Generic strategies

It is said that there are two kinds of generic strategies: low cost or differentiation. I was thinking of how species apply those strategies in their reproduction. So if we consider the offspring as a product, then species like humans, which choose to produce a few children but to invest a lot of resources to secure their survival, follow a differentiated strategy. The other option is to produce as many offspring as possible, investing a few resources in each one (low cost strategy), and hoping for the survival of as many as possible.

A question that crosses my mind after my previous thought is whether we really choose a strategy, or it is imposed in reality by other factors. In my example, modern society doesn’t allow people to follow a low cost strategy; otherwise they will be sentenced to life in prison. Indeed, as I read in “Moral Minds”, by Marc Hauser, Jack and Sylvia Darner chose to follow this strategy. Due to the fact that only 2 of their 15 children survived, they found guilty for intentionally overproducing children.

The previous thoughts lead me to suppose that in a certain environment, in a certain context, there are forces letting only one kind of strategy to survive. The other one is sooner or later doomed.

About love

Some people consider love as something that you give and receive. If one is receiving, she thinks that the other one loves her. When she doesn't, then he doesn't love her anymore. Well, I imagine love as a separate existence; a third part where you put your investment: feelings, time, money, dreams, sacrifices etc; a third part where both put their investment. Sometimes maybe one of them puts more than the other; but always they put both. And each one of them withdraws love currency when in need.
In the case that one doesn't contribute to the love union, the whole building collapses. They get separated. I don't know if they get something back from their investment in this case. And I don't know if it really matters. The only thing I do know is that it takes time to make profit. So you 'd better find a good partner!

Gender’s lost IDs

Women claim that nowadays it is hard to find “real” men. By this, I suppose they mean that today men can’t take decisions and responsibilities just as their father’s did. And this may be true. But why this happens?

1.       Modern women have undertaken this role voluntarily. In contrast with the previous generations, modern women are free to do whatever men use to do. The point is how they do it. They don’t have an example set by their mother, so they have to imitate their father’s behaviour. As a result, they adopt masculine patterns of behaviour, according to the stereotypes of the past, and part of this is the procedure to undertake the decision and the responsibility.

2.      Modern men permit women doing so. The previous model of family where father was the boss seems to be unfair for the mother of the young boy. So, he rejects it and adopts a more democratic way of behaviour towards women.

Nowadays, a woman is looking for a man like her father, and either she can’t find one or she can’t have him since she wants to be in charge. On the other hand, a man is looking for a woman like his mother, but also either he can’t find one or he can’t attract her since he doesn’t try to be in charge.

Keep it short!

I'd prefer reading magazine articles in the form of bullet points. I struggle to get the information through the writing "sauce" of each author. So, please stop pretending to be an author of the previous century and give me the stuff!

What is communication?

Evolution

I was surfing at bbc scotland website when I saw the following photo, taken by Sean Young:

It is a real photo of people enjoying the sunset; however, the first thing that came to my mind was that someone had set it up aiming to pass a message.

The combination of these pictures can take various meanings.People behind the leader stopped following him. And due to the fact that people behind the leader represent the past and they can't have changed direction, it seems that rather the leader has take the wrong way. Possibly we lost our orientation.

Another interesting meaning would be that the evolution leads to the sunset. Nothing to do with spaghetti films,   it could mean that we are moving towards an end.

In any case, I don't want to be pessimistic. After any sunset, a new sunrise follows.

Communication distance

I think that people usually prefer to keep a middle distance on their daily interactions with others. They feel unconfortable being strangers, so introducing to people that surround them makes them feel better. However, coming very close to each other also makes them feel uncomfortable for various reasons.
But this may be a little offensive. Imagine that you 're in a bus or a train and the next seated person introduces herself to you. You get to know each other and then you lose contact. What happened there? Have you been used to help an unknown pass the boring time of commuting? During this time you could have done something more productive for you.
That is the case of people doing networking. They create contacts, sharing every now and then pretty much useless information to keep the contact alive. Sadly, it is usual that when a contact needs them, they can't be available. They can't afford so many contacts and they are not really interested in all of them.
So if we define as micro-distance how easily you make connections and macro-distance how easily you get close with a connection, then, speaking of myself, I would have a very short micro and a very long macro. This means, it's very easy for me to get introduced to people, but it is hard for me to have a stronger relationship with this contact. It seems that it is a quantity-quality issue and though I prefer quality, I give priority to quantity.