Student Network Forum

() Fields of study & Professions > Health & Medicine > Psychology

Psychology forum

Forum Folders
Classified ads
Fields of study & Professions
Job, Finance, Loans & Scholarship
Papers, Researches & Reports
Penpals
Student life, Leisure & Entertainment
Study aboard & Immigration
Universities

Save Home Page

| Search | Log In

Ideas on sociobiology/evolutionary psychology.

hooligan
14-08-2007 02:45

Here is an article that discusses what could be called evolutionary psychology or sociobiology. What's your opinion of this? Does it sound Freudian but with less emphasis on stages or oedipal conflicts?
:ermm:

Re: Ideas on sociobiology/evolutionary psychology.

ciara
14-08-2007 02:46

This is a very fascinating science, how we percieve each other as possible mates, and what characteristics we find attractive. It does sound Freudian, however whereas Freud would say that we are searching for a partner that resembles our mother/ father, this research states that we are looking for a mate with certain characteristics. These characteristics are what one would say what is attractive about the person, however really they symbolise the quality of our genes. The part which said that men tend to look for women with wide hips (symbolising that the woman is fertile) is something I heard about a while ago, and I am not distant from it. I do think that Freud's theory that we look for partners that resembles our other sexed parent is really interesting, because in my experience, men tend to have wives that resembles their mothers sometimes. However, this is not true for all cases I have seen, so therefore I also lean toward this other theory. When we get back to the basics, it is really about survival of the fittest, and I think that we may subconsciuosly be looking for a partner with good genes and fertility is a very important part of that. :lol:

Re: Ideas on sociobiology/evolutionary psychology.

ava
14-08-2007 02:51

This is a very interesting article which gives you a great understanding in the background of human attraction. The way the text connects our entire mate-finding behaviour to evolution impresses me and in many cases I agree with it. The searching of the perfectly attractive mate, the perfect love, is a big problem for most of us. This is, logically, due to all the time we spend on thinking about our future with this person. We want everything to feel perfect, essentially maybe because of our will of reproducing. Yet this is not my first thought when seeking a mate. I think that we rather consider how it would be to spend our life with a person if he/she doesn’t fulfil our own requirements. This pattern of what attracts us can possible have to do with evolution but I more believe in the fact that our life and surrounding create a vision of what is great. A beauty ideal is a great example of this, since many people follow these while choosing partner. The evolutionary theory can certainly be correct but it is difficult to prove. I must also disagree with the fact that men look at the hips of a woman in order to be attracted to them. This is nothing I can feel myself and I don’t think that the hips matters that much. And why would then the “most attracting” size of a woman’s hip vary as it has done at the same rate as the ideals change during time?

In one way the article it sounds Freudian. I mean it has got a focus on how humans are being attracted to each other and it brings up matters that Freud had strong opinions in. I also agree with what “ellan” says about the oedipal conflicts. There is though a different. Freud believed in socio-biology while talking about the different steps of the human. Your environment affects your later life and if you aren’t treated well you won’t pass the different steps. The article here mostly brings up the evolutionary part of human behaviour and claims that we choose mate after an evolutionary pattern. In that case Freud’s theories would be incorrect. Further on it would be interesting to know the evolutionary theory’s opinion in the question why homosexuality exists, where Freud believes in errors in your early stages such as the oral, anal or the phallic stage.

Re: Ideas on sociobiology/evolutionary psychology.

estralla
14-08-2007 02:57

It is to be noticed, that Freud emphasizes sex. And sex is the mechanism for survival according to Charles Darwing, while it makes offspring and therefore the species evolves. According to the article humans have biological causes for selectinv certain mates. This is really to be combined to a Freudian idea, while Freud proposes a dictatorship of reason. One could also cite that Freud and Darwin would make a good team. Both of these theories seem to only include the natural bahaviour of the human being. It is evident that the hujman concist of more thant just his body. The mind effect can not be ignored, while some people hook up with mates that are not at all evolutionary effective. Thet do so because of other causes. There are however facts in Freud, but he ignores the other half of the human at the same time. While everything revolves around sex in Freuds view, therefore the principles of evolution are easily attached to his theories. :lol:

Re: Ideas on sociobiology/evolutionary psychology.

jedi
14-08-2007 03:04

That evolution has programmed us to find the best partner for the survival of the species is a reasonable assumption. In nature when a female chooses a male she will go for the strongest male as he will be the most virile and provide the best security for her and the offspring. More often then not it is the female in nature that chooses the male and not the other way around. The male on the other hand will try to have lots of sex with as many females as possible to ensure the spreading of his genres. Great theory with a few exceptions such as certain animals pares for life and it indeed does not explain homosexuality. Still there is a rational to it as only the strong survive.

