digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

psychologytoday.com — Why most suicide bombers are Muslim, beautiful people have more daughters, humans are naturally polygamous, sexual harassment isn't sexist, and blonds are more attractive.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jmchez, on 10/11/2007, -106/+36Most suicide bombers are Muslim. because those who blow themselves up are sexual losers who see heaven as a whorehouse to rape young girls.

    Excellent explanation!
    • jstohler, on 10/11/2007, -17/+53That's one hell of a lame (and inaccurate) generalization.
      • HillerMylife, on 07/24/2008, -5/+18It's the explanation the article gives.
      • Tweekster, on 10/11/2007, -13/+13Actually it is accurate, 72 virgins?

        Mohammaed was a pedophile (it is a historical fact)

        look at the pictures of suicide bombers, you can see the sexual frustration in their eyes
        • TLAKABM, on 10/11/2007, -8/+71) It does not say anything about 72 virgins in the Koran.
          2) Virgins are not necessarily children.
        • swordedge, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3And the 911 bombers got their 72 virgins. The thing is, what they got was 72 extremely well endowed virgin men!!!
      • VanillaStarfish, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3No they're not children. In fine print, which most fail to notice, is that the virgins are men.
        So each martyr is man-handled 72 times before going to hell.
    • bruenig, on 10/11/2007, -16/+7The explanation was an evolutionary explanation. As finding a mate requires a very aggressively violent person, those who were violent found a mate and therefore passed on that trait. It has nothing to do with heaven as a whorehouse. RTFA
      • Vicissidude, on 10/11/2007, -3/+26No, YOU need to read the article. Your explanation makes absolutely no sense considering these men are evolutionary dead-ends. The explanation given in the article for Muslim suicide bombers was that Islam accepts polygamy. So, even with a few men having multiple wives in their society, you get a large group of men who will never get a woman and never have sex. These men would rather literally die for the chance of having sex with 72 virgins in the afterlife rather than live a ***** real lifetime without sex.
      • Vicissidude, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Oh yeah, and the article didn't mention honor killings, which also takes out a good number of Muslim women. Every honor killing means another Muslim man goes without a wife, faces the prospect of going without sex his entire life, and makes suicide bombing and its reward of 72 virgins sound like a good idea.
    • kingkilr, on 10/11/2007, -4/+23They missed one: most people are ***** idiots
      • ShnowDoggie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I am offended and represent that statement!
    • Vicissidude, on 10/11/2007, -5/+23The explanation is poorly worded and antagonistic, but basically correct, if incomplete. The reason these losers are interested in the 72 virgins are because of polygamy in their society allowed by their religion, Islam. Each extra wife that a man takes as a bride means that another man goes without a wife. Each man is allowed by Islam to marry 4 women. So theoretically, 25% of the men could have access to 100% of the women, leaving the other 75% of the men without a woman for their entire lives. Since their religion rewards them with virgins for killing themselves, they gladly trade their lives for the possibility to have sex.
      • Ragix, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1What you said is correct, only if THE NUMBER OF WOMEN IS EQUAL TO THE NUMBER OF MEN.
        • Vicissidude, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4In most societies, 100 women are born for every 105 men. I say most societies because in some places like India and China, sons are valued more than daughters. So, once the parents find out the sex, they'll abort the female fetuses. Or, once the female baby is born, they'll end up killing it. That makes the sex ratio worse in those countries, exacerbating the problem. Polygamy and honor killing only makes it worse from there.
        • scubasteve377, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Also the sex ratio in middle-eastern countries tends to have an even higher number of males to each female. The small mid-eastern nation of Qatar has the most heavily skewed sex ratio in the world, with 1.88 males per female. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar#Population
      • Rekzai, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5No, in Islam you would never get rewarded for killing yourself, suicide is highly looked down upon in Islam and every true Muslim will tell you that.
    • nolanistic, on 10/11/2007, -6/+24The Koran actually mentions 72 Virgin Women and 28 Boys. I'm not joking. That's why the 72 is mentioned as an ODD fact, but it squares out to 100.
    • Bobski, on 10/11/2007, -2/+35So does this mean all that need be done to solve this terrorist thing is make sure all muslim boys get laid?
      • MikeWanDo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9All you need is love.
      • Gerz1219, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Pretty much, yes. But since polygamy is legitimized by the Koran itself, fixing this problem would require either a time machine or the ability to create convincing sex robots (although come to think of it, the Koran probably has some sort of prohibition against sex robots). It's just like how the entire gay rights issue could be resolved with a DeLorean and a few strokes of the editing pen to Leviticus. There are a few things broken with every religion that will result in needless bloodshed and intolerance for generations to come.
    • Vicissidude, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10Honor killing of women is another Muslim "tradition" that isn't mentioned in the article. Honor killing combined with the polygamy certainly makes for a society overpopulated with men who'll never get any action unless they blow themselves up and collect the 72 virgins.
      • RobNus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2like some sick version of the Chance cards in a game of Monopoly. "You are selected for martyrdom. Do not pass go. Collect 72 virgins."
    • Trax91, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12This is the best Top 10 list ever.
  • cornswalled, on 10/11/2007, -120/+8Humans are NOT naturally polygamous. We're naturally Monogamous.
    • Lobstertacular, on 10/11/2007, -3/+66source?
    • g30ff, on 10/11/2007, -2/+33There's a lot in the article that is speculative, but not this. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that humans have always been mildly polygynous beyond the association between sexual size dimorphism and polygyny (which on its own only constitutes weak evidence on which to base a claim about a particular case, humans, especially when polygyny is certainly not the only cause of SSD).
    • AegisGFX, on 10/11/2007, -25/+5Nope, your wrong. And stupid. We evolved from a species of ape that does not practice monogamy in the wild at all. Very few animals do.
      • g30ff, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17Monogamy is common enough among birds, but rare in mammals. cornswalled is wrong on this one, of course, however your statement overstates things a bit. It is important to note that we did not evolve from any extant species of ape. It seems reasonable enough to infer that the species we did evolve from was polygynous given that all its descendants are polygynous (humans, chimps) as were its own ancestors. However, behaviour doesn't fossilize very well so we can't know with complete certainty that our ancestors 'did not practice monogamy at all'. One final thing to note is that although some level of polygyny is common among primates, primates tend more towards monogamy (thinking of it as a broad scale from extreme polygyny to monogamy) than do most mammalian taxa, likely because the relatively long period of dependecy as juveniles means offspring are much more likely to survive when they get some degree of paternal effort.
      • jadenic8, on 10/11/2007, -11/+0Uh oh AegisGFX, watch out. Remember, according to Wikihow, you aren't supposed to mention your belief in evolution. *whispers* You might anger the Christians. shh Sad that you were dugg down because of it. -_-
        • Psych77, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Now try reading the response g30ff gives - he's not saying "evolution doesn't exist", he's saying the species we directly evolved from no longer exists - the common ancestor of modern apes and man. Apes are not our predecessor, they are our cousins, and the so called "missing link" is our common ancestor. Therefore there is no way to prove that "We evolved from a species of ape that does not practice monogamy in the wild at all", and in fact we did not evolve from apes at all.
    • azzageddi, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11You're all wrong. Humans "naturally" adapt to the situation. In marginal environments where overpopulation would endanger everyone, we "naturally" become polyandrous (women taking multiple male mates), as in Tibet and some Polynesian cultures, to slow population growth. In situations where we have a lot of fertile land to fill up quickly, we "naturally" become polygynous, so population growth increases. In other situations, we "naturally" become monogamous.

      I keep putting "naturally" in quotes because these are social decisions we make. We have big, thinking brains. It is natural for us to use them. Of course, we often make bad decisions, like continuing to be polygynous in formerly fertile lands that have turned to desert. That's natural, too, unfortunately. Or by refusing to allow people to make their own decisions about these things now that we have effective fertility technology. In the current situation in America, it seems quite "natural" to me that the government should butt out and allow people to form polygamous family groups, or same-sex groups, or whatever.
      • loki440, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9azzageddi
        Before you write, you should think things through. Polygynous cultures currently span across many different types of environments, some marginal, some not. In fact the heartland of the Muslim world sits on a big desert. Environments don't get any more marginal than that. Yet Islam is the only major Western religion that supports polygyny. Why is that?

