Monogamy, Infidelity and Present Society

         According to evolutionary psychologists, namely Robert Wright and David Buss, humans have evolved to support serial monogamy and even the proliferation of infidelity…all for the propagation of genes. Studies performed by Buss et. al suggest that love is a universal human phenomenon (pgs. 262, 284) and that humans subconsciously participate in sexual strategies that may result in the dissolution of a serious relationship for better prospects or infidelity (pg. 265). While Buss does suggest numerous evolutionary explanations concerning infidelity (such as an incompetent or abusive mate or for the proliferation of male genes), Wright centers his article on the precarious position monogamy retains in our current society, aptly named “Our Cheating Hearts.”

            Wright is also an evolutionary psychologist, and as such supports Buss’s explanations regarding infidelity, stating that the key reason for a male to practice infidelity, in our ancestral setting, is the possession of markedly greater ‘resources, power or social status than the average Joe’ (pg. 286) This explains male infidelity, but what of female infidelity? Both Buss and Wright demonstrate that female infidelity does indeed occur and does indeed retain an evolutionary background. Women who had sexual relations with various men were more likely to have multiple venues of resources, simply because of the uncertainty of paternity.

            Wright argues that monogamy is in a precarious position in our present society/culture due to income inequality, the media and proliferation of an ideal female (or mate) throughout the media and magazines that is above average and that our societies are infinitely more anonymous than our ancestral hunter gatherer societies (in which everyone knew each other). Although these scenarios present obstacles for couples practicing monogamy, I do not believe that the dissolution of monogamous marriage (hetero or homosexual) is necessary. I believe that steps can be taken in order to protect this institution, supported by evolution. Monogamous coupling evolved because this type of relationship between mother and father produced the best environment for raising and caring for young. Some methods that may be undertaken to protect the institution of monogamous marriage include reducing income inequality as Wright states that men of higher socio-economic status are more likely to believe that they should have more than one wife or tend to obtain younger wives (through serial monogamy) and that women are more attracted to men of higher socio-economic status (pg. 288). Also, if men were expected (by law) to be accountable for their children following a divorce, more so than simply child support, the difference between the impact of divorce on men and women would most likely reduce. Women most often are saddled with childcare and are also less likely to remarry and often retain significantly lower socio-economic status. Although these obstacles remain for present day monogamous couples, as well as the evolutionary inherence of wanderlust, the institution of monogamous hetero and homosexual marriage remains an important advantage for child rearing and seems the natural choice for most humans.

Buss, David. "The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating." Basic Books, 1994.
Wright, Robert. "Our Cheating Hearts." Time Magazine, August 15, 1994.

He said, She said, They said what?

Deborah Tannen’s article, Sex, Lies, and Conversation presents intriguing arguments regarding the age old question: “Why isn’t he listening?” Through identifying factors of body language, socialization and general tendencies between the sexes, Tannen is able to suggest a multitude of factors that influence the different interpretations of conversation between men and women. Eleanor Macoby, a psychologist at Stanford researched the socialization methods of children and associated the methods with future interpretation. Macoby’s idea stating that the socialization methods of children are extremely influential regarding future communication is paramount to understanding the differences in male to female conversation. Macoby suggests that girls utilize conversation and secrets as the basis for friendship (to show closeness) whereas boys utilize action and the act of doing something together to show closeness.

 Wives expect husbands to be like their best friends (girls).

Men’s groups are more hierarchical (wolf) and that may be somewhat of an explanation as to why women feel like men do not listen; listening may make the man feel inferior. Also, because of this hierarchical grouping, men may seem more talkative in public. Men feel as though they must show that they are intelligent and have an understanding of whatever the subject is in order to prove themselves. In the home, men may feel as though there is nothing to prove and are therefore more silent.

