I used the alias "Onslaught" back when I used to play Counter-Strike religiously. I eventually changed it to "Lightfoot" and then "Animus" and I've stuck with "Animus" pretty much ever since.

Latin:
animus : courage, vivacity, bravery, will, spirit, soul, character, intellect, memory, consciousness, often mind.

The term was also used by Jung to mean the inner masculine personality of the female, and its modern English definition means "Hostility, or ill will".

@Ally

http://www.devpsy.org/teaching/parent/baumrind_styles.html

I'd just like to draw attention to the distinction between cause and effect. Changizi is looking for the "effect" explanation, the "what-for" or "selection pressure". Which is different than a sufficient cause (as for example provided by AJW).

In the stream, eddies form, and dissolve, but they never leave the stream. They are stream the whole time they are also eddies. The causality which is the why and what-for never separates so cleanly into cause and effect. To say; "The stream causes the eddy" is erroneous because the eddy is stream, it would amount to an explanation causu sui (cause of itself) Some explanation from Brownian motion would be required to explain how the eddy is formed within* the stream by the activity of individual water molecules.

The "selection pressure" is the what-for, but on close inspection it is also the why. All accounts of a sufficient cause demand a nullifier or predicate variable; "If P Then Q" is not sufficient argument form, one would need to include "If P (and if not-X) Then Q" where X is a set of circumstances that would nullify Q. Or X could be given as a set of background conditions necessary for Q; "If P (and if X) Then Q". Example: "If it rains then the side-walk will be wet." is an insufficient causal argument, it would have to be; "If it rains and there is nothing obstructing the rain's descent onto the side-walk (such as an awning or umbrella) then the side-walk is wet." or "If it rains and the space between rain and side-walk is clear, then the side-walk is wet." The first statement is a positive and the second a negative, but mean the same thing. Any sufficient cause must contain some requisite in all that exists; the background conditions must be just-so. Whether or not something is "selected for" by "evolution" may just be another way of saying whether or not it is causally sufficient, whether or not the background conditions necessary for Q have been met. Many things may be manifest because meeting the criterion for a sufficient cause, but they may be useless in evolutionary terms. One can work backwards through causation, but it is problematic, especially if one starts off on the wrong foot, which I think is the case when trying to account for animal traits by evolutionary selection.

Typically, reductive materialists, which comprise the vast majority of scientists, do not accept teleological explanations, and when they say "We evolved this for that" they are meaning to say "These were the background conditions (X) that made it possible and beneficial which lent to it's continued survival" but there is a real problem of slipping into wild teleological speculation in evolutionary theory, and of communicating that distinction to the masses.

Oh man, that image of the woman rolling the men around on the wheel is pretty much the epitome of medeival chivalry. Woman was imagined as some kind of divine presence, hence her descending out of the sky. Of course, it has long been commented on by philosophers that woman loves nothing more than to be treated like a Goddess, and this desire is what makes her a superior egotist and consequently unfit for leadership. That is a subject that could be debated, or even demonstrated to be false, but it won't be satisfied simply by complaining about it. Insubstantial whining is exactly what that sort of woman is expected to do. Then again, its exactly that sort of thing that rules the roost nowadays. "Woman" in this sense is an archetype, with modern men becoming more "womanly" or "effeminate" in their ability to ignore substance for pomp and pizzazz. I prefer to think of this duality of masculine-feminine as pure convention and not necessarily an epistemic claim about the whole female "sub-species". But one doesn't have to look far to see that by-and-large women are preoccupied with appearances.

"The whirlpool is the vanity of water, and its circle-egoism." - Otto Weininger, Sex and Character

I would certainly be inclined to a religious origin for "Ring Around the Rosie", since the expression "Ashes, Ashes" is probably a reference to "Ashes to Ashes". The whole rhyme could be of theological significance. "Ring around the rosie" could refer to our earthly life, as we wander around this planet, with our puckets full of goods, all of a sudden "Ashes, Ashes" and we are dead. That is pretty much the story as told by the Bible; we are born with selfish desires, we chase after those desires, building up for ourselves a collection of goods, and then we die. Or that is the path of the "unexamined life". Or... I could be stretching it, but really any more than the alternatives?

