Ryan Gosling: Women are "stronger, more evolved than men"

[Catherine Wheel]

http://i.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/c...olved-than-men

Ryan gosling feels almost as much a female as he is male. "I'd say 49 percent, sometimes 47 percent, depends on what day you catch me."

"I think women are better than men. They are stronger. More evolved. You can tell especially when you have daughters and you see their early stages, they are just leaps and bounds beyond boys immediately."

[yo soy el mejor]

i'd rather be ryan gosling's daughter than his romantic partner

[slunken]

Gosling is a cool dude. Anyone who didn't like Lost River is a knuckle-dragging butt-rocker.

Only in the sense that it got negative reviews like most cavemen review albums where they compare it to greater works of art; if i have to hear about how lost river is not as good as a lynch movie i'm going to barf. johnny jewel soundtrack.

[slunken]

still not sure when white people got super protective of their own styles of film-making and music-making in the sense where something that they ripped off became their sole propriety. that's some chris columbus shit.

[slunken]

also fuck you CW

[Cool As Ice Cream]

yes, fuck you CW, you fucken piece of shit

[killtrocity]

just as false as the corollary. hollywood libtards are worse than mormons

[duovamp]

Women are dirty.

[TuralyonW3]

Definitely, so are men

[teh b0lly!!1]

it actually brings a tear of joy to my eye

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

Definitely, so are men

Not even close.

[Disco King]

" "I'm a guy but I think women are great and I am aware of the disadvantages they face and I don't like sexism against them."

"WOW SO DARING SO FEARLESS WHAT AN AMAZING MAN FOR SAYING THAT STUFF"

"I'm a woman and I think women are great and I am aware of the disadvantages we face and I don't like sexism against us."

"FUCKING FEMINAZI CUNT GO DIE WHAT ABOUT DIVORCE COURTS AND SUICIDE RATES THO CHECKMATE" "

--Disco King (Won Man of the Year 2016 for this post)

[yo soy el mejor]

women are way more hardcore. men are weak.

[Elphenor]

I know dudes in RL who's entire personality seems to be advocating feminism and I sort of get where they are coming from but also who are you trying to impress

[teh b0lly!!1]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

I know dudes in RL who's entire personality seems to be advocating feminism and I sort of get where they are coming from but also who are you trying to impress

my guess would be - women.

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by yo soy el mejor

women are way more hardcore. men are weak.

Oh yeah? Wanna arm wrestle?

Oh shit nvm I forgot you're the one with the lifting routine I'm not fucking with that.




Hey Vixnix, wanna arm wrestle?

[teh b0lly!!1]

lift do u even bro

[reprise85]

the idea of one sex being more evolved than the other doesn't make sense, evolutionarily speaking.

/pendantic

We do to some extent use technology to sort of cheat to make ourselves more evolved. For example, eyeglasses being widespread probably inhibits the natural selection of purging genes that hinder survival (can't hunt if you can't see), or once hindered survival. Not that it matters really, since we do have them. But if somehow all technology was lost in an apocalypse but humans still existed, those born to parents with inferior genes for eye acuity would probably die really fast, if only westerners survived it might actually be a threat to our survival. All because we cheated nature by thousands of years and evolved ourselves with technology.

In a way females are more resilient because they are much less susceptible to sex-linked disorders (like hemophilia and colorblindness) but that's true in all animals. But I'm sure there's examples of men being more resilient as well. Like they are much less susceptible to breast cancer which is the #1 cancer by far, however there is a high survival rate so it's not the most deadly cancer in pure terms.

Anyway his comment doesn't make sense fuck you Ryan Gosling

[redbreegull]

I've thought about what you are saying about us "evolving" ourselves before. Theoretically, we have inhibited natural selection to some degree because people with weaker genes (e.g. bad eyesight, susceptibility to certain diseases) which previously would have been thinned over generations are now just as likely as anyone else to survive into adulthood and reproduce.

[reprise85]

There's a lot of things like that.