Another cause for women to state that men do not listen lies in the general body language of males and females during conversation. Men are more likely to sit at angles and not participate in eye to eye contact (they scan; look around elsewhere) whereas women are more likely to sit face to face and have regular eye contact. Also, men are more likely to jump from topic to topic and women are more likely to converse about a single topic for a prolonged period of time. This particular situation is one I am extremely familiar with; my boyfriend’s mind works a mile and minute and his mouth closely follows. Oftentimes I have to take a moment to realize that he has switched gears and is no longer speaking about the topic at hand, but something completely unrelated (or at least the relation is not quite apparent in my mind most times). Tannen suggests that this is another reason behind women’s belief that men are not listening, however, I have not felt that this phenomenon resulted from my boyfriend not listening to me (especially as I am A.D.D. and may do exactly the same thing at another point in time).

One point Tannen made seemed especially relevant: that boys tend to dismiss problems (to each other) while girls express understanding and oftentimes agreement. I enjoyed the suggestion that women must express directly these feelings while men tend to imply these feelings through dismissing statements. This follows men’s idea of pointing out the opposing side of an idea as a duty whereas women tend to express agreement (as a duty). I feel that this may have relevance, although I cannot at the moment picture an exemplary situation. Although! I can picture many a scenario that supports Walter Ong’s claim that men see conversation as a sort of competitive debate: I know a number of men (friends, acquaintances and my boyfriend) who seem more adept and willing to turn a simple conversation into a debate of opinions and ideas. This article presents numerous suggestions behind the differences in male/female communication and interpretation. I believe she hit upon the most influential factors and I look forward to watching for certain signs that she mentioned; perhaps it will aid me in my own communication with the opposite sex!

9.28 Blog Reviews

April - Your 9.21 blog post showed interesting choices for movies – I have also seen Rocky Horror (live), but I haven’t yet seen G.I. Joe. I love that you chose Rocky Horror because that is certainly a crazy example of ‘wild men.’ I think you made good points in your paper and I think that the G.I. Joe situation most likely happens quite often in male-dominated fields. I liked how you chose a few different examples because that let me understand diverse abnormal gender situations. There are a few grammatical and spelling mistakes – the majority of which are easily rectified by Word Spell Check. Also, you have many short sentences throughout your paper and it may be helpful for fluency to create compound sentences every now and then to break the pauses.

In your 9.28 blog post was also very interesting because I feel that you took a very different approach/understanding to the reading than I did. You made interesting points concerning step families and single parent families. Maybe using pronouns a little less often might help the reader follow and create a more professional flow to the paper. Also, at the end it would be helpful if there was a paragraph that tied all ideas together. Great job, I look forward to reading future posts! J

Tasha – I REALLY enjoyed your introduction on the 9.23 blog post. Introductions are always difficult because you have to draw the reader in, you did just that! (I liked the questions). Also, I liked that you included specific citations within your blog, I should have done that. I don’t think D’Emilio believes that homosexuality began with capitalism, but the homosexual identity emerged from capitalism – as in, people were free from interdependency (wage labor instead of having to work at home with family for family) and the necessity to form families so they were free to form identities outside of the family and work. I liked how you explained the changes that capitalism brought and I think your writing is very smooth. I really enjoyed reading it!

Your 9.21 post was also very interesting; I think you made a great choice with Enough. The movie does show a very typical situation, but the woman in the story atypically fights the situation and is successful. I think you conveyed strong points throughout the piece and were easily understandable. You may want to edit for grammar as a check at the end, but for the most part it was very well written. Awesome work, I can’t wait to read more! J

Also, sorry about the 9.21 post, I completely didn’t see it! I was super focused on making sure my essay was perfect and turning it in. I don’t usually miss assignments though so I shouldn’t miss any more (will be more carefulJ)

The Ideal Family, Capitalism and Homosexuality

     At the time when this article was written, American policy was against the formation of marriage bonds (legally) and undermined the formation of same-sex families. The ideal American family is the so called ‘nuclear’ family: the mother, the father and the two or so children. But times are changing; social policy and values are shifting slightly toward acceptance through increased access to social networks outside of the individual’s living space (the internet). However, I do agree with D’Emilio when he explains that major advances in gay rights were made in the 1970’s and has slowed since. Yet the last few years have yielded victories in the way of legal marriage (in some states) and possibly less discrimination (certainly less than in earlier years). The reason I say possibly is because I am aware of opposite sentiments, yet I am a firm believer in gay rights and I have a gay uncle that was recently married. I have spoken to him about discrimination and the changes that have occurred over the years and he does sense some lessening in the general animosity toward openly gay couples.