        Polyandrous cultures are exceedingly rare. . .I doubt even the ones you quote actually exist. If what you said were true, I'd think we'd see many more examples of societies that practice polyandry.
        • brufleth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2And you should learn to read the whole comment. Your argument was covered.
      • g30ff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Well, I hate to break it to you, but you're full of it on this one. Although it is true that human nature is flexible enought to accommodate changes in our environment to suggest that we 'naturally' become polyandrous to slow population growth is (sorry, can't be delicate on this one) just plain daft. For starters 'population growth' is a property of a population, not an individual, and that's just not how evolution works. You could probably rework your basic idea here to come up with something more sensible, but it is telling that you didn't bother to do so. Second, what the hell do you mean by "naturally"? The way you are using it seems pretty vague to me, so vague in fact as to be meaningless.

        Even if I ignored the above problems the fact of the matter is that polyandry, whatever the situation, is *incredibly* rare, whereas some level of polygyny is quite common. This is a trend that is evident across human societies as a whole as well as across primates in general. Even if we didn't know a single thing about humans except that they are primates 'some level of polygyny' would be a pretty safe bet when guessing their mating system. I really don't know where you are getting that crap from, but I haven't yet met a scientist that would agree with you. If I am mistaken as you suggest, it is a "mistake" I've made openly in the presence of numerous anthropologists, psychologist, and biologists. Funny how none of them have seen fit to correct it.
        • azzageddi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3OK, maybe I replied overly quickly to the "you're wrong-no YOU'RE wrong" thing, but the point I was trying to make is that the article (and the arguers above me) use "naturally" in an equally vague, meaningless way. What does it mean? I meant that it is our nature to make a wide variety of choices in our mating habits. So to say that one of them is "natural" and others are not is, as you put it, daft. Sure, there may be one that was more widespread at one time, and another that's more widespread now, but does that mean anything? Would our prehuman ancestors, even assuming they were primarily polygynous, have remained polygynous if put in a different environment (social as well as physical)? I think we will quite "naturally" continue to try new family groupings, because it is natural for us to experiment and modify everything about ourselves that we can. That's how we populated almost every part of this planet. (And loki, polyandrous societies do exist, and, though rare, are not as rare as most people have thought until recently. Seriously, I've been reading up on it as part of a paper I was writing about the Taipi society of the Marquesas Islands--the subject of Melville's first novel.)
        • g30ff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Lord knows I'm not defending the article. It was awfully speculative, and I think in parts irresponsibly so. But on this particular point the article happens to be accurate. There are exceptions, to be sure, but for every polyandrous societ you can find, there are easily 20 societies that have some degree of polygyny.

          I really think the question of whether they would have remained polygynous is fairly immaterial to the main thrust of the article (which is, I agree, questionable in parts) which is that given a consistent, long term history of polygyny we would expect to see adaptations to polygyny such as physical dimorphisms in traits like size, dentition (there is a human canine dimorphism), and various sexual signals (hair, breasts) as well as behavioural dimorphisms which the article goes on to discuss (badly).

          The amount of time humans have spent out of Africa is just a blink of an eye, evolutionarily speaking, and not all these traits are going to be equally labile. This mismatch between the traits adapted to past environments and the optimal value of a trait under present circumstances is often discussed under the banner of EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptedness) by evolutionary psychologist. Personally, I hate the term and I think it encourages students to think of the ancestral environment as being a very static thing, I'm far more comfortable with discussing time lags in evolution (which tends to be used by evolutionary biologists).
        • gotterdammerung, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Not how evolution works?" Individuals cannot evolve - evolution necessarily takes place at the level of a population. Chapter 1 in any rudimentary evolutionary biology text. "Human nature" is an imprecise, scapegoat phrase that is ultimately meaningless; many of the points in the article about sexual selectors and fitness differentials could just as easily apply to countless other mammalian species, as well as some birds and fish.
        • g30ff, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes, only populations evolve since only in a population can allele frequencies change over time. However, this fact no way implies that that the adaptations are created to benefit a population (by regulating 'population growth' for example). Adaptations are created that benefit individuals (really the genes responsible for the adaptations themselves). In areas where resources are scarce some species will curb their reproductive efforts, but they do so not to so that 'population growth' increases or decreases, but so that because it increases the chance their genes make it into the next generation by having fewer offspring. This tends to occur when a parent can increase the competitive ability of their young by putting more resources into fewer offspring. In many cases animals do not have the ability to do this which tends to cause irruptive population dynamics.

          As I said, you could rework the original statement into something more consistent with current evolutionary thought, but in its original form it was plainly wrong. And every text I own that deals with evolution agrees with me on this point, including the not-so-rudimentary ones. We are a mildly polygynous species, one with a great deal of flexibility in our behaviour perhaps, but a mildly polygynous species nonetheless. This statement, although poorly supported in the article, is an uncontroversial one. There is much that I disagree with much in this very speculative article, but on this particular point it is simply stating what is generally considered common knowledge among those working in this field.
    • wiskers69, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3And you know this how?
    • Chewie67, on 10/11/2007, -6/+6cornswalled: Let me guess, the "Bible" is your source, right?
    • atticus8, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The actions historically taken by my penis and the penii of all my compatriots says you are wrong. So very wrong.
      • madamme, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I dugg this comment for the use of the word "penii." Nice job.
    • swordedge, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Humans ARE naturally polywhatever.. Did you know that your sperm will link up and create a blockade against another mans sperm in a woman? This increases chances his sperm gets the egg. The ONLY reason for doing that is because women have multiple partners. And the article says women don't take partners (they are wrong)
    • DRock4776, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1There is another genetic basis for polygamy not mentioned in the article. Males (in nearly every species) actually have higher sexual performance with multiple partners.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidge_effect
  • jiveturkeyblues, on 10/11/2007, -43/+16whole article sounds a bit patriarchal to me..
    • rollem, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I understand that thought, but really, it's just about maximizing reproductive success no matter your sex.
  • Lobstertacular, on 10/11/2007, -4/+281I'd like to point out that Futurama figured all of this out years ago:

    The whole reason for all of civilization is so that guys could impress girls and get them to have sex with them!
    • secretwhistle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+21Unless it's drama - then it's the same sex.
    • oxdeltaxo, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2Why does some of this remind me of Freud?
    • ripple123, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4And here I was thinking it was for the indoor plumbing, and the not starving, or freezing your ass off.
      • patik, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3...only because it's harder to have sex when the smell of sewage is in the air, your stomach is growling, and you're experiencing cold-induced 'shrinkage'.
    • revmitcz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Right you are : http://youtube.com/watch?v=SFlpHHH9EIU
    • mrsneakypat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Brought to you by, The Space Pope.
      • KidVicious, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee SPACEPOPE
    • ronaldinho, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2This article makes it seem that women only exist so that men can have sex. It's kind of wrong even if I'm a guy.....which I don't damn mind. Which sane heterosexual male doesn't want to have sex with more than one female?

      Also, it is sad that girls' main selling point IS appearance. You are fat or ugly if you are a girl? Good luck finding even someone who is willing to walk you home. Who the hell will want to rape you if you are a fat and ugly girl anyway? I guess that's one good attribute about ugliness and fatness, huh? No one is willing to touch you even if you give him money.
      • leftnut, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You are obviously not married. Once you are, and you realize that any future hot chicks are "off-limits", you feel a sense of loss. It's like finding out that you will only watch one channel on TV for the rest of your life. I'm not saying that I should be able to go out and have sex with all women, just that the natural urge is there.
        As for the fat women, you should make it your personal mission to make them all feel better by "walking them home". You be the grenade blanket, OK?
    • leftnut, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Removing the shroud takes all the fun out of it. Knowing that large breasts are attractive only because of my instincts kind of sucks.
      I don't buy the whole blue eyes pupil dilation theory. Sounded like a load of scientific tripe to me.
    • adamgoldman, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0Everything is based on sexual relationship.
  • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -38/+357I call BS. Brunettes are more attractive.
    • DownIsTheNewUp, on 10/11/2007, -40/+10Seconded. Asian girls tend to be brunette, therefore brunettes are more attractive.
      • Scheissen, on 10/11/2007, -7/+21um wtf

        asians have black hair
        • DownIsTheNewUp, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14Don't brown and black fall under the brunette category? Isn't it always "blondes, brunettes, and redheads" and not "blondes, brunettes, black-hairs, and redheads?"
        • Scheissen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13A brunette is someone with dark or brown hair and black is just black. That expression just applies to European complexion.
        • rocket000, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1There's no such thing as natural black hair on a human, it's just really really dark brown.
      • Rekzai, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6If by Asian you mean around India then yes they are more attractive :).
    • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -6/+88Well, my personal preference is brunette, but I think it depends on the girl. Basically, I think girls should just keep their natural hair and lay off the highlights.
      • nikkilai, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12The article notes at the end that with plastic surgery, hair dye, and whatnot, a lot of the blond bombshell theory doesn't really come into play. I think that after decades of seeing blond bombshell Playboy Bunnies and wannabes, men associate the blond bombshell as fake (dyed hair, fake boobs). Since men generally prefer natural beauty, men these days tend to prefer brunettes. But God, who knows what it's going to be like in a few decades, because more and more blonds are dying their hair dark, women are getting breast reductions, etc etc...
        • Tweekster, on 10/11/2007, -3/+21they are not blonde, they are white haired freaks
          there is nothing more pathetic than a woman that tans and dyes, so that the hair color is lighter than the skin color.

