The female is generally more affiliative than the male. This can be seen throughout many mammals. The social structure of females is more interconnected and a lot more social bonds are created between females. Whereas, the social structure of human males, is more hierarchical - with different levels of social and physical dominance.

Physical dominance can be seen in primates such as chimpanzees where the alpha male is usually the best fighter, most aggressive and more built with muscle. Social dominance, which is present in humans, is levels of who provides the most survival value--social skills. All alpha males can provide more resources and protection (survival value) than anyone else. Females nurture the children and seek survival value off the alpha male. Alpha males are leaders that keep the community or tribe in order. Reproductive success in males is generally determined by competition, therefore males rarely form strong social bonds.

Females on the other hand, have the reproductive strategy of investing in the production of a relatively few offspring and reproductive success is determined by the quality of care and the ability to enable infant survival beyond weaning age. Females and infants form strong social bonds and female to female form strong social bonds. This is how evolution has made us. Females are affiliative, males are competitive.

Women are generally better at reading non-verbal communication than men. This is because, in evolutionary terms, women are mothers and need to be able to tell what a non-talking baby is communicating. Put a man next to 3 crying babies and ask him to figure out what the babies are saying. Most likely he'll say "They're just 3 babies crying." Put a women in front of the same 3 babies and ask her the same question and she'll be able to answer "This one's hungry, this one wants attention, this one needs sleep." The ability to read non-verbal communications is mainly an unconscious one. When women read the non-verbal communication they get a "feeling" of what the person is "saying." Men tend to be more goal oriented and, when they get stressed, want to get straight to the point. Whereas women, when in a stressful (such as an argument), want to get into every little detail about things.

This can seem that men maybe more logical, however, on a deeper level women are better at exchanging communications than men and she focuses more on what she feels is best for the relationship--as apposed to what supposedly matters in the argument. Women are relationship oriented. For example, when it comes to telling a man some bad news he would rather you be completely honest and blunt. Women on the other hand, would rather you still be honest but reframe it in a way that spares her feelings and keeps the relationship going. So, when women try to break bad news to men they do it wrong and when men try to break bad news to women they do it wrong.

Men and women don't communicate the same, if anything women communicate better. Men do communicate, we just do it analytically and accumulate words rather than non-verbals which are delivered and received unconsciously. Men are mostly dominant and competitive; which in an ancestral environment would provide a survival advantage for the species. Of course there are some exceptions, such as masculine women and feminine men.


The jobs of animals which do not procreate is almost always to support the process for those who do. Worker ants support the queen's process for continuing the species. Beta wolves support the rule of the alpha couple so that they can continue to successfully breed.

The only time this does not happen is when the non-breeding animals are removed from supporting the species, for whatever reason. Like male lions who are removed from the breeding option when a more powerful male has taken over control of a pride of females.

In terms of continuation of the species, those males no longer have purpose unless they can dethrone the Lion King. So they live their lives in exile, wondering the desert until they die. Then their bodies feed the scavengers and vermin, but that's more "re-purposing" than purpose.

Even with humans (gay or straight), those who do not breed are only here to help support the continuation of our civilization which itself supports the continuation of breeders. If there were no more breeders, there would be no point to civilization.

The only thing life concerns itself with is to keep going. It is the only "intelligence" inherent in the process of life. To keep going no matter what. So in the immediate, we inovate and consume to keep going. And in the ultimate goal, we procreate to keep the species going.

The entire purpose of any individual is to be a cog in the wheel of some mindless process that has been going on for billions of years without any real direction. And the only reason why we know this, is because the degree of complexity of the process has by chance produced a self-aware entity. Or some just go roll with it.

Birth and death exists because there's no reason for it not to exist. Nothing got in the way of it existing. Nothing put a stop to the causal chain that led to its existence. There was no plan. There was lack of a hindrance on this world strong enough to stop it. Not yet, anyway.

If you need to give life meaning, then it conditionally you think life has no meaning, rite? No matter the claim. What we have here is an expression of a delusional ideal. Not reality. We are simply not big enough, smart enough, advanced enough to come to these conclusions. Come back in 10 million years and see if you still feel the same way.