            In our time of internet networking and rapid world (or nation)-wide communication enables communities and groups to correspond and relay pertinent information as well as create meetings and movements with the push of a button. Also, through social networking, individuals are able to communicate and network with other individuals (like individuals) that they most likely would have never known (i.e. a young, confused individual with another young, confused individual living across the country). People who would otherwise simply be individuals (not belonging to a group) may be able to find an online community or a group to which they may belong and create an identity with.

            The social change wrought by the introduction of the internet and novel methods of social networking models the change in social structure brought by capitalism in the 19^th century. Before capitalism, the family was an ‘independent interdependent unit’ that created its own food supply and materials to sustain it. With the onset of capitalism, men began to work for wages and become dependent upon the market, but women still created the goods in the home (however, women at this point had to buy the materials using the husband’s wages). When true capitalism came about, both men and women became dependent upon the market and the distinction between the ‘personal life’ and the ‘work life’ was formed. Thus, the family became a mutually satisfactory relationship between husband and wife who create a nurturing environment for children. This was a great social change that affected the majority and eventually the entirety of the American population. The internet and networking has also affected the whole of the American population in equally paramount ways and is changing the manner of social interactions between individuals, families, homosexuals, heterosexuals…everyone. I believe that internet networking is the new method of creating movements and manufacturing social change. (I do not believe it is the only way, but the most populous way – i.e. twittering the decision to run for president).

Rough Draft

Justin:

Awesome(!) image choice! I'd thought we were rather tied to the ones present in the article, but you chose a really interesting absolutely intriguing painting! Also, your description of the piece itself was quite detailed and even before finding the image I was able to form a good picture in my mind. I would have liked to see a little more interpretation regarding the meaning behind each little nuance, but I enjoyed the interpretations you gave. Also, when I saw the 'green woman' she very much reminded me of the indigenous woman in Frida's "My Nurse and I" and the baby resembled Diego (creepy). Regarding the Wright essay blog, I enjoyed your word choice and the general flow of the piece. I would have liked to hear a bit more about how pleasure and pain relate to human consciousness. Your inclusion of the Turing test and why robots often fail it was enlightening and I think it is an important point, although they say that the test is outdated...may still be valid. Cheers:)

Morgan: Number one I think it's funny that you two chose the same painting :). Secondly, I would like to commend you on your interpretation that the child is Diego, I thought so too (super creepy)! Your depiction as well created a detailed picture in my mind before I saw the image (in your blog). Your personal interpretation of the painting was very interesting and you brought up a few things I had not thought of at first glance, especially the concise: this image is a depiction of Frida's view of herself and her role in the universe. I would have to agree. As for the previous blog, your writing is very well-written (concise and flowing) and I must agree that consciousness is not simply at the physical level. Your explanation of pandemonium was also well-written and it allowed a better understanding of the model (easy to understand:)). Also, I have to agree with the point that we may never be able to relate a physical response to consciousness...great job!:)

Kahlo, Frida. Henry Ford Hospital. 1932. Collection, Fundacion Dolores Olmedo, Mexico. Web. 9 September 2010.

