Friday, December 14, 2007

One question which i have been pondering about since i dont know...

Why do girls grow looong hair...???

19 comments:

Rubeena said...

Many of our preferences are ruled traits that had an evolutionary advantage.For instance when food was scarce and required a lot of effort to procure it made sense to prefer high carbs and complex fats that gave more energy to go by till the next meal.Today though we lead a more or less sedentary life and food is easily available we still prefer the carbs and fat.............and end up with umpteen health probs.
Thick lustrous hair indicates physical health and high fertility and an ability to sustain. Thus longer the hair the greater the attention from a potential mate.Hence the adage men prefer females with long hair and so we have Rapunzels :)

Rubeena said...

To be more candid and succinct it's just another bait

Pratosh Dwivedi said...

I got the point stated by Ms Psychology above ... but are we discussing something in a forum of nobel laureates for brain research?

Rubeena said...

Well Mr.Softee should i have rather said long hair is an oomph factor or that females grow long hair as males are far likely to want to have sex with long haired uns
or that twitter twitter long hair coz its sexy and seductive

Pratosh Dwivedi said...

What you said was perfectly logical, only the way you said sounded very plastic and straight from the research notes of Darwin :)

When you are writing something, apart from your personal preferences, you have to keep your readers in mind too. I hope apart from writing research papers, at some time in your life, you will write something for other mere mortals in the society too ;) God help you at that time, if you continue writing in this way ...

Though, honestly speaking, i am impressed the way Ms. Psychology blends the vocabulary and her crystal clear thoughts.

Also, what is this Mr.Softee all about? :P

Rubeena said...

Well Mr.Softee should i have rather said "long hair is an oomph factor or that females grow long hair as males are far likely to want to have sex with long haired uns ,
or that twitter twitter long hair coz its sexy and seductive" -
is the version for you and I wasn't writing to entertain mere mortals but answering an oft repeated question by the 'educated' sorry to have overestimated you
And it isn't Darwin but the Fisherian model of runaway sexual selection :)

Pratosh Dwivedi said...

Again ... factual obsession and the flaw of taking things literally.

If at all you would have understood what "Darwin" indicates in the comment I wrote. Obviously you are the better one to tell which thoery indicates what. If you ask me I can definitely tell you which web-technology will display this comment best, which you have typed in reply to the total misunderstanding of my post before :)

Thats not your problem actually. You seem to be conditioned the way u r interpreting things. I never meant tht u entertain someone here in this comment space ... just wanted to say tht sometime in ur life u may need to address a layman readership too ... tht time god knows what will happen to those poor readers ;)

I think you have forgotten the joy of simplicity ... or rather simplicity of thought.

Rubeena said...

well yes I did understand what you meant and I was poking fun at what I wrote to avoid sounding sexist but I ended up sounding 'plastic'
I did get your comment but there are certain topics if in jest sound crude and as to conditioned yes possibly to get irritated at this whole 'hair skin beauty feminine concept'
aah now as to the plight of poor readers i rarely trouble any by my such rantings and ravings:)
hmm................better stop before I sound like an intellectual snob :)

Rubeena said...

oh and the fisherian name was just to show that i did get your comment ;)not to show who would know what I wasn't being 'obsessed' and 'flawed' and 'forgetting simplicity' :) but just touchy on something that could so easily become a sexist spat ;)
but then though Darwin wasn't taken literally fisher got taken so by you :P

Hema said...

Uh, I dont understand a word.

Anyway, DOOd, I suggest you start asking intelligent questions like the one PR asked in Skype rather than such dumb questions :P

PR, you seem to have loads of time in your pocket - can you lend me a few hours?!
And on a very serious note, I think both of you should stop blogging!

Pratosh Dwivedi said...

@Rubeena - People seem to be getting bothered by our intellectual debate ;) So lets save it for some other time. If you would have noticed, I was being defensive most of the times & being a psychology student, I think you may understand why. But seriously speaking, I like the way you think. I will enjoy discussing things with you, though not always in such a fiery manner. :)

@Inlivenout - Madam, you seriously mean it? I should stop blogging? Tell me one more time seriously ... I will delete my blog the very next day ;)

@D00d - Inlivenout is perfectly right d00d ... In your next post, you should post my question .. lets see what Rubeena answers for that :P

Fonceur said...

Q, Why god gave men nipples?

Rubeena said...

Hi Pratosh took some time but you finally seem to have caught my name and yes I too would like to carry on our discussions. Man if this is defense ;) whats your offense like ;) no cant see why you chose defense but have a hunch want to tell me why :) ?
oh yes will answer this chaps new question but is it yours originally ?

Pratosh Dwivedi said...

Yeah it is mine ... :)
Waiting for your response .. :D

As for the explanation of my defensive (acc to me atleast ;)) arguments ... i will rather mail u .. instead of posting it in public .. cauz it might sound crap to other ppl :)

Rubeena said...

yup Pratosh feel free to mail me

Hema said...

Rubeena, though philosphers have been asking the question since 'no one knows when', the originality of Pratosh's question need not be doubted because I think it struck him without any dependencies on all the happening arguments of the past.

Rubeena said...

I am beginning to get the insight that I can think and write all sorts of inane absurd things that in no way gives away 'me' so unlike what i thought before a blog is not a bad idea but till then I think i can comment away to my hearts content :)
After all people need comments ;)especially on such highly intellectual musings.
So to get plasticccy :
Human fetuses though genetically male or female are born androgynous feature wise . The features that differentiate the sexes emerge only by around the 14th week of life when the genetically male babies begin to produce testosterone.But by 14 weeks the nipples are already formed.Thus when the so far androgynous baby starts getting masculine he still keeps his nipples.
Now the interesting fact is that males do have a bit of mammary tissue which if stimulated can produce milk. Thus physiologically nipples are there as there's no disadvantage in having them so they have not been selected against.But theres no evolutionary advantage as far as humans are concerned in having lactating fathers so most men don't.
So that means you guys can feed if the necessity so arises and you guys are sufficiently motivated to do so.Now I wonder whether such deep thinkers are wondering why females have breasts if nipples would suffice to feed the baby.May be these intellectuals have already thought about it as the thought 'why are there nipples in male when he doesn't feed ?' should also give rise to nipples are for feeding but what are breasts for ? hmm.............may be intellectual curiosity never got a chance as sensual appreciation probably hindered the birth of any such musing.
Hi Hema I appreciate the sarciness of your comment and I presume Pratosh appreciates your confidence in his originality ;)

Fonceur said...

Don't blame the Author of this blog if anybody finds him dead on his keyboard..

Pratosh Dwivedi said...

@Rubeena
Well said and very well explained too ... I appreciate the clarity of thoughts and the simplicity of explanation :)

@D00d
[sigh]