          skin color should always be lighter than hair
    • Truegod, on 10/11/2007, -20/+80Redheads are the hottest.
    • AlienX3.5, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I prefer really dirty blonds or lighter headed brunettes (brown hair). It obviously doesn't depend on hair alone. For all i know i might end up with a red head =P
      • nairanvac, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13I love dirty blonds as well. The dirtier the better.
    • Battleloser, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10Redheads man, ones with really bright, long red hair.

      Mmmmmm
    • gpmidi, on 10/11/2007, -7/+15Very pale skin and black hair is the best
      • Lionstone, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Agreed, but with ice blue eyes. French or here in the US, Cajun women. Yum.
    • seraph82, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Nope - do the math. What does every hollywood star look like? Yep. Big boobs, blonde, etc...
      • arbulus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7"What does every holywood star look like?"

        A bobblehead
      • madamme, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Wow. That's a generalization. Most of my favorite Hollywood women are brunettes. I mean, just look at Angelina Jolie.
    • mccrusc, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1I like to party.
    • cryptomystic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10I thought I was in the minority when I read the first one on the list . I'll take a brunette anyday of a blonde, it's just a personal preference.
    • Chewie67, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Liz Hurley, Demi Moore, Catherine Zeta Jones, Kate Beckinsale, Jennifer Garner, Penelope Cruz, Salma Hayek

      Hard to argue with you.
      • Mark7r0n, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Amen!
      • Jugalator, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Natalie Portman.

        Isn't it a universal rule she should be mentioned too? Oh wait this isn't Slashdot :)
    • civperc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Amen!
    • queenstarsha, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2you only say that 'cause you're not a pedophile, which ev. psych. assumes all men are by nature.
    • tallulahvulture, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1meeeeeeeee im brunette :P
  • sbader, on 10/11/2007, -5/+32Does anyone know what caused the judeo-christian culture to shift to monogamy from polygamy? I don't remember this ever being addressed in sunday school.
    • g30ff, on 10/11/2007, -7/+40In a word, Rome. Polygamy had been practiced (and in some places continues to be practiced, even by non-Mormons) by christians but was later rejected in an effort to conform to Roman values and make itself more appealing (and less controversial). As to why Rome was monogamous, I don't know, but it probably had something to do with inheritance and intra-family discord. Even if the Romans were clearly monogamous as far as the institution of marriage was concerned, there was still an awful lot of sex involving people other than one's wife.
    • oxdeltaxo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18I suspect it had something to do with violence control as hinted in the article.
    • organon, on 10/11/2007, -4/+29Genetic studies have shown that monogamy became popular about 20,000 years ago. So long before recorded history. My main guess for the why is: military power. One alpha male, no matter how strong, cannot defend his harem against dozens or hundreds of non-alphas. So it is basically granting others limited reproductive rights in exchange for them defending your own greater reproductive rights (since men of power and wealth still have their harem in on or another form). And well, from that arrangements all higher civilisations developed. At least that is my guess.
      It's also interesting to note that the common female ancestor of all humans lived about 150,000 years ago, the common male ancestor of all humans about 50,000 years ago. Roughly speaking that means, a man has a 3 times higher risk of getting his line extinct than a woman. But that also means (and concluding this is trivial from the fact that one man can have much more offspring than a woman) that the possible reward if you succeed is so much higher for men than women.
      Anyone notice how the competition among women is generally a competition among women to get a few select males? While the competition among men is usually to get any women? This is digg, so I guess most people here know this ;)
    • tmanaussie, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3I'd suspect that this is a non-issue for the studs that post on this website. Digg Blokes FTW!
    • cyclopsface, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6The article claims that polygamy fell out of favor after the middle ages because of the rise of the middle class basically. If guys all have about the same amount of money then its better to get one all to yourself. I'd add that in an effort to not have their populace revolt (a la the french revolution) leaders now pretend to not be that different from the people they rule - so like it says in the article leaders tend to be monogamous but with affairs and illegitimate children (think Ben Franklin and Bill Clinton)

      and in contrast to what the guy above me says, this is an issue for dorks because with monogamy pretty much everyone gets a wife whereas in polygamy only the cool kids do.
  • vroom101, on 10/11/2007, -25/+5If the explanation for #4 ("Most suicide bombers are Muslim") is to be believed, then why aren't the suicide bombers blowing up males in their own society instead running around the world murdering innocent people of all ages who even aren't competing with them?!?!?

    Dude, I think people who write these articles need to spend more time reading Digg.com..where reality is...reading submissions (and the accompanying comments) along the lines of "Top Ten Things Men Don't Know About Women -- And Don't Want To Know Either" or "18 Habits A Woman Will Teach Man That'll Make Him An Even Better Man -- If Practiced Faithfully For 365 Consecutive Days".
    • sbader, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I think it's one thing to blow up people in your own society/culture as opposed to blowing up people in a different one, aka the infidels.
      • vroom101, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1But the "infidels" aren't even interested in their women!
        • jmchez, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12Yes, but blowing up infidels gets you 72 women (girls)!
    • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Logic. Most A are B never means most B are A.
    • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13Huh, I thought I posted here already...

      #4 is bogus. The biggest users of suicide bombs (at least up until 2003, but I think they're still in the lead) have been the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. And they're more of a secular nationalist movement, and AFAIK they don't have the polygamy thing going on or any of that.

      I mean, seriously, it's just more Freudian obsession with sexual reasons for things.
      • MacBandit, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2There are a large number of Muslims in Sri Lanka. Over 7% of the population from what I've read.
        • ApeInago, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4but what percentage of the tamil tigers are muslim?
        • pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5really reaching to blame muslims, aren't you? a whopping 7% you say? that's about as many christians they have too. why not blame them?
    • abanana, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5I think this article gives a reason for why someone might be driven to a suicide bombing but in reality now suicide bombings are a soicially acceptable way to earn a reputation for your family and possibly improve their status, while also making the bomber a martyr. A long time ago the bombers might have been blue balled poor men but now i dont think it is the case.
    • nepawoods, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@vroom101

      "why aren't the suicide bombers blowing up males in their own society instead running around the world murdering innocent people of all ages who even aren't competing with them?!?!?"

      Why would a suicide bomber want to eliminate the men competing with him for mates? Think about it. What, he's going to blow himself into a pile of hamburger to kill a few guys, then have sex with their women?

      • vroom101, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@nepawoods, I'd expect that he'd avoid killing himself while at the same time trying to prevent others from killing him!
    • KafirGuy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1way to kiss diggers' asses
  • coinman987, on 10/11/2007, -16/+96psychologytoday isn't even a real psychology magazine. they will print anything as long as you give them enough money.
    • SkullPizza, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22source of this information?
    • hbeierg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9"you don't know the history of phychology, I do"

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=jQCR02Unqhg
    • Vicissidude, on 10/11/2007, -8/+12Psychology Today isn't even a real psychology magazine?... Pot, meet kettle. Psychology itself isn't even a real science.
      • phronko, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5Given that psychology is a science by its very definition, I doubt you could back up that wild claim with any evidence or logic whatsoever.
        • nepawoods, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10Psychology is filled with untestable hypotheses accepted as fact, like the existence of subconscious thoughts, for instance.
          • Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7The hypotheses are unproven, but they -are- defended by consistent experimental results. When an experiment comes along that blows "subconscious thoughts" out of the water, then psychologists will drop that like an old hat.
      • nepawoods, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3"Psychology Today isn't even a real psychology magazine?... Pot, meet kettle. Psychology itself isn't even a real science."