The strikingly drastic image of Frida Kahlo's "Henry Ford Hospital" is unique to Frida's dramatic, shocking style and portrayal of her suffering. In this particular self-portrait, Frida depicts the traumatizing hospitalization in 1932, when Frida claims she had a miscarriage.  The portrait employs bold, yet dull colors (as in few dramatic, bright colors) with six key elements aside from Frida herself. Frida lies hemmorrhaging on a hospital bed engraved with Henry Ford Hospital, Detriot with the date of hospitalization on the front of the bed frame. The city of Detriot seems to be partitioned behind her. The six key elements are connected to Frida through red strings tied to her left pinky: a newborn/still-born baby boy, a pelvis (most likely female), a purple flower, a snail, a woman's abdominopelvic region, saggital view and a collection of metal items that resemble a blacksmiths working station. Frida is naked and crying. Interestingly, the hospital bed itself is not portrayed in a hospital setting, but instead seems to set itself outside of Detroit (city line) with a blue sky and natural earth below.

Concerning my own interpretation, it is quite obvious that the artist is suffering and believes quite firmly that a micarriage was the source of her woe. Through reading of her life story, it is somewhat simple to see the connections between events and beliefs in her life and this painting. The pelvis situated in the far right of the painting, tied to her little finger represents the accident that damaged her pelvic bone when she was young and to her, the reason that she was unable to have a child. Frida's lower abdomen was pierced by a metal rod from the bus she was riding when it collided with a heavy street car. She said many a time that she felt that this was the reason she was unable to bear children. On that note, the still-born baby boy represents the child she lost during the miscarriage and the pain she felt through that loss (her tears); the abdominopelvic region of a woman shown also adds to that sentiment. The mass of metal items situated in the far left corner may represent the metal inserted into her spine and pelvis to support her skeleton after the accident. When she was younger (shortly after the accident), she wrote many letters that explained her thoughts on her conditions and she wrote many a time that the metal and the devices that held her were bothersome, tiring and demoralizing. Their inclusion in the painting may be an extension of that sentiment. Lastly, the purple flower; this was indeed difficult to decipher and my guess is simply that, a guess. After the accident, Frida explained that the metal rod that pierced her body penetrated her uterus and exited through her vagina and stated that at that point, she lost her virginity. The flower to me seems somewhat broken (at least sad and flaccid) and that may represent her 'flower' which can represent the purity of a woman and the loss of it through the accident. It may also represent the life lost through the event. The snail, in the top right corner was also difficult to infer meaning from as the only association to snails that I am certainly familiar with is their quality of slowness. Perhaps this represents the slow healing of her body or the slow healing of her emotional state after hospitalization. Either way it is difficult to say; the artist clearly makes a strong association with the element, however. The entire piece is rather morbid, as became her style in her later years and carries a feeling of genuine grief; it is obvious that the ability to have a child was vital to her and that the event signified a great loss for Frida.

Abstract Science

Explain Dennett's comparison of philosophical thought processes/methods and those of robotics researchers.

     Daniel C. Dennett, a practiced philosopher likens the research process of present-day roboticists to that of philosophers. Dennett compares the thought processes of roboticists to those of philosophers through the reliable method of the thought experiment. Thought experiments are paramount in philosophy because they are essentially the only means of experimentation in the philosophical world (there are no distinct/concrete models to be created when deciphering the abstract). Dennett explains that robotics research is eerily similar due to the abstract nature of the researchers’ questions (how can we create consciousness? etc). However, there remains a distinction between robotics research and philosophical thought experiments – robotics researchers, after careful thought experiments (and when not considering experiments too complex*) are able to create concrete models of their thought experiments to determine whether or not their hypotheses were actually correct. Also, Dennett explains that in this way, robotics researchers may encounter surprises and unexpected variables (when constructing and testing their models) whereas philosophers can expect their thought experiments to work the way they expect (including all variables limited to their own specific thoughts).


*as in not in the realm of what is possible through current technology.
     Where I disagree with Dennett’s comparison of philosophy and robotics lies with Dennett’s critique of modern science; he states that scientists are not required to discover (or rediscover) the history that their predecessors realized (whether proved correct or incorrect). Yet Dennett also explains that philosopher’s require an intimate knowledge of the history of their specific subject. I do not agree that it is any different regarding scientists. Scientists, when contemplating a research question, must go forth and research/learn all the information available on their particular research subject, not unlike philosophical processes.

