The problem with American men flirting with English women

This is from wikipedia but it so succinctly explains the problem you must forgive me.

During World War II, anthropologist Margaret Mead was working in Britain for the British Ministry of Information and later for the U.S.Office of War Information,[6][7] delivering speeches and writing articles to help the American soldiers better understand the British civilians,[8] and vice versa.[9] She observed in the flirtations between the American soldiers and British women a pattern of misunderstandings regarding who is supposed to take which initiative. She wrote of the Americans, “The boy learns to make advances and rely upon the girl to repulse them whenever they are inappropriate to the state of feeling between the pair”, as contrasted to the British, where “the girl is reared to depend upon a slight barrier of chilliness… which the boys learn to respect, and for the rest to rely upon the men to approach or advance, as warranted by the situation.” This resulted, for example, in British women interpreting an American soldier’s gregariousness as something more intimate or serious than he had intended.[6]

dean that's enough no more internet laptop shut no no no nuhuh supernatural

Case closed.

Why do humans argue?

Because there’s a wrong way to do things and we need to defend it.

paper pdf, here’s select from the abstract section ;

“Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade.” [DS: good]

“Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views.” [ehh, sorta]

“Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. [that’s poor reasoning and should be discounted from pure theory]

Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion … favour conclusions for which arguments can be found.”

I like cogpsych papers, but they tend to miss the wider picture and the subtlety of linguistics in rhetoric e.g. emphasis.
Social signalling, in short. If your social reputation depends on empirical truth, suddenly it becomes the primary priority. This is why politicians don’t have lifelong careers at the top. Ownership is separate from outcome.
A theme that could be applied to this blog: smug