| « An observation on the lords of dance | Gene Expression Front Page | Miss Universe 2004 » | |
|
June 27, 2004
Argue it, don't prove it!
We can all talk. Most people can enjoy fiction. We can vaguely make out a verbal argument. On the other hand, as Barbie once noted, "math is hard." In any case, I finished The Mating Mind, and I found the last chapters very interesting. That's probably because they are the most focused on specific elements of substance. I was intrigued by Miller's hypothesis that language serves primarily to aid men woo women[1]. This explains, in his opinion, why women tend to perform at a higher level on verbal comprehension tests (they have to judge), while men tend to be better at creation of verbally oriented products (that is, as writers, speakers, etc.). He thinks adaptationist theories of language that focus on the communication & processing of information about the world "out there" are going at it the wrong way, and he is not alone in this idea, as Robin Dunbar's "theory of gossip" is similar in deemphasizing the transmission of utilitarian facts and ideas. Miller even ends by suggesting that g might be a general fitness indicator (yes, that g) [2]. But a question, if you are asked to bet a substanial sum (say $10,000 American dollars) on which set out of two groups of males will have more children at age 65 from the following selections, which horse you back?
Or restated, extremely successful lawyers, or extremely successful engineers? While shows about the lives of lawyers are a dime a dozen, can anyone recall one that focused on the life of an engineering firm? Of course, I guess the C.S.I shows indicate that science can be sexy, but the criminal element seems crucial. Legal shows also tend to focus on "sexy" topics of course, but by their nature, lawyers can argue about the issues in a way that clarifies plot lines and develops depth-of-character (or lack of). [1] He notes that men start talking about intellectual topics and use rarer words when women come into a room. [2] From page 410 of Miller's book: 'So, what is this "general intelligence"? I have mentioned intelligence repeatedly throughout this book as an important criterion of mate choice, but I have not discussed it explicitly in much detail. There are two reasons for this. First, intelligence research remains controversial. A few vocal critics who do not understand modern intelligence research have had an undue influence on public opinion. Despite the fact that more is known about the nature, importance, and genetics of intelligence than about almost anything else in psychology, I do not not want to get side-tracked into such debates. Perhaps my ideas are already controversial enough....'
Posted by razib at
07:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|