Men look for sex, women look for resources. That’s why there are more “cowo nafsuan” (eng: perverted men) and “cewe matre” (eng: gold-digger, women).
🕒 : 8 minutes read
To end the our discussion about emotion, I spoke about a lot of things regarding humans, feelings, emotion, etc with my two friends: William Lim (left) and Aditra (right). William is a psychology student in Hamburg, Germany, and Aditra is a management student in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. It was such a pleasure to speak with both of them, and without further ado, let's jump in to the conversation. |
| Title image credit: medium.com/@dhrishni/ |
Part I : Evolution of Mating
Everything is based on how we adapt. We indeed develop, but in the same time we also adapt to the environment, and that is also why we evolve. Recently I studied about evolutionary psychology in term of mating (Reference: Delton, Robertson, Kenrick), that men tend to look for younger women, and women look for higher social status, in majority. This causes a stigma, that men only see women as sex object, and women see men as life provider, who could guarantee her life.
Is this cause by the society, or it is built as human nature?
This seems indeed as a discrimination, but this is indeed planted in ourselves as human nature. Indeed there is a spectrum, but in average this applies. That’s also why attractive women tend to be sought by men, rather than women who have high salary or status in the society. If a woman could find a man that could guarantee her life, she would feel safe. In the other hand, man seeks for comfort and pleasure. Thats why term “harta, tahta, wanita” (eng : throne, treasure, woman) does not appear from nothing.
With the technology development that creates new methods to find life partner such as online dating, does this shift our view on dating?
Yes, if we observe closely, there is really small chance we could find a life partner in online-dating apps, most of the time we only find one-night stands or friends with benefits. It would be interesting to see, do we actually love someone we meet through this portal, or do we only love with our expectation.
But we always have expectation on our crushes, right? What is the difference, then?
Indeed, but expectations are easily broken when we meet the person directly. Through chats or video calls, it is so easy to fake our feeling and characteristics. For example, if the woman loves K-Dramas, and the man does not. But for the sake of being together, the man will watch it together, and the woman will actually think that the man loves it. Watching together and Netflix party are two completely different things.
First we do not shape expectation, but guesses?
Yes, and also highly biased, based on what we want to find.
Back to the topic, do men only look for sex and pleasures, but also descendants?
Descendants, men naturally want to have kids. That is also why men look for younger women, because women could reach menopause and decrease of sexual desire. Men generally still have sexual desire until he dies.
But is it just because men want sex, or because they want to have kids? Do women have the desire to have kids?
Of course there is. But when the women have kids, they want to make sure that the kids have a good and guaranteed life, but that is my opinion, in this research they did not discuss it further. Generally we are looking for pleasures, but in different way. Men look for sex, women look for resources. That’s why there are more “cowo nafsuan” (eng: perverted men) and “cewe matre” (eng: gold-digger, women). Indeed there are also the other ways, but not as dominant.
If you that this desire is built in ourselves, why do we find now more actions that based on equality, such as feminism? Especially in last decades?
In my opinion, this emerges because denial from a small group of women, who academically better than the average. They do not agree with the stigma that already shaped in the society, so they deny their nature. They want to earn and learn more, yet they do not have the opportunity. From this small group, they want every other women to think the same way. If you ask a random person in a feminism demonstration, most of them do not now actually the meaning of feminism.
But what is actually the purpose? For example, women could not learn in school, but most of them do not have the problem with it. However, this small group wants to achieve more and they could not. So my point is, is the purpose actually to really make every single women understand their place in the society, or to fulfil this small group’s needs?
As far as I know, this small group wants to get the same facilities as the men. At first it begins from every individual, but that spreads to others. They could not achieve this by themselves, so they have to recruit more people so they could make a huge movement. At the end the women who do not start the movement may also get the benefits, because at first they only take it for granted.
Generally it is the same as any other movements. You just need one provocateur, and incites the other with any other reason, for example we have seen it in our home country, where the leaders spark the demonstration in the name of religion, even it is not actually about the religion. This is just the way they recruit more people. Only the whistleblowers understand the actual meaning of the movement, but most of the people actually do not. Just ask the students who smoke under the tree when their leaders shouting in front of DPR office last time, they know nothing.
The same thing as feminism, most of them only know feminism as emancipation and rights equality, but they do not actually know what are being fought for.
