Why Gossip and Fashion really are Matters of Life and Death.

[Overdog]

It seems to me that nothing beyond the fact that we evolved as social animals with the capacity to talk is needed to explain gossip. Why wouldn't the first thing we would talk about be each other?

[HydrogenBond]

Women are more motivated by security and men more motivated by desire. This is connected to human sexuality. When the male generates sperm each day or so, the instinct is desire for release. The female cycle is connected to the extrapolation associated with pregnancy and children, which require security since the entire process create a sense of vulnerability due to the extra effort required.

 

Based on that women will do what makes them feel most secure. Culture defines what that is, such as fashion. Women, in turn, maximize their need for security through perfection. So the right shoes and handbag is part of what makes them look perfect and therefore feel more secure based on this cultural induction. If gardens were more important that fashions then women would do that instead and create perfect like gardens with details.

 

Desire works differently. Masculine desire does not discriminate nor is it looking for security. Security is more in the mind than based on instinct. A male can be married but he will turn his head instinctively to a pretty girl, even of his wife may nag. The impulse is more fuzzy, he may look at the package and not really see the little details that most women are very aware off. She is looking for security in perfection.

 

Gossip and woman is part of the perfection process. The good gossip is an exchange of ideas to learn better ways to be more perfect. Roxanne's dresses up sexy and has improved her sex life with her husband. This allows other women to learn how to have a more perfect marriage. The bad gossip is a way to lower the floor on another, to create the illusion of rising higher. For example, Sarah's man is not paying attention. This is not the perfect relationship. But if Betty's husband is cheating, Sarah's relationship looks much better. Compared to Betty, her life is closer to perfection. There is a certain joy created by this.

 

The other angle is gossip bragging. My child is a star pupil. This is something to be proud of and allows one to rise higher in perfection. But it can also be used to lower the floor on another, if it is done in a two faced way. It can be expressed in a way to knock the other person down a notch in terms of an indirect comparison. There is sometimes sort of a competition in terms of climbing the ladder of perfection. You can climb an also step on fingers as you climb.

[adriaanb]

These anthropological type of explanations where everybody shares with everybody can mean only one thing. That anthropologists are nicer people than average, assuming other people to be nice too.

 

People don't share with people who are not already friends or relatives without something in return in today's world. That doesn't mean they will let you starve, but you don't get a free lunch now and you didn't then. Or at least you shouldn't assume that just to make an argument work. You should assume they think much like we think because we share 100.00% dna.

 

Don't forget there is food, and then there is food. You can be getting the laboriously harvested vegetables that don't taste well and aren't very nutritious. Or you can be eating the nice ripe fruits you got because your friend got it from a friend who got it from a friend.. etc. Your kids will grow better because they are fed better. Without a supermarket, food is your prime worry throughout your life.

 

Females feeling insecure, perfecting their life, male fuzzy impulses, you would never accept an explanation like that when you were talking about dolphins or dogs or chimps. You shouldn't accept it with humans, and you don't need to.

 

Gathering is information intensive. You need to be told by your friends where you can get your food or you need to get it from your friends. So as a female you need to be in with the 'popular' females. That is what helps feed your children. The mating game is a pretty separate worry.

[Overdog]

These anthropological type of explanations where everybody shares with everybody can mean only one thing. That anthropologists are nicer people than average, assuming other people to be nice too.

 

And your flippant dismissal of their research, without providing any research or evidence in support your own "theory", also means only one thing.

 

Or at least you shouldn't assume that just to make an argument work. You should assume they think much like we think because we share 100.00% dna.

 

You shouldn't assume anything. If you have anything to back up your theory, please provide it, otherwise your "theory" is not going to be taken seriously.

[adriaanb]

Everybody shares with everybody.. except you, except me, and just about everyone else.

 

It just isn't true. You can use some exotic anthropological research as an argument for and against anything. If you take all the things you can find in anthropological research there is very little one sided direction about anything.

 

If you want to know how the Kikuyu or the Yoruba do it, ask an anthropologist. If you want to know how humans in general may have done it, you are better off taken the present as a basis.