Safer childbirth = more kids and more moms live. probably raised the female population, probably messes with family systems w/r/t polygamy or harems. war as a result probably decreases with more women in the population (men throughout time have been the ones to wage war, almost exclusively, and for resources = treasure yes, but women mostly)

Longer lives = more late stage diseases that probably were super rare, like huntington's, parkinson's, many cancers

antibiotics = superbugs

transportation = spread of ideas, spread of diseases

i mean we basically broke evolution if you look at it that way, the other way to look at it is that we've always done this, something like a hammer is not that different from the technology we have now in scope, it just seems that way. and anything we do to 'evolve' ourselves we are only capable of because of evolution, so isn't it just the same thing?

[Disco King]

I've long wondered what current selection pressures on humans are now that current standards of living seem to make reproduction and survival less based on what would be considered evolutionary fitness in previous environments. Like, slow people used to be the first to get eaten by a cougar or whatever. Now, there doesn't seem to be a reason for them not to be as fit for our environment as fast people. Stupid people reproduce. If anything, they reproduce more than smart people (though there's probably a conflation of education level and inherent intellectual potential here).

The only thing I can really think of is diseases that may affect people of particular phenotypes more than other people. Like, people with certain traits being more susceptible to heart disease or whatever. Even then, in the developed world at least, whatever risks one is predisposed to, one will probably live well into reproductive age anyway, so even then, it seems like natural selection would be less of a deal.

I think it's not really an "end" of evolution, but a form of evolution itself. Culture and evolution are interrelated. In fact, culture itself is an evolutionary trait. The contents of cultures are not (there's probably no biological role in whether a society is monotheistic or polytheistic or atheistic, or in what language a culture speaks), but the ability to learn, transmit information, and modify that information, is a derived trait in humans not found in many other species. Most species are pretty homogenous in how they behave and new practices aren't really passed on from generation to generation because they just don't have the adaptations for social learning. I've heard people say humans are the "only" species with culture, but I think we are finding that some other species have culture, as well. I read one article about culture shaping evolution in killer whales. It's probably not a binary trait, either, where a species either has culture or doesn't. There are maybe different degrees of the capacity for social transmission.

There's also the fact that a phenotype isn't solely dependent on genes, but the interaction between genes and environment. For example, I have read something similar to what you said about societies with higher infant mortality being more likely to be polygynist. Even with the same genotype, the traits for kinship models will express themselves differently depending on the environment. Even something like height is like that. If you have poor nutrition in your developmental years, you will be shorter than otherwise. People were shorter in the recent past (Middle Ages), though our genes probably haven't changed much since then. The average North Korean is shorter than the average South Korean, despite the fact that they are not very genetically distinct. In terms of genes, humans have stayed pretty constant for a really long time, and if you were to go back in time and steal a baby from the African savannas and raise it in modernity, it would probably be indistinguishable from anybody born today.

[FoolofaTook]

women are superior in all the ways that matter. i know, i was brought up by a woman. she is superior to any man i have encountered so far.

(she is my mom)

[Disco King]

I'm half woman. It comes from my mom's side.

[FoolofaTook]

also ursula k le guin is a woman and she is the best fantastic prose writer OF ALL TIME!!!

[FoolofaTook]

Originally Posted by yo soy el mejor

i'd rather be ryan gosling's daughter than his romantic partner

or you could just be both

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by Disco King

I've long wondered what current selection pressures on humans are now that current standards of living seem to make reproduction and survival less based on what would be considered evolutionary fitness in previous environments. Like, slow people used to be the first to get eaten by a cougar or whatever. Now, there doesn't seem to be a reason for them not to be as fit for our environment as fast people. Stupid people reproduce. If anything, they reproduce more than smart people (though there's probably a conflation of education level and inherent intellectual potential here).

The only thing I can really think of is diseases that may affect people of particular phenotypes more than other people. Like, people with certain traits being more susceptible to heart disease or whatever. Even then, in the developed world at least, whatever risks one is predisposed to, one will probably live well into reproductive age anyway, so even then, it seems like natural selection would be less of a deal.

I think it's not really an "end" of evolution, but a form of evolution itself. Culture and evolution are interrelated. In fact, culture itself is an evolutionary trait. The contents of cultures are not (there's probably no biological role in whether a society is monotheistic or polytheistic or atheistic, or in what language a culture speaks), but the ability to learn, transmit information, and modify that information, is a derived trait in humans not found in many other species. Most species are pretty homogenous in how they behave and new practices aren't really passed on from generation to generation because they just don't have the adaptations for social learning. I've heard people say humans are the "only" species with culture, but I think we are finding that some other species have culture, as well. I read one article about culture shaping evolution in killer whales. It's probably not a binary trait, either, where a species either has culture or doesn't. There are maybe different degrees of the capacity for social transmission.

There's also the fact that a phenotype isn't solely dependent on genes, but the interaction between genes and environment. For example, I have read something similar to what you said about societies with higher infant mortality being more likely to be polygynist. Even with the same genotype, the traits for kinship models will express themselves differently depending on the environment. Even something like height is like that. If you have poor nutrition in your developmental years, you will be shorter than otherwise. People were shorter in the recent past (Middle Ages), though our genes probably haven't changed much since then. The average North Korean is shorter than the average South Korean, despite the fact that they are not very genetically distinct. In terms of genes, humans have stayed pretty constant for a really long time, and if you were to go back in time and steal a baby from the African savannas and raise it in modernity, it would probably be indistinguishable from anybody born today.

You are so smart and I agree with all of this. I do think you could take a baby from 100,000 years ago or whatever and it would be indistinguishable from anybody born today.

When I was reading about culture in evo psych it struck me as an important difference between homo sapiens and homo Homo neanderthalensis is that we have no evidence of culture in neanderthals - e.g. art, writing/hyroglyphs, religious artifacts, musical instruments, more advanced tools, etc. They did bury their dead at least some of the time but I don't know of any evidence of ceremonial burial like leaving artifacts with the dead or having gravestones, etc. But they almost certainly were very intelligent and had imitation behaviors and mental symbolism and all of that stuff. Lack of language, or lack of advanced language - I don't doubt they may have had basic language but we go beyond commands and basic feelings - probably has a lot to do with the lack of cultural transmission. Not only because people don't talk to others but when you learn new things, especially as children, we tend to internalize directions or steps taken in the form of words, as soon as we're old enough. And we tend to start having biographical memory only after we start having language. see: infantile amnesia

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by reprise85

You are so smart and I agree with all of this. I do think you could take a baby from 100,000 years ago or whatever and it would be indistinguishable from anybody born today.

what about epigenetics? I know it's pretty poorly understood, but it seems like if we can be imprinted by our parents' trauma, we probably have 10,000 years of sedentary civilization stamped on us in some way that makes us different than humans living hundreds of thousands of years ago

[reprise85]

I don't know how different our trauma is from those who lived on the African Savannah, though. I mean yes it's qualitatively different, but do our genes know that? There's a huge difference in life trauma for those in the USA and those in central Africa, but our infants from each culture really different from each other, assuming you switched one out for the other at birth? Honestly I don't think so. Did people have more anxiety because they had a much higher chance of dying young? Maybe, but maybe they were just used to it. And the ones that were able to live to breeding age, shouldn't they have had the best genes anyway? The ones least likely to have epigenetic markers for undesirable traits?

I have been historically very towards nature on the nature vs nurture debate but I am starting to go more towards the center, maybe even past the center. Because even if you count epigentic inheritance, that's still was based on nurture at some point.

[redbreegull]

I dunno. I guess the question is basically did people actually suffer more when a brutal, extreme life was the norm versus today, or are we equally as unhappy and tortured no matter what.


But I meant more like beyond pleasure vs. pain, life and behavior are very different in civilized, agricultural societies than in ancient nomadic ones. I was just kind of thinking out loud, but it does at least seem possible that if we carry information from our ancestors, there might be some difference between the inherited nature of a person born now vs. 100,000 years ago

[reprise85]

I'm not saying there's no differences. I'm saying the differences rely so much on how they are treated as infants that the baby's behavior would not be statistically abnormal. I could be wrong.