        Besides, what does it take to be a real "magazine", of any variety? Some glossy paper?
    • ReadItAndWeep, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Psychology Today may not be considered a "scholarly journal" in it's field, but it is written by real psychologists. Does that meet your requirements for a "real psychology magazine"? Also, you will notice that this article summarizes a book whose authors have PhDs and work at respected universities. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are right, but it does mean that they are "real".
    • bitORlogic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6One thing I've noticed is that every time I see an issue, there's a woman on the cover and the teaser headlines on the front are for articles largely appealing to women. Is the magazine deliberately targetting women for some reason? It seems odd that a scientific magazine would do that. It's difficult to tell the difference, at a glance, between "Psychology Today" and "Redbook" or "Good Housekeeping". Maybe it's unfair of me, but that's always made me distrust it as a source of legit science.
    • marcmarc, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0or enough diggs
  • MrBrenner, on 10/11/2007, -17/+143This article is pure conjecture; upsetting social norms requires proof. The people demand sources.
    • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17Accidental diggdown. My bad. I think this thing is pretty scarce on evidence, even if it has some interesting arguments.
      • ApeInago, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6if by interesting you mean fallicious, then yes.
      • Vicissidude, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6The article is an excerpt from a book called Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, by Alan S. Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa, to be published by Perigree in September 2007. If you want evidence then buy the book.
    • MrButthead, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6It would be interesting if the article cited some sources for the many studies that are mentioned in the article which support their human nature "facts". Until the sources (and reputable sources at that) are provided, it's two Ph.D. opinions at best.
    • Tweekster, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Upsetting social norms?
      not really, muslims are the suicide bombers in the world
      blondes are highly looked for.

      hot people produce hot children

      those are the social norms of earth
      • Murdats, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2nearly every part of the world has its suicide nutters.
        I am not particuarlly attracted to blondes, and neither are a LOT of people. do you think most asians are attracted to blonds and have been for centuries?

        and yes, appearance is mostly genetic, so you you got 1 right
    • slaveboy2203, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Yeah, leave out some interesting things too. Like if you're more likely to have a girl based on your wealth status, then why is wealth status tend to be inversely proportional to family sizes? Poor people seem to have larger families than rich people. Surely it should be the other way around based on the article's arguments?

      Lots of speculation, no substance.
      • NeilVickers, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3If you don't own a 60" plasma TV then you need to find other sources of amusement come Saturday night.
      • offwithyourtv, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1There have been numerous studies done on wealthy people having fewer children. This is primarily related to level of education, at least in more recent times where wealth is largely related to education and not just handed down through heirs. Also, something not really covered by this article, is that successful, wealthy women often choose to have fewer children because of both education and the desire to stay in their careers. Makes sense to me, as I too would rather have a well-paying and enjoyable career than have children.
    • thebaron2, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12This list is an excerpt from a book, Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, by Alan S. Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa. If you're that interested, buy the book, which will undoubtedly include an index of sources.

      Unless you think that these authors are just blatantly lying, putting their names on the line for no reason other than to upset you, it sounds like these conclusions just make a lot of you uncomfortable.
      • Vicissidude, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Exactly. PhD's don't go around pulling assertions out of their asses.
        • Homunculiheaded, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Aren't you missing a sarcasm tag?
          Or maybe you just haven't spend that much time working with Ph.Ds
        • blaze4metal, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Women's Studies PhD's usually do though. The more cherry-picked ***** they spew out of their mouths, the more money they make.
      • Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Doesn't make it true until the cited sources come out. It's a serious logical fallacy to assume an expert is also an authority.
      • queenstarsha, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1yes, it did make me uncomfortable. it says men want to ***** blondes because children are blonde and men want to ***** children because children are fertile. actually, children's hair tends to darken around the same age at which they become fertile. so that whole line of argument is utter, unsupported *****. and any man who reads that article and says, "yep, makes perfect sense!" is apparently a ***** pedophile pervert who ought to get psychiatric help.
    • KafirGuy, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2The human psyche is not totally tangible or classifiable. Stop trying to get hard evidence for everything.
      • phronko, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Whoa man, that's totally deep dude. Yeah let's just sit around and smoke weed...why bother trying to figure stuff out? Science is hard.
    • theeEqualizer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I agree. The article is pretty engaging, but it doesn't mean a hell of a lot to say "a recent study shows..." I must have sources. C'mon! Who did the study? A bunch of American guys at halftime on Sunday afternoon? 50 cent's entourage? Your dad? The Tobacco industry? Dow Chemical? Anybody can do a "study". Besides, I have been equally attracted to Brunettes many times.

      As a matter of fact, none of the "recent studies" mentioned included sources. That's not good if you're trying to convince anyone who has a even a marginal degree of deductive reasoning skills.
    • Arkons24, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11jesus is digg turning into Wikipedia now? [NEEDS CITATION] Christ, go look up the information in academic journals if you want, it's all pretty spot on, somewhat witty re-wording of well known and regarded scientific and anthropological ideas. I don't know much about the Muslim stuff, but I'd be lying if I hadn't heard it a couple different times now.
      get a life you people
  • AegisGFX, on 10/11/2007, -31/+9This article is about 95% correct, which is why its unlikely to ever reach the front page of Digg.
  • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -12/+80the country with the most suicide bombers ever and with more suicide bombers per capita is Sri Lanka, and it is Hindu
    • SkullPizza, on 10/11/2007, -9/+26You state nothing of the specific religion of the suicide bombers. You only talk of the largest religion within in the country.
      • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15the Tamil Tigers who are responsible for these atrocities are Hindu
      • azzageddi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17As mentioned elsewhere, the Tamil Tigers are a secular Marxist group. There are Muslims in India, but they are aligned with the Buddhist (not Hindu, actually) majority, as are the Christian and Hindu minorities. The various religions are bound together in their opposition to the terrorists.
        • azzageddi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Oops, I meant "There are Muslims in Sri Lanka." And I failed to mention that the Tamil Tigers are ethnically Hindu, although their "religion" is Marxism. (Though I imagine quite a few individuals are practicing Hindus, as a movement they are secular.)
      • diggimator, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It doesn't matter, they're not muslim.
      • tidu, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2I think they're wrong on the whole suicide bomber thing.

        It should read most suicide bombers are EASTERN. Over in the west, we are obviously more "developed" over hundreds of years. We have democracies, where people are allowed to speak freely on any issue. In the East, they are still used to suppression of speech, so instead of having a protest and voicing their opinion, they have to resort to violence to get their point across. That's why we're so ***** in Iraq, we don't understand that suicide bombers are trying to relay their opinion while we try and stop them without negotiating.
    • Scheissen, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3That's apples to oranges. They are not the ones who want to kill us. The "tigers" are against their own government.
      • Murdats, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3oooohhh, now it makes sense.
        your only a terrorist if you want to attack america.
        I have always wondered what earned someone this title, it always seemed fairly arbitary to me
    • Vicissidude, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2The article says MOST suicide bombers are Muslim, not all. In the total number of suicide bombers, not limited to one country or per capita, most ARE Muslim.
      • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1". In the total number of suicide bombers, not limited to one country or per capita, most ARE Muslim."

        Do you have statistics? Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, the majority of suicide bombing attacks where not carried out by Muslims.

        If that fact is still true, the article's premise is flawed and it's argument unsound. If that fact is no longer true, it suggests that something besides polygamy (e.g. political struggle) is a far far bigger factor.
    • resplence, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Well, are they polygamous or monogamous? Because according to the article, that's what's really behind the violence, not their actual religion.
    • khorbin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10I think everyone who is complaining about this claim is missing a key part of the claim itself. It reads: "Suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, but [...] WHEN RELIGION IS INVOLVED, the attackers are always Muslim."

      As far as I can tell (and I'll admit that I haven't researched it at all, but according to the comments posted here) the "tigers" are not religiously motivated. So if you are arguing that the point is wrong because of this, then you should probably read the article more closely. Debate what the article says, not what you think it says.