[Overdog]

Everybody shares with everybody.. except you, except me, and just about everyone else.

 

It just isn't true. If you take all the things you can find in anthropological research there is very little one sided direction about anything. So you are better off taken the present as a basis.

 

You are better off refuting the study provided, or providing evidence or links to research that supports your argument. Otherwise you are not going to be taken seriously.

[Overdog]

Here's some more stuff to refute...

 

Chimpanzees have now shown they can help strangers at personal cost without apparent expectation of personal gain, a level of selfless behavior often claimed as unique to humans.

 

These new findings could shed light on the evolution of such altruism, researchers said.

 

Scientists think altruism evolved to help either kin or those willing and able of returning the favor—to help either one's genetic heritage or oneself. Humans, on the other hand, occasionally help strangers without apparent benefit for themselves, sometimes at great cost.

 

Selfless Chimps Shed Light on Evolution of Altruism | LiveScience

[adriaanb]

How selfish genes can develop basic altruism is pretty easy to see. You help yourself and your kin because there is a direct benefit to your genes. You help 'friends' because there is an insurance element, they can help you when you need it. You 'help' strangers when there is a direct trade.

 

The kind of altruism where you see people giving money away to someone who will never be able to return the favour looks odd in the present environment.

 

But when looked at in the stone age environment the likelihood that it would go unnoticed is very small. You know everyone and everyone knows you. The memory will stick somewhere and may gain you trust, make you look like you have more than you need etc.

 

You can evolve to like giving resources to someone needy without any of the selfish reasoning above. But the selfish effects make it possible for the behaviour to last. And you shouldn't make too much of people 'giving a dollar to a beggar'. That beggar wouldn't survive if it wasn't for the large number of people passing by. Try giving a day's pay, that isn't that common at all.

 

(Oh, and I am sure some extensive reasoning can override your basic instinct.. But it isn't a decision you take like in a reflex)

[Overdog]

The kind of altruism where you see people giving money away to someone who will never be able to return the favour looks odd in the present environment... You can evolve to like giving resources to someone needy without any of the selfish reasoning above. But the selfish effects make it possible for the behaviour to last. And you shouldn't make too much of people 'giving a dollar to a beggar'. Try giving a day's pay, that isn't that common at all.

 

Really?

 

Total giving to charitable organizations increased to $306 billion in 2007 (2.2 percent of GDP). This is an increase of 1 percent from 2006 (when adjusted for inflation).

 

The majority of that giving came from individuals, $229 billion (74.8%). Giving by individuals dropped by 0.1 percent (when adjusted for inflation).

 

Giving by bequest was $23.2 billion (up 4 percent from 2006), foundations gave $38.5 billion (up 7.3 percent), and corporations donated $15.7 billion (down 0.9 percent).

 

Religious organizations received the most support--$102.3 billion. Much of these contributions can be attributed to people giving to their local place of worship. The next largest sector was education ($43.3 billion).

 

International charities reported the largest increase in donations. These groups received $13.2 billion (up 12.9 percent), a large percentage of that money received from donors retained after their initial donations in response to Hurricane Katrina and the December 2004 tsunamis.

 

All categories of charities saw increases in contributions: giving to environmental organizations increased 7.7 percent (when adjusted for inflation), giving to human services groups increased 5.4 percent, giving to arts, culture and humanities organizations increased 4.8 percent, and giving to health charities increased by 2.4 percent.

Charity Navigator - Giving Statistics

 

Philanthropy is the act of donating money, goods, time or effort to support a charitable cause, usually over an extended period of time and in regard to a defined objective. In a more fundamental sense, philanthropy may encompass any altruistic activity which is intended to promote good or improve human quality of life. Someone who is well known for practicing philanthropy may sometimes be called a philanthropist. Although such individuals are often very wealthy, people may nevertheless perform philanthropic acts without possessing great wealth.

 

Philanthropy is a major source of income for artistic, musical, religious, and humanitarian causes, as well as educational institutions ranging from schools to universities (see patronage).