How about LGBTQ+ movements? This movement also starts from a couple of people who are outside the “normal”, by normal I mean the majority, which is heterosexual orientation. It could also be biologically normal, since there are a lot of new emerging researches. But, could we see these people as an “anomaly”?
In the psychology world, from nineties to early 2000s, LGBT is considered as a disease. But since then, LGBT is only affected by the society. For example, people who tend to have plural sexual orientations had a traumatic experiences such as rejection or in the worst case as sexual harassment. This has already decided and written in the bible of psychology, as the guideline for every psychologist in the world right now.
But there are new researches that oppose that. How about them?
It could be true, but we have to see that the goal is not only for sexual pleasures, but also breeding children. And this obviously can’t be achieved in a homosexual relationship. So in my opinion, it does not make sense that homosexual are a mutation in our DNA. Genetic only changes someone’s appearance and behaviour, but could not change his/her sexuality. There may be people who look more feminine or masculine, but naturally they are still attracted to opposite sex. Basically if someone is raised a good environment, never had traumatic experiences, they would grow as a heterosexual.
So you said that LGBTQ+ is a mental disorder. Should it be healed?
No, as long as they are already happy with their choice. If someone is already comfortable with the situation, the society accept him/her, why should we change them? But in the case of someone who choice to be a LGBT, it is better to cure their depression, than change their sexuality. Personally mental health is the top priority, not the “normal” sexual orientation.
You mentioned a couple of times that the priority is to be able to make peace with the society. What should we do as the society to make the world a better place for everyone to live? What should we change?
As long as they do not disturb us, why should we bully them? It is their personal choice. It may opposes religious beliefs, but it is also personal choice. There is no need to confront someone who do not disturb us. We have to learn to live with each other. Humanity above religion.
This leads us to the next topic. Humanity is how we live with each other in the society. How we respect them, etc. There are people who think that religion is the source of morality, because religion teaches us to do and not to do something. My question is, does moral come out from our need to live with each other, or are they given to us from a higher power?
For example, conservative people (in a religious way) say that LGBT does oppose God’s will, and they have to be brought into the right way. Religiously, it is wrong. So, people who believe in God say that if something is religiously wrong, it is also absolutely wrong. How we judge people? Does it come from our need to live together, or from God(s)?
Who creates religion? People. Religions are created to rule people better. A “teacher” starts a movement, and he teaches, then their students spread the religion all over the world. If a kid is brought up in a certain religious belief, for example in a christian family, they will see moral as they have been taught. Moral comes from our ancestor (or parent in short case), and our parents’ view of the world will dictate us and shape our view of moral in the first years. It could change indeed after time, but these are the first step in developing someone’s view of moral.
In my opinion, religion is a way to guide someone. But if someone is raised in a good atheist family, they will see moral in different way (not to praise and be obedient God), but still in a morally good person. It is based on the family, as long as the parent have a good view of moral, it would not be a problem. It does not matter if they are religious or not. Religious should be out of the way of how we judge someone.
(Spoiler alert, I will discuss this in the next season, stay tune.)
Now I want to talk more about emotion. Human is a species that has a highly-complex emotion, compared to other animals. (Note: I have discussed this in previous posts). How do you see emotion evolve from the first time we exist?
I would say, emotion adapts, rather than evolves. For example, as someone who was born in a hard family, I have to adapt to live in the family, if I want to survive. In a debate with my father, who is a really strong person, I have to back off, rather than pushing my opinion, even if my opinion is the better one, or maybe the correct. But, I have to adapt, for the good of my family, especially for the good of my mom and my siblings.
Emotion creates more plurality among our species, in addition of our cognitive abilities. This results a broad spectrum of jobs for example, but every job has the same goal for human beings: to survive.
But how does our emotion complexity affect our ability to survive?
Let’s say you are being pissed off by your boss in the office, but we still continue to work there, why? Because we need to earn money to survive. Compare that to dogs, for example. When they are hungry, they could only bark, hoping that they will be given food. Our emotion fuels us to make judgements and decisions. Without emotion, we could do nothing.
Could I say that emotion actually makes us able to achieve more things, more than we need? For instance, if we just want to survive, after we have the money to eat, we will stop. But we still push hard to fulfil our desires. It also makes us to be the strongest species on earth.
