Voices

[Maryjane]

Heh...That's some fantasy Techno!

I'd imagine you'd have to do your snuggling in a cold storage facility in the summer?

[tommy5x]

Quote by: gela Its probably a side effect of a useful gene. Men generally have low voices, but some have voices that are just as high as a womans. It isn't universal, so if men did evolve like because there was some advantage; I think the advantage would be slight.

I hear my pre-pubescent voice in my head when conducting mental conversation. I don't know why though.

[Anmon]

Quote by: tommy5x I hear my pre-pubescent voice in my head when conducting mental conversation. I don't know why though.

Its the 'lefty' child inside rubbish?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Maryjane That's a great question! I don't really know. I do know I don't hear the southern accent.

I found the question that elicited that response quite interesting, and have deduced that the voice in my head sounds a lot like Sean Astin, the guy that narrates that Meerkat show.


Sean Astin Official Home Page

[JaneDoe321]

Hm. Interesting question.

I am thinking only of American society, as I've never lived anywhere else, but it seems that while a deep man's voice is considered sexy, a deep *woman's* voice is also considered sexy ("throaty", "smoky", "sultry", etc, none of those conjure, at least for me, a high pitched Betty Boop type voice).

[Anmon]

your right, women with high voices do sound pleasant usually, providing its not a monotonous whine, but a deep husky voice on a woman is a big turn on.

[tommy5x]

Quote by: Anmon Its the 'lefty' child inside rubbish?

Eh... what?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Jack They do, they're called female minks. Snuggling up to one isn't very sexy. They bite.

The boy minks don't mind a little love bite.

I guess there is no logical reason relative to the theory of evolution for men to have low voices and women to have high voices (on an average - exceptions so noted ).

[treme]

Quote by: Technosoul The boy minks don't mind a little love bite. I guess there is no logical reason relative to the theory of evolution for men to have low voices and women to have high voices (on an average - exceptions so noted ).

Well there's certainly a logical evolutionary reason for it we just don't know exactly what it is.

The voice box gets bigger during puberty in both sexes. Males just experience quite a bit more of it.

Could it be that male voices haven't evolved to be deeper but female voices have evolved to be more child like? This could be because males are more likely to run and help when a child is in danger. It's interesting that "Women and children" are grouped together in life threatening situations (Women and children first!).

But if you think about it another way, predators tend to pick off the weakest of the group. The easiest to pick off are children and lame adults (It's also interesting that our voices get higher in pitch when we're in pain). How could it be advantageous for an adult (non-weak) member of a group to sound like easy prey? Call attention away from the children perhaps? Make the predator waste energy chasing a fleet footed woman so that the children remain safe?

Lots of other possibilities...

[Technosoul]

Quote by: treme Well there's certainly a logical evolutionary reason for it we just don't know exactly what it is. The voice box gets bigger during puberty in both sexes. Males just experience quite a bit more of it. Could it be that male voices haven't evolved to be deeper but female voices have evolved to be more child like? This could be because males are more likely to run and help when a child is in danger. It's interesting that "Women and children" are grouped together in life threatening situations (Women and children first!). But if you think about it another way, predators tend to pick off the weakest of the group. The easiest to pick off are children and lame adults (It's also interesting that our voices get higher in pitch when we're in pain). How could it be advantageous for an adult (non-weak) member of a group to sound like easy prey? Call attention away from the children perhaps? Make the predator waste energy chasing a fleet footed woman so that the children remain safe? Lots of other possibilities...

For one thing I would suspect that primitive women were just as strong as primitive men were. They can naturally endure more pain and would be better at survival then men.

Sometimes animals will use noise to warn or to scare off potential preditors. If you bang on things a lion might run off. But I doubt if human voices were evolved for that purpose. I just cannot image that sceaming would give anyone much of an advantage in warding off animals who often attack swiftly from the bushes. The apes and chimps are always making racket but I think it has more to do with some kind of socializing then anything else. Perhaps for singing when we wanted to get creative but singing in harmony with low and high scales is hardly something of interest to evolutionists.

But we can start off with now and work backwards. What advantages does this give us nowadays? Does it make men better hunters or fishermen to get a larger voice box? Does it make us better fighters, or does it help us to escape dangers? Does it improve our social behavior as pack animals?

Saying it has an evolutionary purpose even if we do not know what it is... to me is not a worthwhile answer. It is a non-answer.

[treme]

Quote by: Technosoul For one thing I would suspect that primitive women were just as strong as primitive men were. They can naturally endure more pain and would be better at survival then men. Sometimes animals will use noise to warn or to scare off potential preditors. If you bang on things a lion might run off. But I doubt if human voices were evolved for that purpose. I just cannot image that sceaming would give anyone much of an advantage in warding off animals who often attack swiftly from the bushes. The apes and chimps are always making racket but I think it has more to do with some kind of socializing then anything else. Perhaps for singing when we wanted to get creative but singing in harmony with low and high scales is hardly something of interest to evolutionists. But we can start off with now and work backwards. What advantages does this give us nowadays? Does it make men better hunters or fishermen to get a larger voice box? Does it make us better fighters, or does it help us to escape dangers? Does it improve our social behavior as pack animals? Saying it has an evolutionary purpose even if we do not know what it is... to me is not a worthwhile answer. It is a non-answer.