      I make no claims on whether the article is accurate or not, but I just don't think many people noticed the four words, "when religion is involved."
      • Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3You're quoting the original article, AND using logic and common sense?
        SO Buried!
      • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Khorbin: Are we reading the same article?

        The article first says "*Most* suicide bombers are Muslim" PERIOD. Mix in the Tamil tigers, and that claim is very dubious.

        Only *later* do they say "When Religion is involved, the attackers are *always* Muslim". To which I would refer to to some cases a while back of Christian suicide bombers in Lebanon.
    • ohsin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Sri Lanka is mainly buddhist........

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka
    • intense321, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8I am from Sri Lanka. Tamil Tigers are proud of their suicide bombers. They are extremely well-trained, and the "trade" if you will of suicide bombers is treated like a business. They boast that they have the best suicide bombers. Thousands of people show up to be selected during their "suicide bomber drives". The tigers are not religiously motivated. They are motivated by political power. They want their own separatist state, away from the Singhalese majority rule. When you take it apart, though, the tigers are just terrorists, like any other well-organized terrorist organization.
    • haelios, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I am from Sri Lanka too, and yes, we hold all kinds of records when it comes to suicide bombing. No we're not majority Hindu, we are majority BUddhist. The Tigers may well be majority Hindu though, but I'm not sure.

      intense321's post above sums things up very well.
    • tallulahvulture, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1hinduism is the most tolerant religion there is
  • SkullPizza, on 10/11/2007, -20/+3Oh boy, my Mom is gonna LOVE this when I email it to her.

    She was a 60's no-bra feminist. LOLZ
  • SkullPizza, on 10/11/2007, -25/+3Oh boy, my Mom is gonna LOVE this when I email it to her.

    She was a 60's no-bra feminist. LOLZ
  • mousebite, on 10/11/2007, -19/+2I thought Muslims blew non Muslims up was because...well they aren't Muslims....or they were Joos...or controlled by Joos.
    • RobNus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Fool.
    • Murdats, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1so some 'joos' are muslim?
      if not then you were being fairly redundant, I presume just to troll.
  • rmeddy, on 10/11/2007, -8/+134Hey I dream of having sex with blondes ... and brunettes and black girls and asian girls and indian girls, pretty much if you have an XX chromosome im good.
    • Tweekster, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Rosie?
    • narcosis219, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11XX chromosome... XXY is okay too?

      How about XX and 400 pounds?
    • katulatakulu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Don't worry mate, you'll probably get to have sex one day.
      • rmeddy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Hey I had sex before...does my right hand count?
    • tallulahvulture, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1what about latina girls?
  • afruff23, on 10/11/2007, -13/+62"The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in _Islam_."

    They mean lying militants acting in the name of Islam. This article really grasps at straws, especially for the suicide bombing argument. Not nearly as many Muslims as you may think are polygamous. Of all the Muslims I have ever encountered, only 1 has had 2 wives. Everybody else was signle or had one wife. This coming from a Muslim.
    • reddevil3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16This article really is grasping at straws. I have lived my whole life in the Muslim world (and in a Muslim family), and I only knew of this one old guy who had 2 wives. The ratio is probably something like
      • BlackOp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15Like?
      • Murdats, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2you tried to say less then didnt you? curse you digg, making commenting harder by removing pointy braces
    • asteron, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11Well logically if one Muslim had 10 wives then there would be 9 single men out there to go with him. It would make sense then that you mostly meet single men and not the few with many wives. Also you would only need to compare the number of suicide bombers to the number of polygamists. If there are more suicide bombers than polygamists than that should disprove it.
      • Fitzador, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1What's most terrifying about this "72 virgins" statement is that it is nowhere to be found in the Qur'an. In multiple instances in the Qur'an, readers are promised virgins in paradise, but no specific amount of virgins is mentioned, nor is it mentioned that suicide bombing will specifically grant one these virgins. Speakers and writers from all walks of life and all parts of the political spectrum have repeated this misstatement, ostensibly without bothering to verify it for themselves. The "72 virgins" promise actually comes from a Hamas training manual of the mid-1990s. There -- and only there -- are militants promised "72 virgins" if they blow themselves up for the cause of Islam.
      • afruff23, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If you ask any Muslim of any sect what's the most number of wives you can have, they will say no more than 4 (according to the example of our Prophet). Therefore:
        There would be no more than 4 wives to one man. Not to mention the fact that bigamy is rare, mcuh less trigamy, quadagamy, or quintagamy.
    • brucerchapman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't part of the muslim wedding ceremony explicitly mention multiple wives? I live in a country where polygamy is illegal and yet muslim wedding ceremonies still mention polygamy.
    • Vicissidude, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Polygamy isn't the only thing taking women out of the available marriage pool. For every honor killing of a woman, there is one less man that has a wife to marry. And like polygamy, honor killing of women is also a Muslim tradition.
      • ozziegt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Umm, no, honor killing is not condoned in any way, form or fashion by Islam. Furthermore I think Hindus and Chinese who kill their baby girls are a much bigger problem than honor killing.
        • Vicissidude, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1So? I have no idea whether honor killings are "condoned" by Islam or not. The FACT is that Muslims still practice it. Find any honor killings in western nations and you'll find a group of Muslims from middle-eastern nations pushing some sort of religious law. Honor killings are endemic throughout these regions where Islam exists, which only complicates these problems with polygamy and suicide bombers.
    • howie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Why do you only mention Polygny? That's just one part of the argument. The other is that young men are unable to get sex, so the promise of lots of sex in heaven appeals to them. Young men with low status will have problems finding a wife, and so they turn to the promise of 72 virgins. This could probably be both consciously and subconsciously, depeding on the individual.
      • ozziegt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2The 72 virgin myth is THE biggest myth about suicide killing in the western media.
    • catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Also, they live in a ***** desert. I would be pissed too.
    • MoeWasHere, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4This article is WRONG: Polygamy and lack of availability of women has NOTHING to do with suicide rates in Muslim lands. There are TOO many unmarried men and women available all over the Arab world. It's just too difficult to get married under traditional (ie not strictly Islamic) norms. This leads to many young people not being married ....

      So the article is correct in a sense that Suicide missions are somewhat caused by sex. Just take one good look at the pic of those suiicde bomers in London last week - it screams "We need to get this guy some PUSSY!"

      / and yes, I'm Arab and Muslim, and unlike the article i'm not talking out of my ass.
  • yoshitomi, on 10/11/2007, -26/+21I'm going to get dugg down heavily, but I honestly believe that males are more intelligent. I know it's an absurd claim, and I'm most likely wrong (it's probably the reverse), but I can't help but feel that way. Maybe we base intelligence on what men are inherently better at, I don't know? I just feel that if we had 2 Earths.. one with just females and one with just males (given that reproduction isn't a prohibiting factor here), I would place my bets on the fact that the male-earth's human population would advance faster.

    Seriously, digg me down, please. This notion is completely ridiculous.
    • SkullPizza, on 10/11/2007, -6/+16Nahh it's true. Penis' ftw.
    • azzageddi, on 10/11/2007, -9/+8Considering that my female students are nearly always significantly more intelligent than my male students, I believe that your belief is wrong.
      • ApeInago, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1I'm the male studen who brings the average of males above the average of females. the rest of the males are dumb as ***** I'll admit, but I'm just that much smarter ;)
      • resplence, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7And yet men seem to dominate every possible field. The best/most renowned individuals of every possible field are male - philosophers, scientists, writers, poets, painters, sculptors, musicians, singers, chefs, hairdressers... hell, I'd be willing to bet that even the world's best whore is a transsexual male.

        Perhaps women are factually more intelligent, but generally - and historically - men sure put the little they've got to better use.
        • yoshitomi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2That is what I don't understand!
          • Vicissidude, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5It's all about getting laid and spreading your genes to the next generation. Men have to work to get laid, women don't as long as they look good, which doesn't involve dominating every possible field.
      • Psych77, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Please define intelligence. Do you mean they do better in exams? Or in overall grades? Or learn quicker? Or learn more?

        Thanks for your ***** opinion, but it's crap. No-one has yet managed to come up with a universally accepted definition of intelligence, most so called IQ tests include racial, cultural or other bias (I'm not going to provide sources, the internet or a basic Psychology course is your friend), and in education it has been shown that different assessment methods introduce bias.