Yes. Humans consist of ABC : Affect, behaviour, and cognition. Affect is our desire, emotion, feelings that fuel us, makes us want to do something. Behaviour is the how we react to these desires, what we should do to fulfil our needs. Then, cognition is how we execute it. These three things show how our mind works to achieve something.
What interests me is the fact that psychology actually has a changing variable, which is the social condition. This is quite different from any science branches, which develop because of our technology, but our understanding stays in the same way. What would you say to this?
Psychology depends on the relevance of the current norm that formed in the society. The older researches may not be relevant, but usually used as a reference to the more emerging situation. The methods and approaches may change, as you say because of the development of the technology. The fundamentals are absolute and cannot be changed - such as natural instincts - but the others are psychodynamic.
To end this discussion, what are the main challenges in studying psychology?
I would say it depends on the person, but personally is to become sympathetic, and to limit our empathy. Let us say that a psychologist have 5 clients with different problems in one day. One has just divorced, one has lost his job, one has failed his test, one has just being cheated, and the other one’s mom just died. As a psychologist you have to help them and give them solution, make sure they could go through their tough times. But what you cannot do is putting yourselves into their shoes, which means feel the sadness and the depressions from the client, which could be dangerous to ourselves. As someone that has grown with a huge empathy, which means I could sense other people problems’ easily, I am trying hard to keep my empathy level.
It was nice to chat with you both, and hopefully we could talk again at some time soon. Thank you!
This is the last episode of my “Season of the Emotion”, and I really hope you like this kind of discussion. I am currently planning more talks like this with people from different area of study, and I need some feedback on how I should do it. Do you like it this way? Or do you prefer the discussion to be held live maybe? Let me know on the comment section or just write me a personal message. Until then, stay safe, stay healthy, have a good one.
Part II : Feminism, LGBTQ+, and Other Movements
But what is actually the purpose? For example, women could not learn in school, but most of them do not have the problem with it. However, this small group wants to achieve more and they could not. So my point is, is the purpose actually to really make every single women understand their place in the society, or to fulfil this small group’s needs?
As far as I know, this small group wants to get the same facilities as the men. At first it begins from every individual, but that spreads to others. They could not achieve this by themselves, so they have to recruit more people so they could make a huge movement. At the end the women who do not start the movement may also get the benefits, because at first they only take it for granted.
Generally it is the same as any other movements. You just need one provocateur, and incites the other with any other reason, for example we have seen it in our home country, where the leaders spark the demonstration in the name of religion, even it is not actually about the religion. This is just the way they recruit more people. Only the whistleblowers understand the actual meaning of the movement, but most of the people actually do not. Just ask the students who smoke under the tree when their leaders shouting in front of DPR office last time, they know nothing.
The same thing as feminism, most of them only know feminism as emancipation and rights equality, but they do not actually know what are being fought for.
How about LGBTQ+ movements? This movement also starts from a couple of people who are outside the “normal”, by normal I mean the majority, which is heterosexual orientation. It could also be biologically normal, since there are a lot of new emerging researches. But, could we see these people as an “anomaly”?
In the psychology world, from nineties to early 2000s, LGBT is considered as a disease. But since then, LGBT is only affected by the society. For example, people who tend to have plural sexual orientations had a traumatic experiences such as rejection or in the worst case as sexual harassment. This has already decided and written in the bible of psychology, as the guideline for every psychologist in the world right now.
But there are new researches that oppose that. How about them?
It could be true, but we have to see that the goal is not only for sexual pleasures, but also breeding children. And this obviously can’t be achieved in a homosexual relationship. So in my opinion, it does not make sense that homosexual are a mutation in our DNA. Genetic only changes someone’s appearance and behaviour, but could not change his/her sexuality. There may be people who look more feminine or masculine, but naturally they are still attracted to opposite sex. Basically if someone is raised a good environment, never had traumatic experiences, they would grow as a heterosexual.
So you said that LGBTQ+ is a mental disorder. Should it be healed?
No, as long as they are already happy with their choice. If someone is already comfortable with the situation, the society accept him/her, why should we change them? But in the case of someone who choice to be a LGBT, it is better to cure their depression, than change their sexuality. Personally mental health is the top priority, not the “normal” sexual orientation.