This also reminds me of why I don't talk to my sister anymore. I can't stand her victim mentality when it comes to her young step-daughter. While in the child's presence she would say "This little brat is messing everything up for me." and "If she'd just grow up mom could get some things done." She was always hurling blame at the child and centering everything around herself. I had a half a mind to give her on the subject and she "disowned" me as her brother.

Sort of that reaction I was suggesting earlier. She felt so justified in her anger toward the child and I wasn't helping, so she hates me too. But I couldn't stand it.

My mom used to say "If you don't go to sleep I'm going to kill you." another favorite of hers was "ring you neck!"

Around age 13, I was frustrated with my sister and said "I'm going to kill you" my mother saw no relation to her own use of the expression and called the police. I was arrested, charged and convicted of uttering death threats. I got rid of the habit pretty quick, but my mother still expresses herself this way.

Context!

@Ziggy

Well it certainly diminishes the clinical usage of the term, but V.S. Ramachandran does have a point. Metaphor is essentially a synaesthesic operation. To demonstrate that "We are all synaesthetes" Ramachandran presents an audience at TEDTalks with two images with the names "Bouba and Kiki" and asks them to guess which is which, the audience guesses correctly. This has become known as the Bouba-Kiki Effect.

Source: http://www.ted.com/talks/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind.html

@hmmm... I like Louis CK but that's because he is picking on common sense stupidity. Virtually all of his jokes are from a fairly enlightened perspective on the human condition. He's not just going for the laugh, but it is also thought-provoking. Still, to some extent I'm turned off by his excessive vulgarity.

@Natey You have a point there, I do not think people generally act out of reason, but generally react emotionally, so it is probable that there will be such detractors even of benneficial endeavours.

"A man will rip off your arm and throw it into a river, but he will leave you as a human being intact. He won't mess with who you are. Women are non-violent but they will shit inside of your heart." - Louis CK

@ted

I didn't realize we were talking about self-awareness in other animals. In which case, primates tend to fare best next to dolphins, then birds, especially corvids. I think the dot-test is supposed to test for a metacognitive awareness-of-being-aware, as opposed to the kind of self-awareness that is implied and not made explicit. If you prick a nematode it will react indicating an 'awareness' of itself being pricked, but this isn't what is meant by self-conscious. Otherwise, sorry, I'm not sure I follow the conversation anymore.

Interesting; it reminds me of a video game called "Synaesthesia" which is like a side-scrolling rhythm game. I wondered the relationship there too. But perhaps it is like Vilaynur S. Ramachandran says "We are all synaesthetes" when we combine visual and auditory modalities.

Okay, so they aren't asking the men to fix the pot-holes, but to lobby the government? I see even less reason why women can't do this. But, I guess we are talking "South American", and probably the "Gender-roles" are a bit different, I wouldn't know.

I really don't care that much about sex myself. You see a twinkle in a person's eye when they are craving sex that shares a remarkable similarity to the twinkle in a person's eye when they are craving cocaine. Not surprisingly, biologists are equating 'love' more with 'addiction' when it amounts to the neurochemical cocktail (phenethylamine, dopamine, norepineprhine, estrogen, testosterone, etc...).

One might think of the relationship as a form of consumption or possession, with Self Object as the mode of interaction, whereas, what is called "Agape" (Unconditional Love) is a merging of Self and Object into a singularity. Such that the Self does not perceive the Object as anything but the Self. So there is no condition to love. Like "I will love you if you meet the following criteria:..." Suffice to say that this form of love is extremely rare, pretty much all modern relationships are a commodity exchange. You have to hold your partner to their end of the bargain, you can't trust them to care about you. You have to be sly, crafty and conniving, to find ways to manipulate your spouse.

Ever notice when it comes to humor, people especially do not want to be corrected or shown to be flawed morally. "It's all in good fun", "We are just having fun", "Spoil-sport!" etc.. I'm not saying that is specifically the case here, but I've seen for everything from racial prejudice to school-yard bullying.

Drugs are bad for you; drug laws are worse.

Nothing to get excited about, either way. I didn't find it offensive, but I didn't find it that humorous either. Its a kind of vulgar humor which I'm not particularly attracted to.