        In the UK assessments were moved away from 100% examinations towards a heavier emphasis on coursework as girls were "falling behind". Boys generally do better at exams, girls generally do better at coursework. Guess what? Now they changed the assessment method they keep worrying that boys are "falling behind" girls.
        • blaze4metal, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1You beat me to it. I'm sick of hearing the "Well, girls are scoring higher in school, that means they are smarter" line. If you can't beat them, change the rules.
    • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -1/+10***** that, I need some poontang. I'd definitely find a way to get to the women's planet.
    • GSullivan, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3I think women are more intelligent than men for the most part but their tendency to make decisions based on feelings as opposed to men's penchant for making decisions based on facts (I'm generalizing here) is what earns women their reputation as being less intelligent.
      • RobNus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0so, in short, men are less intelligent but more rational than women?
    • apiecealarry, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0I'm guessing you're just another victim of the pressures of outside cultural influence - I mean, I can understand how hard it might be to fight the image of Paris Hilton as a female archetype
      Keep up the good fight, and resist groupthink!
    • undetected, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9I agree with "the male-earth's human population would advance faster" except I believe it would be because men are naturally more competitive.
      • offwithyourtv, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I agree also, because men are naturally more competitive, and because a planet full of women would naturally try to kill off each other. Women hate other women.
    • honestlywhagwan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4if it's so ridiculous, why'd you bother commenting at all?
    • gpmidi, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4i take it you haven't been to any high school graduations recently. The top three GPAs were all girls (two were tired for first), all 12 of the awards for academic achievements went to girls, and the vast majority of the lower end scholastic achievements went to girls. Even within my family girls tend to do better. I have a grandmother that was a sociology professor at the University Of Maryland before retiring, an aunt who teaches at a community college, a lawyer, a programmer/manager, an executive director, a translator, and so on. The guys in my family: A migrant farmer, construction, a lawyer, and I work in computer security. Thus far the only women in my family without a college degree is one of my grandmothers. A hand full of us guys do not have one. Overall the women in my family are better educated and paid more than the men.
    • Vicissidude, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Men and women are equally intelligent. The difference in the accomplishments between the sexes are because women make men literally work for sex. For example, Einstein was a ladies man, which would never have happened based on his natural looks. No, Einstein had to work his ass off to get that action, just like every other man ever born.
    • ReadItAndWeep, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12According to IQ tests, the average male IQ and the average female IQ are equal. However, the standard deviation for male IQ results is greater than the standard deviation for female IQ results. This means that there are more male geniuses, but also more male idiots, when compared to females. This helps explain why most of the "great minds" of history have been men. It also explains why most of the ***** I see are men as well.
      • Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That makes a lot of sense, but I think it's leaving out some serious points.
        For one, education. Men throughout history have had more education.
        For another, competitiveness. Men are more competitive (chasing girls), which can seemingly magnify their intelligence or stupidity. (Someone really smart giving 110%, or someone really stupid going all out)
        • zigspective, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Education is a very valid point.
          Females have always had the short end of the stick when it comes to the history of education, they were denied or discouraged from becoming educated for most of history. It's only really been within the past 50 years that real percentages of women were actually attending a post-secondary establishment.
          Even a brilliant mind needs a basic education to make a difference.
    • phronko, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It doesn't really matter what you believe. When you actually look at the literature on intelligence, you find that men and women are about equal in overall intelligence, only differing slightly in some specific areas. So go on believing whatever you want, but personally I like true beliefs more than false ones.
    • Nightwind, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5It has nothing to do with intelligence per se. It's rather that men are competetive like hell, more aggressive and are generally judged by the quality or amount of work they can accomplish, while women are judged by their appearance. A planet full of men would most certainly advance faster then a planet full of women, but not because of intelligence, but because the women would settle for a lot less technical advancements. The women would still look better, though :) Men are maniacs, basically, driven by the fact that every woman on this planet just wants the one best man, and every other man can - in theory - drop dead. One man really is enough. That's a very scary thought for men and is what makes them so competetive. Women however have inherent reproductive value, and a woman can always find a mate and have offspring, if she is young and healthy.


      • offwithyourtv, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If the woman planet settled for less technical advancement, and they likely would aside from "advancements" in makeup and designer shoes, there would be a small group of us desperately building a shuttle to move to the man planet.
  • argenfish, on 10/11/2007, -9/+45Going grammar Nazi here - since the authors are discussing women in the "blond" section of the article, it should be "blondes," and not blonds, which is the male designation.

    And end grammar Nazi moment... now. Thank you. You may now go about your business.
    • Tweekster, on 10/11/2007, -14/+0Blond is a word you moron

      There is nothing I love more, than when a self righteous grammar ***** head gets totally owned because he doesnt even know when a word is a word.
      • AceLy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6It's funny when a moron tries to correct someone and fails. I agree, moron.
    • jasoninoakland, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7Blonde (British spelling) = Blond (American spelling) = can be used for a man or a woman

      Not like fiance/fiancee male/female difference in spelling.
      • RobNus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond#Etymology.2C_spelling.2C_and_grammar

        "The linguists who support the Latin origins however say that Middle Latin blundus was a vulgar pronunciation of Latin flavus, also meaning yellow. The word was reintroduced into English in the 17th century from French, and was until recently still felt as French, hence blonde for females and blond for males.[1] Writers of English will still distinguish between the masculine blond and the feminine blonde[2] and, as such, it is one of the few adjectives in English with separate masculine and feminine forms. However, many writers use only one of the spellings without regard to gender, and without a clear majority usage one way or another. The word is also often used as a noun to refer to a woman with blond hair, but some speakers see this usage as sexist[2] and reject it. (Another hair color word of French origin, brunet(te), also functions in the same way in orthodox English.)"
    • queenstarsha, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1wow. i'm learning facts on digg. thanks, grammar nazi.
  • zwendkos, on 10/11/2007, -6/+14011. Black people are more athletic.
    • MacBandit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+37As long as it doesn't involve snow, water, or motorized sports.
      • brucerchapman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2What's Lewis Hamilton? A deeply tanned guy?

        Black people haven't done well in Motorports YET because doign well in Motorsport has a lot more to do with access to cash than any other sport. You need big bucks to succeed in Motorsport, and it's only in the last 50 years that anyone black has had the chance to amass the cash necessary to put their kids into motorsport at an age young enough to give them a chance at success. See also Golf and Tiger Woods. See also Alpine sports.
        • Lionstone, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1So why isn't Tiger or Michael Jordan or Shaq into motorsports?
        • bigtizzle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Jordan and Shaq are too tall and heavy for motor sports and Tiger has been playing golf since he was 2 years old. Someone like James "Bubba" Stewart on the other hand. . .
      • Revan01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Black people see athletics as the only way to economic prosperity; thus they work harder in order to achieve it
        • nepawoods, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"Black people see athletics as the only way to economic prosperity" ... so you're saying they're stupid? Because they would have to be. What percentage of the people can make a living in athletics?

          There are very definite genetic factors.
        • QitelRemel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'm sure there are a lot of black boys (at least) going for athletic scholarships so as to get degrees, if that's what you mean.
      • BeyondGoodNEvil, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3...or heavy weights, or endurance competitions like triathlons.
      • SatNav, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3or Igloos and Eskimos and ICE?!?
      • bigtizzle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Now that Ricky Carmichael is nearing retirement from Motocross and Supercross, James Stewart (a black guy) is absolutely crushing everyone.
    • EochaidRiata, on 10/11/2007, -1/+23Just look at all of the animals that can hunt/kill humans in Africa compared to Europe. 750,000 years of evolutionary pressure under these conditions could account for that.


      • Tweekster, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1750,000 years ago africa and europe looked the same
    • slaveboy2203, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Except Formula 1. :p
    • atticus8, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Also (and this applies only to African-AMERICANS) the black people here were basically bred for the "strongest stock" to do the most amount of slave work without dying. Naturally smaller or less muscled blacks were made "house negros" or just allowed to die, but certainly not bred. Do that for 300 years and *finger snap* you have the NBA.
    • gradeahonky, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Black people do seem on average more athletic than other races. But no one has a god damn clue why it appears that way. Its probably a combination of all these suggested factors plus a million more.