Now thanks to evolution we as a species also evolved cognitively and thus by this distancing ourselves from the pure biological creature that follows mating purely for the survival of the species. When choosing to mate most of us will provide other reasons for choosing a mate then top gene pool, how many children can one produce and quality rate of provider.

In sum yes, evolution may have given us the instinctual building blocks but it also gave us a large high functioning brain to ignore our biological evolutionary building blocks.

Thanks to our superior brain most people chose a life partner who often is less then adequate and/or compatible. Some even do it more then once e.g. Sofia Loren among others.

Yes, Freud is concerned with sex but not as a means of ensuring the survival of the species. Freud’s theories were concerned with sex but in reference to the ‘Pleasure principle’. Thus there is a totally different approach then the evolutionary one. As far as I am concerned there is no relationship what so ever between the basis of choosing a mate in evolutionary psychology and Freud’s Oedipal theory.
:lol:

Re: Ideas on sociobiology/evolutionary psychology.

joyride
14-08-2007 03:09

As I have understood this, sociobiology is against the thoughts of Sigmund Freud. And that these new ideas have been difficult for people to accept due to the influence of the Freudian theories.

It sounds absurd that the reason for us choosing a certain mate is because the way things have developed from the beginning of mankind, evolution. I’m not saying that it has nothing to do with it, it probably has, it is just that I have never thought of it that way and my first reaction to it was that it was very narrow and impersonal, that here was more to it than that.
The text is very black and white. It puts everybody and “their perfect mate” in a special category. I got the feeling that the writer categorised people as things or objects, not like humans, just seeking a mate. So what I mean with that there is more to it than that is that I feel that today people are more seeking a life partner, somebody to share their lives with and not ending up being lonely. People wish to enjoy themselves with the company of others and might not have reproduction imprinted in them when they meet new people.

In the article the comparison between the human behaviour and those in the animal world is very important and the writer sees connections and similarities. I have to object to this and say that I think the differences between humans and animals are far to great to be compared though there are many similarities. Furthermore I it is not very Freudian. With that I mean that Freud said that we were striving to find a mate like our opposite parental sex as a mate. But most animals do not even know their parents.

As it is explained above the text indicates that our goal in our life is to find a mate to suit our needs. But what neither the article or what Freud talks about is people that have chosen not to mate with anyone. There are “regular” people, catholic priests to Buddhist monks and many others that have chosen to live there lives in celibacy. It would be interesting to see how these psychologists would explain that.

The text also writes that a person choosing his or her mate will not wait for an undesirable individual to do something to appear more attractive. I cannot really agree with this. Primarily, it depends on if attractive indicates looks and not personality. Often you can get to know a person as a friend and later on in your relationship realise that you like this person more than a friend, which might the person in question attractive. So that argument does not really hold.

Another thing that I got stuck at was the fact that it said that if women wear fitted clothing, it indicates that she is flirting and, signalling that she has ample capacity for bearing a child. Surly they cannot mean that it is so all the time. I mean, if the fashion this year is to wear tight clothes it means that they flirt all the time. What if it changes and next year loose and baggy clothes are the fashion, then women would not attract any men. Does that mean that they do not have it in their interest to flirt or find a mate?

I do believe in the fact that due to the different sexes we see things in different ways. However, these different aspects in looking at a special thing can occur within the sex too. Something that is not discussed in the text. However, I do not think it has to do with the fact that it is because women get pregnant and men do not. Of course I do believe that the differences between men and women is significant and have an impact on how you interpret things, but the fact that each individual is unique plays a greater role.

In addition, I think it is good that the text brings up that it varies in different countries what the to sexes are looking after in a mate. Both depending on the environment and cultures. Because I think it does and it depends on where you live, the people surrounding you, your religion and so on.

I think we do know exactly what we want when looking at someone, that we desire specific characteristics in a potential mate, even if those desires might not be for only one cause. I think evolution has made us more self-aware and more aware of others looks. This could also explain that everybody follows the fashion and the increase of plastic surgery… :huh:

Re: Ideas on sociobiology/evolutionary psychology.

keane
14-08-2007 03:14

I will give another perspective to this than any other of you.
When I read this article I understood why the world looks like it does if people look a love in this way - just to survive...
I JUST CAN`T AGREE...
I believe in God, who has created to world and who has created the humans. Sex is a gift from him, like the priest Georgia said, to make love.
At the same time sex is the only way to create children - but it´s not only a way of reproduction. A child is a gift from God through a loving action.

I guess my belief is both against the theory of the author to this article, and Freud´s psycology in some ways. Of course we want to find a "Mate", but that is, according to me not a cause of evolution. And I think some of Freud´s theories might be right, but they don´t have to override God.

