Depressing myself reading the ongoing saga and Fred the Shred’s whopper of a pension (lump sum of a cool £3m). Nice work for failing, eh?!?!
And then for some light relief I happened upon this gem. Gee, I love cod science…
How those cheeky bio-chemicals govern who we are attracted to. It boils down to traits and a combo of DNA and social influences that determine those cheeky bio-chemicals that lead us astray in the ye olde game of fatal attraction. And what of these traits (and when I hear ‘traits’ and ‘psychometrics’ I always think of that reactionary ratbag, the late Hans Eysenck)…
Here are the four important traits…
Explorer: Excitement seeker… driven by dopamine. Yea har!
Builder: Soothing, calming …. orderly..driven by serotonin.. Dependable…!
Director: Analytical, Logical, tough-minded… driven by testosterone… Grrr..!!
Negotiator: Verbal, compassionate, imaginative… driven by Oestrogen…
Ha… Me!!
And these traits are not, apparently, gender specific.. but why do I question that assertion? Do these traits reflect traditional gender roles as opposed to some objective scientific investigation? Methinks they do. It’s more to do with ideology than biology. Actually, I would love to see the results and see how gender specific it is. Also, this is a straight, sexuality wise, survey.
Indeed, as Dr Fisher, argues that humans are complex so why reduce people to traits and categories, which are so rigid and fixed. Again, people are complex and can’t be pinned down or simplified to ascertain ‘personality traits’ especially in this reductionist fashion. And do we really really need to analyse and reduce attraction to so-called traits and bio-chemicals..?
And when Dr Fisher stated this, I groaned…inwardly…
Dr Fisher found that her theory was partly born out by the relative length of people’s ring and index fingers, which is influenced by testosterone and oestrogen exposure in the womb.