      Take for instance this: A person could genetically be 10% black but they would still be declared black in America. So, these hybrid Americans who have all the good genes from god knows how many races are deemed black. If two races combine with somewhat differing genetics, theres going to be at least one offspring that gets all the benefits from both races.
    • sonycam, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1White people are better swimmers.

      Black people generally have more muscle on their bodies (hence they make up a lot of olympic runners), but white people generally have more fat on their bodies (hence they tend to make up most of the olympic swimmers).
      • zazzalicious, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Which black people? The Pygmies, the Masai? The Kenyans?
    • saiyanate, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I think #11 raises a valid point, but needs restatement:

      11. There ARE genetic differences between racial populations (black, white, indian, asian, etc.) which give rise not only to different phenotypes (eg. skin, eye, and hair colors) but also to different performance stats (size, strength, speed, body mass) and possibly to different behaviors (propensities/attitudes toward religion, aggression, fidelity, innovation, industriousness, socialization, etc.).

      How many dark skinned people do you see in the World's Strongest Man competition? Black people are better runners because that's how natural selection (i.e. their environment) has acted on their ancestors in the past however many thousands of years. OTOH, more northern climates selected against people with too low body mass (fat+muscle+everything else); body mass conserves heat and stores energy. [More here, that I don't feel like detailing.] You could say the same thing about body hair. I've not met a whole lot of black people, or Indians for that matter, with full beards. And if you want some bottom line, indisputable pieces of evidence, look at the ability to digest lactose in different racial populations, and look at the incidences of heart disease in white vs black Americans.

      11 corollary. There are genetic differences between men and women...

  • smurf22, on 10/11/2007, -3/+33I like japanese red heads....... I guess im an odd ball.
    • sneeka2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Good luck for finding a mate then (who's not dyed). ;o)
    • thegoodsteer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13I guess you play too many SquareENIX games...
  • HeyaBILL, on 10/11/2007, -1/+111In #7 - "and write new computer software in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them."

    Where do these women live?
    • Amablue, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19There's a step omitted from that. It's make money from said software. That's what'll lure in the chicks.
    • gpmidi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+25They are like all women on the internet: Non-existent
      --
      IRC: Where the men are men, the women are men, and the kids are FBI agents.
    • brucerchapman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Well, get programming and hack google maps to find out. Sheesh, you're a clever programmer aren't you??
    • 15thPD, on 10/11/2007, -0/+121. Write new software.
      2. ???
      3. Sex with attractive women.

      Got it all planned out.
    • demiurgency, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1That one line struck me as really odd and funny too. I was wondering if someone else would point that out.
  • mriegger, on 10/11/2007, -1/+20"Across all societies, polygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors as economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy, and political factors in the region."

    Um, maybe thats true. But would it have killed them to back this up with some charts, graphs or citations?
    • Vicissidude, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Buy the book.
      • linuxismyfriend, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Don't, the book sucks really bad! In a few more years, they will conduct tests that will contradict these and then they will come up with the reasoning.
        • Vicissidude, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1The book isn't even out yet. There's no way you'd know it "sucks really bad" unless you were pulling that out of your ass. Some of this reasoning is pretty old and not about to be contradicted overnight, if at all.
  • str3ama, on 10/11/2007, -19/+42This is totally *****..It started off good, but as it went on it became clear that it was a joke or just some person's rant. Monogamy suits women, not men! Monogamy allows for a women to have the man involved in the rearing of the child, which lightens some of the burden on her. Whereas in nature, you see the males split after copulation or shortly after gestation. The male can go have sex again with someone else, whereas with monogamy the man stays with the women and thusly he takes responsibility in raising the child.

    As for terrorists, it's only what we define as terrorists. I mean in the early 90s we said Russians were terrorists and just about every movie supported this. Today we say it's Muslims, and tomorrow we may say Christians, Hindus or Scientologists - whatever. It has less to do with marriage/sex (which the author tries to link to everything) and more to do with political and historical disputes.

    Also sexual harassment and sexism are related, sexism doesn't just mean that you discriminate or stay away from a sex, but rather you degrade and treat them as lesser to your own sex. Sexual harassment means that you're objectifying and degrading, so it is sexist.
    • nytewalker, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Erm, did the article ever say anything about terrorists? No. It was saying that Muslim's are much more likely to be Suicide Bombers. This actually has nothing to do with terrorism. While it can be used for such, suicide bombing is also a war tactic, and that was what the article referred too. Your right about what we define as terrorists, but the article was merely stating that Muslims, at this time, are more likely to partake in this tactic then those of other religions and nationalities.
      • elhaf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You're right, we should actually be fighting a war on suicide, not a war on terror. It's the suicide bombers who are much more difficult to reason with and reform, especially after the fact.
    • kublerross, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I agree regarding monogamy. its totally backwards and complete bs

      men produce limitless sperm basically their whole life, its evolutionarily advantageous for men to impregnate as many women as possible thus maximizing the number of offspring he can have

      Women are born with a set number of eggs which start deteriorating the second their born due to radiation, other mutations etc.
      It is in their best interest to choose the best male around to rear her child and stay with her at least until the child is raised thus insuring the successful passing on of her genes
      • ragsmaloy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Actually it’s better for women to pretend to be in a monogamous relationship and play away with a male with better genes if he comes along and then have her partner help to raise the offspring. Cuckolding is fairly common in nature and offspring produced in adulterous relationships actually tend to have a better survival rate than those in purely monogamous relationships.
      • nepawoods, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"It is in their best interest to choose the best male around to rear her child and stay with her at least until the child is raised thus insuring the successful passing on of her genes"


        And if the best male is taken? That's where polygamy comes in. In a world where there is such a great disparity between the wealthy and the poor, a wealthy male can do more to help raise the children of many women than a poor man can to raise one child. That's the point.

        The point is polygamy leaves many men without wives, while monogamy leaves many women with (financially) poor husbands.
      • elhaf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I always thought monogamy was invented to protect the line of inheritance, specifically so that the male would know that his son is actually his. Obviously in practice this can be circumvented, but it is the ideal which was striven for, and adultery has traditionally been frowned upon, especially amongst females.
    • tvc15, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5> Sexual harassment means that you're objectifying and degrading, so it is sexist.

      The authors point is that men sexually harass each other both now and before women entered the workforce and as such are only treating women the same way (ie equally). "Browne points out that long before women entered the labor force, men subjected each other to such abusive, intimidating, and degrading treatment." Everything from uncomfortable sexual comments in locker rooms to outright rape during hazing.
    • bachdog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Monogamy suits women, not men! Monogamy allows for a women to have the man involved in the rearing of the child, which lightens some of the burden on her. "

      What you say is correct but only for alpha males--monogamy does not suit alpha males. Monogamy suits *most* males. Most men are not alpha males and would otherwise not have access to females at all without the help of socially or culturally sanctioned rules for relationships. If they tried, they would get beat down by the alpha male

      "Monogamy guarantees that every man can find a wife. True, less desirable men can marry only less desirable women, but that's much better than not marrying anyone at all."

    • R34C7, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3no - Women will always be able to find a suitable partner, but in the case of polygamy they can share a more wealthy partner that will leave them and their offspring in a more suitable position. In monogamy the woman is more likely to be required to reproduce with a man of less stature because there is more competition for wealthy/powerful men.
    • tocksin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2paternity suits. ultimately women don't want the man being there - they want the man's money to support the child themselves. if a women knows a man is going to leave (which is often the case in today's USA society - 60-70% divorce rate) then why not get knocked up by a rich guy instead of a poor guy? at least you have a chance of getting child support. OR after getting knocked up by a poor guy, hook up with a rich guy so you can get better support for your child and yourself.
    • amra51, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Um, I am pretty sure that any group that intentionally targets unarmed, non-combatant civilians are terrorists. It doesn't matter what we call them.
  • Janizzary, on 10/11/2007, -14/+47The Muslim suicide bombing explanation is far too simplistic, or rather, inaccurate. Muslim suicide bombers are usually either Palestinian or Iraqi. Guess why? Because they are both an oppressed people!!! If you are oppressed and have no future, THEN, you have nothing to lose!!! Not because all viable mates have been married to wealthier males!
    • Vicissidude, on 10/11/2007, -10/+6What religion do you think Palestinians and Iraqis are?... Muslim.