You mentioned a couple of times that the priority is to be able to make peace with the society. What should we do as the society to make the world a better place for everyone to live? What should we change?
As long as they do not disturb us, why should we bully them? It is their personal choice. It may opposes religious beliefs, but it is also personal choice. There is no need to confront someone who do not disturb us. We have to learn to live with each other. Humanity above religion.
This leads us to the next topic. Humanity is how we live with each other in the society. How we respect them, etc. There are people who think that religion is the source of morality, because religion teaches us to do and not to do something. My question is, does moral come out from our need to live with each other, or are they given to us from a higher power?
Part III : Religion and Morality
Who creates religion? People. Religions are created to rule people better. A “teacher” starts a movement, and he teaches, then their students spread the religion all over the world. If a kid is brought up in a certain religious belief, for example in a christian family, they will see moral as they have been taught. Moral comes from our ancestor (or parent in short case), and our parents’ view of the world will dictate us and shape our view of moral in the first years. It could change indeed after time, but these are the first step in developing someone’s view of moral.
In my opinion, religion is a way to guide someone. But if someone is raised in a good atheist family, they will see moral in different way (not to praise and be obedient God), but still in a morally good person. It is based on the family, as long as the parent have a good view of moral, it would not be a problem. It does not matter if they are religious or not. Religious should be out of the way of how we judge someone.
(Spoiler alert, I will discuss this in the next season, stay tune.)
Part IV : How We Perceive Emotion
I would say, emotion adapts, rather than evolves. For example, as someone who was born in a hard family, I have to adapt to live in the family, if I want to survive. In a debate with my father, who is a really strong person, I have to back off, rather than pushing my opinion, even if my opinion is the better one, or maybe the correct. But, I have to adapt, for the good of my family, especially for the good of my mom and my siblings.
Emotion creates more plurality among our species, in addition of our cognitive abilities. This results a broad spectrum of jobs for example, but every job has the same goal for human beings: to survive.
But how does our emotion complexity affect our ability to survive?
Let’s say you are being pissed off by your boss in the office, but we still continue to work there, why? Because we need to earn money to survive. Compare that to dogs, for example. When they are hungry, they could only bark, hoping that they will be given food. Our emotion fuels us to make judgements and decisions. Without emotion, we could do nothing.
Could I say that emotion actually makes us able to achieve more things, more than we need? For instance, if we just want to survive, after we have the money to eat, we will stop. But we still push hard to fulfil our desires. It also makes us to be the strongest species on earth.
Yes. Humans consist of ABC : Affect, behaviour, and cognition. Affect is our desire, emotion, feelings that fuel us, makes us want to do something. Behaviour is the how we react to these desires, what we should do to fulfil our needs. Then, cognition is how we execute it. These three things show how our mind works to achieve something.
Part V : The Evolution of Psychology
What interests me is the fact that psychology actually has a changing variable, which is the social condition. This is quite different from any science branches, which develop because of our technology, but our understanding stays in the same way. What would you say to this?
Psychology depends on the relevance of the current norm that formed in the society. The older researches may not be relevant, but usually used as a reference to the more emerging situation. The methods and approaches may change, as you say because of the development of the technology. The fundamentals are absolute and cannot be changed - such as natural instincts - but the others are psychodynamic.
To end this discussion, what are the main challenges in studying psychology?
I would say it depends on the person, but personally is to become sympathetic, and to limit our empathy. Let us say that a psychologist have 5 clients with different problems in one day. One has just divorced, one has lost his job, one has failed his test, one has just being cheated, and the other one’s mom just died. As a psychologist you have to help them and give them solution, make sure they could go through their tough times. But what you cannot do is putting yourselves into their shoes, which means feel the sadness and the depressions from the client, which could be dangerous to ourselves. As someone that has grown with a huge empathy, which means I could sense other people problems’ easily, I am trying hard to keep my empathy level.
It was nice to chat with you both, and hopefully we could talk again at some time soon. Thank you!
Closing
This is the last episode of my “Season of the Emotion”, and I really hope you like this kind of discussion. I am currently planning more talks like this with people from different area of study, and I need some feedback on how I should do it. Do you like it this way? Or do you prefer the discussion to be held live maybe? Let me know on the comment section or just write me a personal message. Until then, stay safe, stay healthy, have a good one.
No comments
Post a Comment