There is something very special about life and evolution, it doesn't just change for the sake of survival but always evolve toward something more advanced. This is exactly how an Intelligent Higher source would have done it assuming magic does not exist.


Race is a social construct, but not just a social construct. And it was never science that said race was a social construct. It was a journalist, I believe. It was also not science that said race did not exist at all, another common misconception based on poor understanding of the genetics involved.

Science does in fact recognize that race is ingrained in our genetic makeup. Races are defined scientifically as collections of certain statistical traits that are inherited from our ancestors. What science no longer recognizes is an unproven convention of older science that held that there were clear defining lines that existed between one race and another.

Race is not a splatter of color samples so much as it is a gradient color chart. Also, there are no racial traits that seem to belong to any one race on the genetic level. So from a genetic point of view, determining one race from another may be difficult, but far from impossible. Many people have had their genetic lineage traced to many different races. Few people on earth still have lineages isolated enough to trace to one particular racial lineage. Especially in Africa and Asia.

Genes turn on and off not just according to environment, but according to inherited traits, regardless of the environment. This is why black people still give birth to black people, even in Iceland rather than Nigeria. And genetics does have an influence on behavior patterns. Just not to the extent that people once believed or tried to used to justify racism.

There is a strong basis for race in genes, and the science doesn't say there's not. The science is precise enough to actually track human lineage back to the various parts of the continents their distant ancestors lived. What the science actually says, minus the popularist bullcrap that some journalist made up, is that there are no traits that belong to just one particular race. But there are collections of traits that do belong to particular races through which they can be identified. Even forensic science can take a particular set of bones and tell you what race the person was when they were alive. You couldn't do that if there was no scientific basis for race.

Most genetic contributions to behavior are subtle. Like being prone to addictive behaviors. Being short-tempered. Being conformist. Being prone to religious or spiritual ideas. So subtle that by the time we are in our teens, society has found a way to overwhelm these behaviors and program new ones. Which is why they are mostly studied in isolated communities with little external influence by way of behavior.

There have also been studies done on twins who didn't grow up together to see if there were genetic behaviors they shared. The evidence isn't clear cut, but they did tend to exhibit similar behaviors for which researchers could not account for by environment and family.

There is no such thing as a white, black, yellow, or brown behavioral gene. White and black aren't even genetic designations. And yes, the societies in which we live overall are the largest influences on who and what we become.

Some people behaviors belonging to certain groups can indeed inherit some behavioral traits from the racial lineage of that group. But they are often subtle, not pronounced. And this is scientifically verifiable, not a myth. Race is not JUST a social construct and you won't find a scientist saying that it is all just convention.


While we do have methods for measuring people's intelligence in the form of IQ tests, those tests are only design to measure very specific features of intelligence; pattern recognition and problem solving. This is not a measurement of our intelligence's other components; creative thinking and intuition. So with IQ tests, we are only getting a part of the picture. The part that our society finds most useful and relatively easily measured.

However, measuring the creative half is not viable for two reasons. First, what is useful on the creative side of our intelligence is not always useful in all cases and to everyone. A brilliant painter is highly intelligent in a place where painting is valued, but less intelligent in a place where no one paints. In such a place, a good plumber is more intelligent than your best portrait painter. Alternatively, since math is important everywhere, no matter how small your village, being good at math has value no matter where you go. Even if you are the only person in the village good at math.

The second reason that measuring the creative half is not viable is because there is no one standard known by which we can say how creative a person is. Is the writer Stephen King more creative than Fyodor Dostoyevsky? Dostoyevsky was brilliant at character development, but his writing never scared the crap out of anyone. At least, intentionally. In the world of horror, King is considered a genius. Dostoyevsky? Not so much. And yet, Dostoyevsky is often on the list the greatest writers to ever live. King is not that high on the list.

If King and Dostoyevsky were writing math books, it would be easy to see who was the more intelligent. The one whose math theory worked out the best. But whose fiction stories worked out the best? It's a matter of taste. Therefore, there is no universal standard for measuring it.

Which means there will never be a unified standard for measuring all of intelligence if half of it can't be measured realistically or objectively. That is, until scientists work out the language and code for the brain's intelligence and we are able to go through it, line by line like a book, and figure out where all the good parts are.

On that day, we will finally be able to objectively and empirically separate the intellectuals from the morons. But until then, we will just have to use social media to do that.


Pedophilia didn't exist in Muhammad's time. There was no law or morality against it. And stoning people was a pretty common practice. So the only realistic charge you can lay against Muhammad was that he was pretty normal for his time.

"Oh right, since there was no law against it, then it is ok?"

There are many things that people do which are not okay, but are regardless not against the law and we do them. The fact remains that marrying a girl of Aisha's age in Muhammad's time was neither against the law nor was it considered wrong. So condemning the man for just being from the 7th century is pretty stupid. 

At that time Muhammad had a lot of enemies, either from the Arab or any where area that Islam touched. But why there never been any historical records or literary evidence close to that era, which criticizes Mohammed's behavior of marrying Aisha? Even from the ancient Europe was never any record about it, which at that time Islam was on war with Europe. The slightest ugliness or bad behavior of Muhammad, it will be written, spread, and used as a material against him. But there was nothing.

I also pointed out that none of the sources are clear on when Muhammad actually consummated his marriage. As was the custom of the time in Saudi Arabia, young girls would often remain with their parents even after a marriage and not go live with their husbands until they had matured. We know it wasn't at 9, so it could have been at 14, could have been at 17. Basing one's criticism on a unknown is again, stupid.

"So because murder was the norm back in the day, it'd be stupid to condemn them for killing people because that's just how it went right?"

Yes, that is correct. What is your suggestion? We hop in our time machines, travel back to the 7th century, and teach the "savages" about the virtues of 21st century non-violence? But oh, wait... How do we explain the fact that we are now fighting bloody, unnecessary wars for the oil they haven't discovered yet just to protect the wealth of the richest people on earth? Hmmm. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

"What I'm saying is, it seems pretty dumb to say that just because something was okay a long time ago then it means ok in general."

What I said was it is stupid to judge the standards and actions of the past by present standards. Present standards evolved in the wake of knowledge and ethics that were not available to the people of the past.

If you are going to blame the people of the past for being more violent because they didn't have the same ethics as us, you might as well also blame them for letting people die because they didn't have the same level of medicine as us.

I am now communicating with you through the internet, computer, and not quill, ink, and parchment because I am not of the 19th century. Should I accuse a 19th century man of being anti-science because he didn't have a computer?

Saying Muhammad was a pedophile because he married a 9 year old girl in a time and place where there was nothing wrong with it makes no reasonable sense. It is totally irrational. It implies that he was suppose to be psychic enough to understand it would be wrong in the future. You may not be able to marry a 9 year old girl, but then you are not living 1,400 years ago.

I don't know why that distinction would be so hard for you to make. It seems pretty simple to me.

Let's flip the script...

You are currently doing things right now that will likely be considered reprehensible in the future. So we should blame you for them now and consider them crimes here in this time because the future will condemn these acts. And you should have predicted that. In fact, in comparison, you, is just as bad as a pedophile of the past. You are the reprobate of the future and this is how we should judge you. Then your task is simple. All you have to do is prove that the people of Saudi Arabia in the 7th century knew of alternatives and decided not to follow them as a conscious moral course of action. I await your research.

"But doesn't our modern day morals seem like pretty simple things for non-douchebag human beings to follow?"

That's moralistic and naturalistic fallacy, by the way.

The moralistic fallacy is the informal fallacy of assuming that whichever aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist. Its typical form is "if X were true, then it would happen that Z!", where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing. What should be moral is assumed a priori to also be naturally occurring.

As you stated, if our modern day morals are pretty simple things, then it must happen that only douchebag human beings wouldn't follow it. It couldn't possibly be that they did not follow or even know of our modern day morals which are not universal and eternal.

"Paedophilia did exist in Muhammad's time. 'Peado' deriving from Greek for 'child' and 'phile' denoting a fondness for something. Thus irrespective of laws, Muhammad was a paedophile."

Not all Greek terms come from the ancient world. If you check the etymology of the word pedophilia, you will see that this term was first used in the late 19th century, not ancient Greece. The term was used specifically to denote a modern "sexual disorder" and later a crime.

Although it is true that in the ancient world sex with children was common, it is also true that in most cultures, this was not defined as a disorder or crime. It is also true that in most primitive cultures, being a preteen actually marked the inclusion into adulthood and sexual maturity. This is not a standard we still have in the modern world, but in the ancient world it was a norm. Calling Muhammad a pedophile is akin to calling Alexander a terrorist. It makes no sense when yo put it in context.

There are no definitive sources that absolutely determine when Muhammad married Aisha or when that marriage was actually consummated since she remained with her father for a few years after the marriage, signifying more of political union than a traditional marriage of the time. So the fact is, the details of the marriage which vary from scholar to scholar is more legend than fact. I'm sure that if as an atheist you can understand the folly of believing legend to be truth without actual evidence.

I can also see you don't understand what presentism is and why it is a logical fallacy. You may want to look that up before trying to use it in a reasoned argument again. What signifies people's bigotry is their language, attitude, and mostly the inability to remain unbiased and rational on this topic.


There is a conspiracy in this country to try to stop us from calling "dumb asses" dumb asses because supposedly it hurts their feelings too much. Well, they hurt my very sense of decency, so screw 'em.

The internet is the greatest tool ever invented by humanity in terms of readily available knowledge. It has done in thirty years what libraries have failed to accomplish in 4,000 years. And that is turn everyone into a veritable wealth of ingenious information.

However, it has one flaw that also makes it the worst thing to ever happen to civilization.

It has no means of filtering out false information from correct information, making it possible for every dumb ass in the world to pick and choose (or cherry pick) which information they FEEL is the right information, and giving them justification for ignoring all the rest. We are living in an age where the dumb ass, once ostracized for their stupidity, is made to feel that their ignorance is just as valid as the knowledge of the expert, the educated, and the informed--or simply better than any person with even a modicum of common sense.

And what is even worse, those in the middle who don't bother to check on facts take the dumb asses at their word, and every bit as seriously as those who have spent decades in their fields separating the facts from the nonsense. This is a part of what explains the last presidential election in the U.S.; Dumb asses and their non-fact-checking followers.

3,360 years ago, the Pharaoh Akhenaton wrote something that you would think would be a thing of the past by now, but is just as relevant today as it was then--because there are just as many dumb asses now per capita as there was in ancient Egypt:

True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.


"We took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nation who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

The Ambassador (of Tripoli) answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever the could be found, and to make slave of all they could take as prisoners, and that every (Muslims) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."

~ Thomas Jefferson, "Letters of Thomas Jefferson."

Not many people know the very first encounter America had with the Muslim world. It began in the early 1800s with the attacks on American ships by the North African Barbary States--Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli (Libya). American shipmen were kidnapped, tortured, and forced into hard labor by their captives. The attacks were an effort to force the United States to pay a tribute or ransom to the Barbary States in exchange for free passage through the Mediterranean, like many European coastal nations had become accustomed to doing, and release of American prisoners who would otherwise be sold into slavery. Thus began the hostile relationship between Islam and America two hundred years ago, and two hundred years after the first attacks on Europe by Barbary Pirates. Not that Europe didn't have it coming. But this would be the first time that Muslim terrorists made the mistake of waking the American Eagle. And with the subsequent outcomes of the two Barbary Wars, it didn't end well for them then, either. It also resulted in two ongoing policies of the American military: 1) A strong navy, and 2) The policy of never negotiating again with terrorists.

Keep in mind this is not an attack on all Muslims. Nor is it claiming the other religions are free from taint of one kind or another. But I have come to notice something about Muslims that I find annoying:

Christians will often show up and attack other religions. This is true. But I have also seen Christians coming to the defense of other religions that are being attacked by other people. I have also seen other people coming to the defense of Islam. I have myself done this and that and elsewhere on a number of occasions, to the point that I myself was attacked for defending the non-Islam.

But what I have almost never seen is a Muslim coming to the defense of another religion in an argument. In fact, religious discussions involving Muslims usually come in one of two forms: 1) Some Muslim claiming Islam is the one true religion or some form of Islamic apolgetics, or 2) Some Muslim attacking another religion directly.

I want to know why that is?

This is not about "my religion is better than yours." Personally I think this goes for all Abrahamic religions, who've done countless things in the name of God. That's how the God of Abraham and his teachings work. We can say Jews did it less but Jews are a minority. I'd argue all of the fundamentalists of the Abrahamic faiths are bigots and will find rationalizing and reason for attacking other faiths if they choose to. But I'd also argue that I still think most of them don't care to under normal circumstances. War or destruction of your country by foreign entitites I don't consider "normal circumstances" or oppression of the ignorant and brainwashing by religious scholars with support of the government.

I'm not gonna lie, rethoric that brushes all Muslims together is not just harming the fundamentalists. And I do know many mainstream muslims speaking out against it in my surroundings, but no cameras are generally pointed at them, and let's be real, they moderates are often scared of these extremists or fundamentalists too, either that or it never seems to be enough apologizing or distancing themselves from certain things, so some people just don't anymore.

As I said, I am not even that religious as a muslim, but I can understand the feeling why moderate believers can become more fundamentalist or aggressive about their ideology. Pushed into a corner on the climate in the western world. Long before even 9/11 and especially more and more muslims getting pushed away eventhough they wanted to belong to the "modern world" and they didn't know where to go, and part of them found refuge in the hands of the wrong people.

I see it often enough with the moderates, but admittedly in most cases it would be from countries like Jordan, or Indonesia, or Malaysia, or Singapore, and believe it or not, Syria and even Iraq. Before all the recent years mess. But many Muslims feel pushed into a corner in today's world and their response is clinging to their religion even harder and more firmly and more unreasonably than before. You know very well, unfortunately many people in this world do not have the mental and intelectual fortitude to stand by their own reasoning and logic in difficult times, and they seek to be herded like a bunch of sheep. Sorry if anyone takes offense, but that's literally how I see it unfolding in front of my eyes many times.

There's a lot of Muslims out there who are in constant defensive mode, and feel any questioning of their faith is a plot or a ploy to lure them to the enemy or "devil" or something. There's also a very active campaign for many years now by groups from especially the Gulf states to preach a Wahhabi and Salafi brand of Islam that is pretty much an absolutist/extremist form of Islam, not strictly based on the majority of Suni teaching but adds even more regressive bullshit. And there's no room for interpretation, it's messed up, and a very very big problem within Islam. There is a true war of the minds going on. And I am sorry to say, the Western countries do not seem to truthfully be fighting it, because they have and still are allowing these imams to come and preach all over the west. Open their schools, preach their intolerance, hatred, bigotry, and who actively try to prevent people from developing their mind on anything which is not related to their Islam.

Even us, the born-Muslim, had to deal with radical/fundamentalist Muslims, and in most cases wasn't pretty. And I too got seriously infuriated hearing how some normal Suni majority got persecuted, killed, and many other unspeakable things because their religious believes were too progressive, too "liberal," not "real Islam," aimed at education, the pursuit of knowledge, arts, etc. Which was a thorn in the eye of the more conservative Muslims. And I agree the number seems increasing, the number of Suni Muslim, my friends even, who think any violence or persecution had to endure was because they are a crazy sect or cult. They do not speak up against it in clear terms, at all, in general. Perhaps comparable to how Mormons are viewed by mainstream Christians. But with more violence and more discrimination. Regularly directly instigated by those imams and clerics of the mosques they visit. And blindly executed by some mentally challenged extremists.


Why there are humans who look like they do not have empathy? Can we measure empathy?

Ampathy is a product of brain chemistry. We even know where to find it in the brain. Chiefly the limbic system and supramarginal gyrus of the cerebral cortex. And we can measure and quantify the electro-chemical impulses of this part of the brain in fMRI by using external audio/visual stimuli designed to trigger responses from a subject in isolation. We've been doing this very successfully for about 30 years now.