      There have been plenty of oppressed people throughout the ages. But, they've never blown themselves up like the Muslims. Not getting any sex in the real life while promised 72 virgins in the afterlife can make any man strap a bomb on.
      • pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7guess who's not muslim? the tamil tigers. guess what they do have in common with the palestinians and iraqis? a struggle for independence. btw, the LTTE carry out more suicide bombings than anyone else.
        • Vicissidude, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1The article said MOST, not ALL, suicide bombers are Muslim, which IS correct worldwide.
    • artey, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1You said it perfectly! Bin ladens letter was published recently and he said the same thing. "Free our land"
      • thegoodsteer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Hahah, more like the Bush administration's essay-writing contest
    • BeyondGoodNEvil, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Yes, around 3 TIMES as many Palestinians than Israelis have been killed. It's amazing how rarely that fact gets pointed out.
    • ch33sehead, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Well if you would've read the end of that section you would have seen that they addressed your concern. They said that the other factor was the promise of 72 virgins waiting for any martyr.
    • howie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That they are oppressed is just a reason for their leaders to fight against something.
    • homanh, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6"The Muslim suicide bombing explanation is far too simplistic, or rather, inaccurate. Muslim suicide bombers are usually either Palestinian or Iraqi."

      Buried and blocked for stupidity.
      Suicide bombers come from Saudi Arabia, then Pakistan+Egypt then Afghanistan in order of population. Iraq has negligible [read: nearly NONE] suicide bombers, as little as the US would have mass murderers. and the few suicide bombers from Palestine do so out of sheer despair and hopelessness. If you wanna test this out, feel free to give the Palestinians some fighter jets and tanks then see if they would still use suicide tactics.

      It just seems as digg gets more popular, the IQ drops proportionately
    • mdmadph, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Funny how in the most notable terrorist attack to date (9/11) more than 3/4 of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, a fairly prosperous country, eh?
  • blitzer, on 10/11/2007, -11/+8Luckily I belive in Scientology... so I know this is BS...
    • stolenisotope1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4XENU FTW!!
    • shady1630, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4LOL i hope you are joking blitzer
    • TetchyTony, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Well, if the article is typical of the casual quality of US psychology-'science', maybe the Scientology crazies do have a point. How do people who write such stuff get PhDs?
      • RobNus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3by doing a lot of research, writing a thesis, thoroughly outlining the research that they have undertaken. Then it is put forward for examination and dissertation under a group of peers and superiors, who judge (as field experts) the validity of their research. not so easy, is it? i wonder how many people saying "this is all BS" have PhDs? I'm willing to bet not many. Which makes them laymen.
        • nepawoods, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1While it isn't easy getting a PhD, the process doesn't exclude incompetent idiots from getting one. Almost anyone in academia will tell you that - the exception being the incompetent idiots who want to use their PhDs to prove they aren't.
  • ApeInago, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13corrilation does not equal causation... it might be that larger "apes" are more polygamus, but that doesnt mean that large size is the cause of polygamy. To embroden this idea... it is understood that apes have a very regular size diffrences: almost all male apes are larger than female apes. This is not the case in human society, because while the heights might average to males being larger, the fact is that the spread of heights and weights are much more divirse.

    Averages don't mean jack ***** if it isn't taken into context of the spread and deviance. To proclaim that our average size diffrences is proof of human's natural polygamy is the same as proclaiming that the loss of pirates is the cause of global warming. RAmen
    • satzio, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Thanks for adding your comment! This article is what happens when psychologists pretend to be scientists.
      • Sealab2021, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Psychology is a science.... I think.
    • g30ff, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11. There is more evidence than mentioned in the article, including evidence based on the way humans actually behave.
      2. 'spread and deviance'? Please tell me you haven't taken stats yet...
    • Arkons24, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6You're wrong actually. This is a proven biological theory relating to sexual-dimorphism, or difference between the sexes. Basically, species that are sexually dimorphic are known to be polygamous whereas species that are monogamous tend to be much less so.
      You can go look it up if you aren't convinced. Or not I don't really care if you don't believe me. Just trying to save the ignorant from themselves, one digg comment at a time.
      Maybe next time you'll check your facts before embarrassing yourself like some know-it-all on digg.
      • Psych77, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1"This is a proven biological theory..."

        No it's not. If it's proven then it's not a theory. If it's a theory then it's not proven.
        • Arkons24, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1AHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

          oh my god. You're retarded. Jesus, how can you people continue to embarrass yourselves like this? It's like the blind leading the blind; as long as they are all just as dumb as one another, no one is any the wiser and they all think they are a geniuses.
          I mean, go Wikipedia "theory" before you come and post something this stupid. Haven't you ever heard of Einstein's Theory of Relativity? Oh wow, a proven theory ... hmmmmm what about Newtons theory of universal gravity?
          I'm just ... well I can't really say anymore ... I'm laughing too hard.
        • Vicissidude, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2There is a difference between a hypothesis and a theory, which obviously you don't know. There certainly IS evidence for this theory, which was the point being made.
    • ragsmaloy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0I thought in general the larger the ape, the smaller its balls which would imply they were less polygamus. Strangly enough this trend doesn't seem to hold for humans and we have freakishly big balls for our body size (possibly due to a lot of polygamous relationships in our recent evolutionary history)
    • erialcis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I agree with the comment that correlation does not prove causation. The example in this article of the males being larger than females proving that we are meant to be polygamous could just be an example of divergent evolution (meaning that we evolved from a common ancestor and therefore share traits) and not convergent evolution (meaning that we independently developed the same trait due to similar social/environmental selection).
      I think that this article makes us think about these points and makes for good discussion but in general does not back it up with stats and more similar studies. Very speculative.

      And if I may quote Wikipedia. (citation needed)
      • Arkons24, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0The example of the males being larger than females refers to a concept of polygamy relating to sexual dimorphism. It's a pretty well known and well-proven theory. There is some debate whether or not male female humans are sexually dimorphic ... however their assertions are based on solid science.
  • ptFoe, on 10/11/2007, -40/+30Lets not forget

    Which race murdered 6 million Jews.

    Which race will invade another country for oil under the ***** banner of setting up a democracy.

    Which race has more land ( including whole continents) from native inhabitants.

    This list is just racist and narrow-minded.

    For the record brunettes are much better looking than blondes.
    • ptFoe, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Edit: it should be has stolen more land ...
    • ApeInago, on 10/11/2007, -8/+17race is an illusion, stfu.
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Which race developed the majority of modern science? Then again, which race was doing more scientifically 1000, 1500, and 2000 years ago? Races have their bad moments and their good moments, and in the end it has very little (if anything) to do with skin color.
    • BeyondGoodNEvil, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Well you have to take North America off the list of "stolen" lands, Europeans were here first: http://youtube.com/watch?v=BnIRzcX2z_k
      Limited land on earth + natural biological competition = territorial domination by the fittest.
    • DestroyFascism, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1True, Evolutionary principals are keeping us apart in a sense but I disagree that America is "the stronger". Americans are more poorly educated than any other western country therefore they are easily manipulated by a "popular line of disinformation" simply because none of them ever learned to think but just remember!. Basically the Richest Men from America based in America or Israel, Uses America to manipulate power elsewhere...At the end of the day the poorest people will survive on what is left when the powerful idiots and gullible followers destroy all that is good. The reason is simple. A rich man is a piece of ***** without money a powerful Mullah is a piece of ***** without religeon, if money or religion does not exist then Americans at least will be doing well to re learn basic survival skills and those that already have them will know how to make a weapon with what is available and destroy the bastards that kept them poor....evolotion! Dinosaurs died out and only dinosaurs , they were the biggest! Think about it. Few Amerricans would survive any breakdown in society. Most Muslims would...religion or not....
      • Lionstone, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Gee, lets generalize 300 million people.
        Go check last years Nobel peace prize winners... DUMBASS!
      • ShadowMerchant, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Europe is far more heavily urbanized than the US. The rural folk where I grew up are well prepared to survive any natural or societal disaster. I would bet on them to thrive in your scenario far better than the effete urban population of Europe.

        Also, one of the main reasons that Americans on *average* are more poorly educated is similar to the reason that we have an *average* infant mortality rate that exceeds that in some other devloped countries. It's all in the counting. America tries to save every last premature baby, and counts them as live births, while nations with socialized medicine are more likely to let them die and count them as stillborn. America mainstreams retarded and learning disabled students and counts th