I would feel ashamed to live in a world where everything I do is only based on sex and surviving. I would feel ashamed that everything is a cause of the evolution and "our nature", what is then the meaning of life?

I`m so sorry, but I know there is something more, something much greater than just attracting males to make my "rase" survive. :ermm:

Re: Ideas on sociobiology/evolutionary psychology.

ciara
14-08-2007 03:24

Is it our goal to seek individuals with high mate value, attract them, and mate with them?
I would say that yes, of course it is. It lies in the humans’ nature to reproduce. It is the “survival of the fittest”- theory that applies.
Evolution has chosen those who are able to produce a strong offspring that can survive. That is something that Courtney Cox might have figured out. She had some problems with getting pregnant and tried for several years until she found out that she was too thin to be able to carry a child that would survive. She then gained some weight and is now pregnant.
And why do all of Jennifer Lopez relationships end? Is it because she has the right physical characteristics (wide hips, big mouth etc) which leads to that too many men wants her which leads to that she has too many men to choose from? Or is it because she can not forget P Diddy who has the characteristics she is seeking? He has quite strong features, shows signs of wealth, is outgoing and loud, dominant, superior, fearless, and his rapping can maybe be compared to the required “large song repertoire”… But he is probably not the right man to take care of a child…But who knows?
Many persons question Catherine Zeta-Jones love for the older Michael Douglas. But actually he is a perfect partner for her since he has demonstrated his skills to survive and has a higher genetic value. Males might not be attracted to Anna Nicole Smiths curvy body, they may seek themselves to her because she is “acting dumb” and shows signs of easy sexual access. She really knows how to get a man…
But although all of these signs are interesting to consider I believe that life is more than reproduction. There are a lot of lovers who does not have the goal of producing children. But reproduction is essential, that is something we can not escape from

Re: Ideas on sociobiology/evolutionary psychology.

keane
14-08-2007 03:33

I found the sociobiologyarticle quite interesting to read. I agree with the idea they have that love is not at all something mystical or magic, in the end it all comes down to reproduction. However I think that these people take the biologyapproach a bit too far. Even though Freudian theory very much have a biological basis (pretty much the sperm is active - men are the active part, and vice versa) I think his theories with time changed and showed that in real life it's not that simple, a human is very seldomly all (psychologically) male or female but often have pieces of both incorporated in their personality.
This is where the big problem with sociobiology comes in. Even though they use the freudian thing with the unconcious and stay on that same biological ground they tend to make the (in my opinion) classical behaviouristic fault to use lower animals in a too great extent in order to understand the human nature. Although I do agree that man is not anything else than a unusually smart monkey I think our brains superiority causes things to become a lot more complicated than other animals when it comes to explaining our behaviour.
Things just aint that simple as to say that females natural role in society is to give birth while the men is to put in their "resources" and energy in protecting the family. I mean I understand that when you read a quite formal and scientific article like this most people think like yeah this is something good and it must've been proven right thousands of times so I'll just go with the flow and agree to it all. I think the scientific way they put things can be very decieving though. I mean think of what the consequences of these ideas about mating are. For example you could theoretically come up with a female that was so perfect that EVERY guy nomatter where or when would prefer her for anybody else in the world for a partner. When they then come up with these almost ridiculous arguments like certain ideal waist-to-hip-ratio one can't help but wondering if these people have lived a little too far away from civilisation (studying their apes and pigs) for some time. I mean how could they, if their ideal body idea was true, explain that for example in the baroque era (I think it was) the ideal woman was totally fat? To me the whole thing becomes quite absurd. If sociobiology lends a bit of freudianism and a bit of biology I must say I think they've been quite good at chosing the worst bits of each. Even the things which have made Freud a laughingstock almost everywhere like arguments of the type lips-with-lipstick-subconciously-remind-men-of-a-girl thingy have survived in this unfortunate fusion.
That was all I had to say.

Re: Ideas on sociobiology/evolutionary psychology.

ava
14-08-2007 03:50

The article is clearly inspired by Freudian thoughts. The only point of flirting is to have an offspring, and to make the human race flourish. In difference to Freud, this article says that the choice of partner is more about choosing the one who will protect the family, or have many children. This is just like the way animals act. Freud saw other reasons to how we choose partner. I.e. a man want somebody who reminds him of his mother.
I think both views are wrong. Humans are higher than animals, and think in different ways.

:lol:

() Fields of study & Professions > Health & Medicine > Psychology

in the Psychology forum

Forum index

Fatal error: Call to undefined function imagelinethick() in /home/stunet/public_html/forum/include/form.php on line 297

Your Name:

Your email address:

* Your email address will never be revealed,
it is only used to notify you if someone replies to you.

Subject: