The evolutionary theory. Why men are the way they are and women deal with it!
September 6th 2007 01:12
The evolutionary theory.
Why men are the way they are and women deal with it!
An interesting point suggested from Robert Kail references (Children and their development, 2003) is to remember the natural need of dominance between males “among a group of males because those males at the upper ranks have better access to mates and better access to resources needed for offspring.” It is suggested that on the other hand the sense of closeness and tied friendship that girls might express is maybe influenced from a long lasting tradition where women had to leave family and their own community to live with their husbands. “Having no relatives nearby enhanced the value of a close friend.”
The evolutionary biological psychology, Kail “reminds us that men and woman performed vastly different roles for much of human history.”
Women’s first task was to nurture children, while men were providing and protecting the family, and it has been like this as far as one can remember.
“In adaptation to these roles, different traits and behaviors evolved for women and men.”
Anne Campbell in her book “the social child” (1998) join the suggestion that women have incorporated with time specific behavioral traits in regard to their responsibilities toward their children, that men completed with other traits in order to the survival and protection of their offspring.
As the human baby needs more attention and protection due to longer period of incapacity to survive by its own in comparison to other mammals, women developed specific traits in order to fulfill maternal responsibilities until maturity of the child.
So, one might say that from beginning, humans were divided into two categories, not only by their sex categories, males and females, but also according to their position in regards to their family responsibilities and parental duties.
Therefore evolutionary theorists believe that both genders have incorporated different range of traits throughout times that are today innate to the human race in general.
The debate nature versus nurture has fascinated the behaviorist psychologist and scientists for decades.
Now, science from its belief of a fixed genetic human code has revealed , with the revelation of the DNA genetic code by Watson and Crick in 1953 and further studies, that “the environment and more specifically, our perception of the environment, directly controls our behavior and gene activity.”
Also being said is that the cell within the genetic code is primarily moulded by its perception of the environment, a fact that emphasizes the role of nurture in biological control.
Ultimately, it is the interaction between various environmental factors and genes that determines who we become.
Nature and nurture concurrently influence one another in what may be seen as a continuous dialogue. (Bruce H. Lipton « the biology of belief. 2005)
Today out-front scientists are invoking Jean-Batiste Lamarck “who believed that traits acquired as a result of environmental influence could be passed on.”
Lipton quotes Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb from their book “epigenetic inheritance and evolution- the Lamarckian dimension” that “in the recent years, molecular biology has shown that the genome is far more fluid and responsive to the environment than previously supposed. It has also shown that information can be transmitted to descendants in ways other than through the base sequence of DNA.”
Lipton also suggests that the DNA blueprints passed down through genes are not set in concrete at birth.
Lipton specialized in epigenetic, the study of molecular mechanisms by which the environment controls gene activity, comes to the suggestion that genes are not self-emergent and that something in the environment has to trigger gene activity.
Anne Campbell suggests that some answers might be found in the evolutionary theory, assuming that certain traits were given to males and females in order to develop adapted ness, survival resources and skills “in the Pleistocene”.
As any other species, human’s survival did depend, and still do, on a large breeding. It is an innate instinct. As known a woman has a very limited time for reproduction and can only have a limited number of children. Therefore men used to have multiple partners in order to enhance the number of offspring.
Not trying to find any excuses for men but somehow it is definitely a behavior trait that seems to stick to them!
The evolutionary process shows us how much we have not changed regarding some specific behaviors but slowly we do see progress.
Thank to God men are in touch with their emotions today!
Why men are the way they are and women deal with it!
An interesting point suggested from Robert Kail references (Children and their development, 2003) is to remember the natural need of dominance between males “among a group of males because those males at the upper ranks have better access to mates and better access to resources needed for offspring.” It is suggested that on the other hand the sense of closeness and tied friendship that girls might express is maybe influenced from a long lasting tradition where women had to leave family and their own community to live with their husbands. “Having no relatives nearby enhanced the value of a close friend.”
Women’s first task was to nurture children, while men were providing and protecting the family, and it has been like this as far as one can remember.
“In adaptation to these roles, different traits and behaviors evolved for women and men.”
Anne Campbell in her book “the social child” (1998) join the suggestion that women have incorporated with time specific behavioral traits in regard to their responsibilities toward their children, that men completed with other traits in order to the survival and protection of their offspring.
As the human baby needs more attention and protection due to longer period of incapacity to survive by its own in comparison to other mammals, women developed specific traits in order to fulfill maternal responsibilities until maturity of the child.
So, one might say that from beginning, humans were divided into two categories, not only by their sex categories, males and females, but also according to their position in regards to their family responsibilities and parental duties.
The debate nature versus nurture has fascinated the behaviorist psychologist and scientists for decades.
Now, science from its belief of a fixed genetic human code has revealed , with the revelation of the DNA genetic code by Watson and Crick in 1953 and further studies, that “the environment and more specifically, our perception of the environment, directly controls our behavior and gene activity.”
Also being said is that the cell within the genetic code is primarily moulded by its perception of the environment, a fact that emphasizes the role of nurture in biological control.
Ultimately, it is the interaction between various environmental factors and genes that determines who we become.
Nature and nurture concurrently influence one another in what may be seen as a continuous dialogue. (Bruce H. Lipton « the biology of belief. 2005)
Today out-front scientists are invoking Jean-Batiste Lamarck “who believed that traits acquired as a result of environmental influence could be passed on.”
Lipton quotes Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb from their book “epigenetic inheritance and evolution- the Lamarckian dimension” that “in the recent years, molecular biology has shown that the genome is far more fluid and responsive to the environment than previously supposed. It has also shown that information can be transmitted to descendants in ways other than through the base sequence of DNA.”
Lipton also suggests that the DNA blueprints passed down through genes are not set in concrete at birth.
Lipton specialized in epigenetic, the study of molecular mechanisms by which the environment controls gene activity, comes to the suggestion that genes are not self-emergent and that something in the environment has to trigger gene activity.
Anne Campbell suggests that some answers might be found in the evolutionary theory, assuming that certain traits were given to males and females in order to develop adapted ness, survival resources and skills “in the Pleistocene”.
As any other species, human’s survival did depend, and still do, on a large breeding. It is an innate instinct. As known a woman has a very limited time for reproduction and can only have a limited number of children. Therefore men used to have multiple partners in order to enhance the number of offspring.
Not trying to find any excuses for men but somehow it is definitely a behavior trait that seems to stick to them!
The evolutionary process shows us how much we have not changed regarding some specific behaviors but slowly we do see progress.
Thank to God men are in touch with their emotions today!
| 62 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
