Letters to the Editor
-
Most of you are fueled by
Anger, arrogance and disappointment. Which hormone is that? Weed or Vodka?
-
There is sometihing missing in the equation
Academics get paid and promoted for overthinking. Alas, personal experience tells us that attraction isn't science. It's art.
Years ago, (before their makeover) I subscribed to Match, and was connected to a number of witty, intelligent, interesting, successful (by appropriately individual standards) and slightly smart-assed (my own preference) men. By their bios and e-mail exchanges, I could tell that they were all those things. I could also tell that I liked them. But then, those are the qualities that float my boat.
Then a friend got me to try eHarmony. Just the name gave me the willies. I answered the questions honestly, and was told there was no match for me...in other words, I was one of those million "rejections" the ads talk about. So was my friend. We aren't gay, depressed or "murky". We are women in business, alpha dogs in our venues, and although we both like romance and "real men", we don't like subservience and don't lack self-confidence.
The term "soul mate" makes me wince. As do the sappy eHarmony ads where the men are always taller than the women, yet they are none-the-less psychological bookends.
These sites that promote socio/psycho matching based on questions that don't allow for "personality" are missing the boat. And I wear my rejection by eHarmony as a badge of honor that says..."intelligence, wit, fun and honesty welcome. Soulmates...not so much.
-
wow
worst article i have ever read on salon.
even if this had been in newsweek, i would have been appalled at the vapid, empty musings, the inherent sexism, and the reductionist views of anthropology as a discipline and humanity as predetermined. who are these people? they should not be given (yet another) a stage to spout their alchemy.
and that's what this is: meaningless formulae ostensibly able to turn single people into couples. what does it say about the myths of happiness in our society that hetero-coupledom is the modern-day equivalent ofendless gold?
-
This is not anthropology...
...it's speculative, self-interested pseudo-science. I'm an anthropologist myself, active in my discipline, and no one I know takes this kind of thing seriously. Check out any of our major journals: American Anthropologist, Cultural Anthropology, American Ethnologist (the top three) and you'll hardly find mention of this nonsense. There are some kooks at the margins who still believe in the just-so stories of evolutionary psycho-socio-biology; but these are the ones whose ideas get traction in pop culture because they jibe so well with mainstream sexism and scientism. It would be so easy if everything were reducible to brain chemistry; but alas, love is truly serendipitous (and should be) and highly variable across cultures and time periods.
Frankly, I think some of Fischer's ideas are hilarious, particularly if you think about her claims historicially. First, compare her four hormonal "types" to the character typologies based on Galen's "humors" (i.e. sanguine, choleric, melancholic, phlegmatic). Then, add some good old fashioned phrenology (reading the temperament from the shape of the face and skull) and *poof!* we've progressed all the way to the 19th century!!! PLEASE!!! This stuff was debunked in the early part of the 20th century.
An interesting difference, nineteenth century doctors typically recommended you marry someone of a different "humor" or character type in order to achieve a kind "balance" both relationally and genetically (which says much about historical understandings of compatibility and population science). Now, however, the emphasis is on marrying someone exactly like yourself (Fischer says it herself). On the Eharmony ads and website, many the couples shown look more like siblings than lovers. I wonder what this says about our culture? Increasing narcissism? Inability to tolerate, accommodate difference? Reluctance to grow and change through relationships with others?
Identity is never stagnant and neither are relationships. My husband is so different from me; I am changeable and restless but I have learned a great deal from his patience and equanimity. It is this process of growing in relation to one another (not into the same being, into different beings from different beings) that makes our commitment so strong and our life together so happy. I don't think Fischer understand this.
MJ Hasty
-
Bollocks in and out of the womb
This is awful. Will Traister be interviewing tarot card readers about the science behind their studies next week. No more than unsubstantiated, trite tripe... the nonsense on estrogen and testosterone is profoundly stupid and geared towards conventional stereotyping. This is the huckster method of suggesting 'science' that already confirms peoples' ingrained biases.
-
Traister never fails to disappoint...
...if you have given up on looking for quality reporting and good writing, that is. If you expect to be disappointed by Salon's standards, Traister will never fail to disappoint.
-
You're right sex has zero to do with biology
It's 100% about politics and booze. I saw that on a blog somewhere.
-
Academia is primarily bull
Actually, a lot of people take Helen Fisher seriously! she is considered an expert in her field and is well respected among anthropologists.
If she is well respected it just shows what sort of idiots you people are who respect her.
Typical PhD-bootlicker Take on Life: "She spent more years in school than me and is female, so she MUST be a ganius who is always right."
Most of the conventional academic fields are little more than churns for getting free money from others to produce garbage that 'passes'.
Most actual achievements and groundbreaking discoveries in academic fields are made by amateurs, those outside the field, or by those straddling two fields who have been shunned by establishment academics.
Also, academia swims in government/intelligence community/corporate money. How objective can you be when someone OWNS you? It has been known for decades that the monied elites have been feeding the feminist 'beast' plenty of dollars in order to divide and control society that much easier. Their prime weapon of choice is to feed university blowhards who hew close to the feminist line.
Finally, most academics have little real world knowledge, preferring their cloistered hidden realms, which further feeds their ignorance and arrogance. Many, if not most, academics are leftists who disown those who rise above based on pure skill and talent and who do not play along with the 'party' line.
So basically, as I have said before, most of academia is groupthink daisy-chain bullshit.