 

During the past few years, philanthropy has become more mainstream in terms of press coverage, owing to the high profile of rock star Bono's campaign to alleviate Third World debt to developed nations; the Gates Foundation's massive resources and ambitions, such as its campaigns to eradicate malaria and river blindness; and billionaire investor and Berkshire Hathaway Chair Warren Buffett's donation in 2006 of $30 billion to the Gates Foundation.

Philanthropy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I think you are missing the point. I am providing support for what I am saying. You are providing nothing.

 

Is there anything to support your theory, or is it just your personal opinion?

[adriaanb]

Only problem is you make it look like I said somewhere that people don't give money in today's world.. I never said that.

 

All I said was that I think it is very unlikely that in a stone age world everyone shares whatever they find to eat. This is a world where everyone is on their toes about getting enough food to secure their children's future.

 

And you come with 'facts' that should prove the opposite out of a world where one person can earn a million times more than a less fortunate one. That is what I mean with 'anthropological' arguments. You can find 'facts' to support life on the other side of the moon if you want to.

 

There is no direct evidence about the idea of a gatherer needing to look 'up to date' other than plain and simple logic. Proving it is a next step..

[Overdog]

...There is no direct evidence about the idea of a gatherer needing to look 'up to date' other than plain and simple logic. Proving it is a next step..

 

No problem.

 

I look forward to further discussion, when you have had time to build support for your theory.

[Overdog]

Oh, and let me say I thank you for the discussion. I hope you will join us in some of our other discussions here, I think you are a very thoughtful person and have much to contribute:)

[vonellekv]

I would like to submit to this discussion (and I arrive unarmed with any facts) that gossip and fashion are ways to show strength and belonging. The animals in the middle of the herd are the least likely to become prey. The animals that look healthiest/strongest and perceived to be so regardless of their actual physical state.

 

I would think that being involved in gossip is less about sharing or gathering than it is about making sure you are in the center of the herd where it is safe. Showy clothes/sports cars etc. would seem to be about a show of strength/potential capabilities...

 

maybe...

[vonellekv]

Argh! I have read the posts out of order and completely embarrassed myself.

 

I would insert an icon expressing chagrin but alas -- I do not know how.

[Overdog]

Hey, nothing to be embarrased about...I've done the same thing myself.:)

 

Anyway, here's an artical I found you might be interested in...

 

Psychology Today: The new word on GOSSIP

 

It says there are three essential functions of gossip: networking, influence and social alliances.

 

What do you think?

[vonellekv]

Well, I read it and I am unimpressed. I would be interested in finding out all kinds of stuff about gossip - I suppose such information would be hard to come by.

 

Stop reading here if you have other stuff to do.

 

I would be interested to know if gossipers are more successful in certain businesses and which ones they might be. I can make some assumptions on my own, but I would be curious to learn that information.

 

I would be interested to know how much time people devote to gossiping. Do avid gossipers underestimate the time they spend gossiping? Do people who claim to never gossip do so but justify it?

 

I would be interested in what the average person considers gossip. Is it gossip if it sharing good news? Is it gossip to mention something that is a known fact, such as, "John is going on vacation next week,"?

 

And how much of gossip is really about people's own distrust of their perceptions? How much is more "I see this, think this, feel this... do you? Am I making correct interpretations?" Well, probably all of it.

 

It has been interesting to consider this but I have a feeling it is one of those subjects where the only opinion that feels right is your own. I still believe that we are hunters and/or gatherers.

[Overdog]

I am interested in all aspects of human behavior, and to me gossip is just one of them. My interest stems from my interest in artificial intelligence. I wonder what it would take to create an artificial intelligence that could match human intelligence.

 

Would it gossip? Is gossip an essential part of our human intelligence or is it a byproduct?

 

Could you ever hope to create an artificial intelligence on the order of human intelligence that would not be prone to gossip?

 

You are right, such information is hard to come by, and much of what you find is speculation. Cognitive science is still in it's infancy.