Yes men are lazy and they will try to get away with doing as little as possible
Women shot themselves in the foot with this womens lib and equality, because not only do we now have to go to work full time, but we still have to do most of the childcare and do all the housework!
(As well as carrying and nurturing a mans child in our bodies for 40 weeks and the strain of giving birth)
AND on top of that a man still wants a goddess in the kitchen a slave around the house and a nymph in the bed!
No wonder women get fed up with men.
It's because they are exhausted and stressed with so much to do and the feeling of being used and exploited when their men do bugger all!
Then a women is too knackered for sex or romance.
But what do most men do? Do they help out more so the woman has more time and energy for fun, sex and romance and they can enjoy a better relationship?
No, he calls her an old bag (because she complains or as men put it 'nags' about the injustice) accuses her of being dull in bed (because she's too tired and exhausted)
And then he feels hard done by and justified to run off with some other woman that's not so done in!
The New Man was a myth!
Apologies to any guys out there who really do make the effort, well done, we need more of you, but most of them are bone idle ignorant selfish bastards!
_________________
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I love a bit of SLAP & TICKLE
You Tickle
I'll Slap
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 1:31 pm Post subject: Re: Nagging women and evolutionary psychology |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 1392
|
| Harold14370 wrote: |
| Having the man hang around doesn't help if the man is not making himself useful |
Yup. And I will type this quickly while the wife doesnt' see it: nagging is effective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Isotope
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2555
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
| Selene wrote: |
| Women shot themselves in the foot with this womens lib and equality, ... |
see why we need gun control ?
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Selene |
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Banned
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 1060
Location: I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
|
| marnixR wrote: |
| Selene wrote: |
| Women shot themselves in the foot with this womens lib and equality, ... |
see why we need gun control ? |
I wish i had your sense of humour MarnixR but i am too exhausted to laugh right now
_________________
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I love a bit of SLAP & TICKLE
You Tickle
I'll Slap
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pendragon |
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 4:47 pm Post subject: Re: Nagging women and evolutionary psychology |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 1160
Location: Nederland
|
| Harold14370 wrote: |
Having the man hang around doesn't help if the man is not making himself useful, or sufficiently so. Hence, the nagging. Yes, I suppose they have to toe a fine line to keep from driving hubby off. |
Yea that could explain it, although even the most lazy husband is still doing a lot more than the average male in the animal world.
Another explanation is that perhaps men and women just aren't used to living together all the time. I don't know whether the somewhat romantic image of bands of men going out for long hunting trips has a base in reality, but it seems unlikely that humans lived in 1 on 1 couples all the time like we do now. The typical image of tribal societies seems to be men hanging around with other men, and women with the other women of the tribe (at least that's the image I get from say national geographic channel..). Living together with the opposite sexe requires some adaptations, and perhaps we're only now starting to make them.
| marnixR wrote: |
it always makes me feel uneasy when people try to explain every bit of human behaviour with adaptationist explanations - it smacks too much of the just-so-stories of pop psychology
e.g. humans seem to be genetically inclined to create a cultural society, but what shape or form this culture takes can vary wildly
i know there are a few behavioural traits that seem to be common for all human beings (can't put my finger on which ones they are though), but most types of behaviour are culturally diverse, hence attempts to find an adapatationist explanation are likely to fail in these cases |
I see what you mean, but some behavioral traits (like gender relations) just seem too common in time and across cultures to be coincidence (my source is a teaching company lecture series; but maybe wikipedia has something about this as well). For example when posed the question "which do you find worse: your partner having an intimite relation with someone of the opposite sexe, or your partner having sex with someone else?", women consistently chose the first option (accross cultural boundaries, including primitive societies) while men consistently chose the second option. And when male and female singles were tested whether they'd agree to have sex with an attractive stranger (a collaborator in the experiment) men answered 'yes' like 75% of the time and women 0%. Those differences seem to have a genetic base, as adaptations to a reproductive strategy. Maybe behavioral traits like the inclination to nag are a bit of a stretch, but again it seems a widespread phenomenon (if google hits are an indicator, for example you can find newspaper articles from all parts of the world).
| serpicojr wrote: |
| Pendragon wrote: |
| That's unwarranted. Questions of conflict between the sexes and issues in bonding strategies are a perfectly normal topic in psychology. |
I'm not criticizing your question, I'm criticizing your assumption that women nag a lot. Frankly, I find it sexist and baseless. You also seem to think it's funny to say that women nag a lot. It's not. |
Just my own experience, and that of a lot of other people if google hits are any indicator. Ofcourse this is not based on data, posts on this forum rarely are.
I don't see why it's such a grave issue to you. Whether you like my post or not, it's no excuse for an ad hominem remark. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| serpicojr |
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 17 Jul 2007
Posts: 1128
Location: JRZ
|
| I respectfully bow out of the discussion. I'm not sure why you think I'm attacking you personally; I never meant to offend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