Complements and Critiques (blog reviews)

Morgan- I absolutely love your style of writing; you are extremely articulate (possibly due to your speech background) and I enjoyed the points you made in your "Can computers think?" blog. I agree that the cognitive functions are a complex array of organized and integrated functions and that to mimic consciousness, a computer/robot would therefore have to copy the organized, integrated manner of thousands of neural connectors. Also, you made an extremely relevant point that computers most likely could never truly reach our level of 'consciousness' due to the fact that many human functions do not require "conscious" (conscious vs. subconscious) thought or command - we simply do them; a computer would probably not obtain that ability. Also, I enjoyed your scientific/behavioral/biological portrayal of the Consciousness blog. I agree with you on most points. I also think I put the blog reviews in the wrong place, so I just wanted to reiterate the fact that I think you are an intelligent, kind person and I am very interested in your opinions as you are a speech/hearing major. I also glean from your blog that you are fun-loving and love your pets! They are super cute! I hope perhaps one day we can meet :).

Justin- I think you made excellent points in your "Can computers think?" blog and I hadn't connected the fact that humans manufacture computers and are therefore flawed. I wasn't quite sure how computers taking over people's jobs fit in, but you did make an interesting point. Also, I think it may be helpful for the lay people reading your blog if you explain terms such as ethos and pathos (just a short explanation) so that everyone is on the same page. Your definition of an idea is very concise and well-written, however, I have to disagree with you when you say that animals simply react to their environment and accept it whereas humans have the 'consciousness' to alter it. Humans are animals as well, and I think we often forget that. Also, as we are discovering day by day, animals and plants are much more alive and 'conscious' than we had assumed. Other than that, as I think I put the previous blog reviews in the wrong place, I enjoyed your self introduction! You seem to be a very free-spirited person and that is a rare find in this day and age. Pleasure to meet you and I look forward to reading your future posts! Oh, and your picture at the top of your blog is awesome:).

I-Robot

Explain the top-down and bottom-up theories. Why does Brooks criticize the top-down theory?

Rodney Brooks and Hans Moravec are two of the leading robotics experts in the United States, yet their views are hardly alike. Rodney Brooks is one of the most outspoken supporters of the bottom-up theory, of which the article by Michael Dery explains quite thoroughly. Essentially, the bottom-up theory states that the basis of human intelligence lies in motion. Hans Moravec, however, is a firm believer in the top-down theory, that in order to create human intelligence, we must mimic the functions and processes of the brain (as in vision and higher thinking). The article by Michael Dery focused primarily on supporting Brooks and his bottom-up theory while criticizing heavily the top-down theory and the future of Moravec's work.


The bottom-up theory consists of the notion that human consciousness and intelligence stems from sensory-motor skills or condition-action rules. Rodney Brooks, a doctor of philosophy at MIT, believes that by creating small, inexpensive, mobile robots, man can create human-like intelligence. His research focuses primarily on creating miniature insect-like robots that are relatively ‘unintelligent’ when compared with top-down model oriented supercomputer robots.

The top-down theory, as explained by Dery, states that in order to create human intelligence, robots must recognized pieced-together information and models to ‘think’ its way through problems and obstacles. This view proposes that humans use the process of vision and how the brain pieces information together through many neurons and regions to form a cohesive thought or action. This theory includes models of robots that are large and ungainly, as well as slow to process and piece together environmental information. One criticism of Moravec’s work (by Brooks) explains that these models are too complicated to process simple actions and perform them. He states that the tiny insect-like robots are more adept at movements and processing direction and environmental stimulus, although they lack the complicated supercomputer programming that Moravec’s larger counterparts.

The article by Dery is highly critical of the top-down approach as the majority of the article explicates Brooks’ view on the future of roboticis, his work and his criticisms of the top-down theory. Dery utilizes many of Brooks’ strongly supported criticisms and presents a convincing argument against the top-down theory. The fact that his miniature robots, mimicking the lower organisms on our evolutionary tree are more likely to complete a motion task than Moravec’s large, supercomputer-based robots is highly influential.