Yes stating that it HAS evolved without giving an explanation as to how it evolved is somewhat of a non-answer. We could think up possible explanations all day and while most of them are possible, they may not be correct.

What's important is to accept the fact that males and females have evolved differently when it comes to their voices. This has happened for "some" reason (which is probably a huge combination of different reasons over the years). We may not be able to determine exactly what those reasons are but at least we know where we're at now and what pressures exist today that are having an influence.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Technosoul For one thing I would suspect that primitive women were just as strong as primitive men were. They can naturally endure more pain and would be better at survival then men.

Thats rubbish, if they were as strong they would have been out hunting and fighting, if they can naturally endure more pain, then why do they need drugs now to help them handle childbirth?
And the only reason they survived prehistory and the rise of civilsation at all, is because we looked after them practically every step of the way.
Who do you think built all the boats and other means of transport that carried women everywhere? Men thats who.
Like a typical femnut you over estimate womens capacity's, and completely devalue mens roles in developing society's.
Women had enough work to do, looking after kids and homes without trying to do our stuff too.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Anmon Thats rubbish, if they were as strong they would have been out hunting and fighting, if they can naturally endure more pain, then why do they need drugs now to help them handle childbirth? And the only reason they survived prehistory and the rise of civilsation at all, is because we looked after them practically every step of the way. Who do you think built all the boats and other means of transport that carried women everywhere? Men thats who. Like a typical femnut you over estimate womens capacity's, and completely devalue mens roles in developing society's. Women had enough work to do, looking after kids and homes without trying to do our stuff too.

What makes you think prehistoric people were hunting or fighting? They do not need drugs to have babies, at least not most of the women in the world. Building boats has nothing to do with natual evolution.

What about Diana the Goddess of the hunt? Where did that idea come from if women did not hunt? Even so, the developement of human culture was partly about overcoming being natural in order to become un-naturally better (so we think). So you cannot compare natural selection with human selection as they do not always "Jive".

[gela]

And the only reason they survived prehistory and the rise of civilsation at all, is because we looked after them practically every step of the way.

I was under the impression that brains are what seperates humans from animales.. not superior strength.

if they can naturally endure more pain, then why do they need drugs now to help them handle childbirth?

If you had the choice between dulling some of the pain with drugs, or going through increadible pain - then what would you choose?

Like a typical femnut you over estimate womens capacity's, and completely devalue mens roles in developing society's.

He didn't say anything about mens roles in developing societies.

Thats your paranoia about being undervalued speaking.
Why do women have to be crap in order for men to be properly 'valued'?

[Technosoul]

I did not want to bring this up but some of the women in those brush tribes in Africa are just as strong looking as the men, but I would agree that perhaps women do not like to battle as much and would be more prone to intimidation and fear then would be their male counterparts, which gave male dominance a slight edge. But that is perhaps because they are the wiser of the two groups.

[Tim]

Quote by: Jack Since the topic is voices, I'm curious how each of us hear voices in our head. We all talk to ourselves and conduct mental conversations. Are the voices like you perceive your own, are they usually female or male?

That's a neat question. Any voices in my head usually sound the way I perceive my own. Sometimes I actually get so into it that I end up speaking aloud, or at least moving my lips. The startling thing for me is when I actually hear a recorded version of my own voice, because it sounds so radically different from the way it does in my head.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Technosoul For one thing I would suspect that primitive women were just as strong as primitive men were. They can naturally endure more pain and would be better at survival then men. Sometimes animals will use noise to warn or to scare off potential preditors. If you bang on things a lion might run off. But I doubt if human voices were evolved for that purpose. I just cannot image that sceaming would give anyone much of an advantage in warding off animals who often attack swiftly from the bushes. The apes and chimps are always making racket but I think it has more to do with some kind of socializing then anything else. Perhaps for singing when we wanted to get creative but singing in harmony with low and high scales is hardly something of interest to evolutionists. But we can start off with now and work backwards. What advantages does this give us nowadays? Does it make men better hunters or fishermen to get a larger voice box?

Why would you assume women would be as strong as men? Men, generally speaking, have significantly more upper body strength and strenght in general. Males would have had to shove spears into deer or defend their family. Women, if they survived childbirth (no given, this would have likely killed enough women to put their life expectancy even with men) probably would have lived longer, but they are useful as caregivers, while males would have been, most likely dead weight once their bodies became too frail to fight or in other ways help out.

Does it make us better fighters, or does it help us to escape dangers? Does it improve our social behavior as pack animals? Saying it has an evolutionary purpose even if we do not know what it is... to me is not a worthwhile answer. It is a non-answer.

Bellowing can intimidate an opponent before a fight begins, and this intimidating factor obviously has a social function as well.

Plus, to expect us to be able to know exactly what prehistoric man faced and how this affected voice is ridiculous. We can't even predict evolution today.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Technosoul I did not want to bring this up but some of the women in those brush tribes in Africa are just as strong looking as the men, but I would agree that perhaps women do not like to battle as much and would be more prone to intimidation and fear then would be their male counterparts, which gave male dominance a slight edge. But that is perhaps because they are the wiser of the two groups.

I won't argue the final point, but appearances are not everything when it comes to strength. Vast differences in strength can be present with little difference in mass.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Woops

[RealRockingham]

It might be a matter of males and females being able to distinguish the gender of a person when they can't see them but can hear them.