Measuring the response time and intensity of cognitive activity in this manner is part of how anti-social personality types (sociopaths) are diagnosed.

Even no amount of abuse can erase empathy. It's genetic. You cannot erase innate genetic cognitive functions. If you could, there would likely be no way of getting them back. What we are often  describing is behavior disorder resulting from trauma, stupidity, ignorance, double standard.

There are cases where abuse of a child can result in them developing anti-social personality disorder and as a result a loss of empathy. But these are rare (1% of abuse victims). While this may have adverse affects on the child's emotional centers (the same places their empathy emerges from), it doesn't make empathy impossible for them. There are also cases where children can develop anti-social personality disorder due to genetics, and it is quite possible his mother was a psychopath. But psychopaths are not devoid of the ability to experience empathy. They are devoid of the ability to make connections with other human beings. Therefore, they never get the chance to empathize. This is why the activity of them limbic system remains lower than the baseline subjects. People confuse this with having no empathy at all.

None of this points to an inability on the part of researches and cognitive scientists to measure the empathy potential of an individual using the right tools. It's scientifically proven that we are born with the capacity for empathy. There is no point in even arguing this. A fact is a fact.

In the past, people would view anti-social personality types as monsters who were incapable on empathy and caring for others. It did a lot of damage to those individuals because if people thought this was not a skill they could learn, they didn't even try to rehabilitate them in the case of trauma or abuse. I see that mentality hasn't completely gone away yet.

One should consider that empathy is a human emotional response triggered by your experience of an event. You can't really have an emotional response to a million affected individuals you have no connection with no matter how you rationalize it. Perhaps Stalin best conclude it, "One death is a tragedy, a million is a mere statistic."

But we can only measure output but not the internal mechanics itself?

The output IS the empathy. To say that we cannot also measure the "internal mechanisms" is like saying we can measure the amount of each color used in a painting, but we can't measure the image. Is the image something that actually has a property that can be measured in the first place? What is the measurement of a bird painting compared to a dog painting or a person painting? How do we categorize the shapes so as to quantify one over the other.

Determining the origin of a thing has nothing to do with the actual nature of the thing itself. Knowing how empathy came will tell us little about how much empathy has arisen at any given moment. Just why it has arisen.

Will we ever be able to quantify the taste of a cup of coffee compared to other cups of coffee, for instance? Well, we can. We can measure precisely the chemical makeup of the coffee beans, the process used to make it, the temperature of the water, and even the minerals dissolved in that water from specific sources. This measurement doesn't tell us what the coffee may taste like because the cognitive agreement between human knowledge and human sense is not that precise.

You'd have to become an expert in coffee tasting in order to perfect this skill, and even then, it could be hit or miss. But what we can do is predict what the coffee SHOULD taste like within a given range based on the measurement of its ingredients and the process used to make it. The reason being that these are physical properties, and all physical properties, like all natural entities, are entirely predictable according to composition and pattern. We call this predictability physical or natural law.

Empathy also shares these conditions with all physical properties. While we may not entirely understand YET exactly how the brain produced empathy, we do know where it produces it and what the effect looks like. We can measure this brain activity with increasing accuracy and this measurement is categorical. We know that certain levels of brain activity indicate certain levels of empathy; and we can use that to determine the output of said activity. We can measure our degree of empathy. Empathy is not some magical ether in the air that is devoid of physicality.

Measuring how you feel about your empathy, however, is not measuring the empathy itself. It's measuring the subjective nature of thought. Which is an entirely different thing and may be impossible given that there is no linear scale I can think of where one subjective thought can be place in a different category than another. Even if we could read other people's minds, we can't even do this in our own minds, let alone someone else's.

Possibly a computer could do it at some point. Measure the nature of subjective thought. But that still leaves us with the task of figuring out a non-arbitrary, systematic scale for where some subjective thoughts fall as opposed to others. This, in any case, is my realist assessment of the question.