"Threat versus Safety Theory postulates that our only biological purpose is to protect, promote, and propagate our genetic code. Everything beyond that is imagination, construct, narrative, and belief. That seems cold and limiting, but, if we lean in, there is deeper meaning to the postulate. This mandate requires us to protect ourselves and protect each other, always with an eye towards our children and future generations. A little warmer and fuzzier?"
"Men biologically tend to be physically bigger, faster, and stronger, and can be more physically aggressive when threatened. Historically, men have had a bigger role in fighting and mounting a physical defense of the code in times of danger. In a world full of physical threats, men historically have had a very large role in protecting, promoting, and propagating the code."
Threat versus Safety Theory asserts that the primary biological purpose is protecting, promoting, and propagating genetic code. The mandate directs protection of self and others with emphasis on children and future generations, producing physiological states that support satisfaction, happiness, health, and longevity for individuals and descendants. The drive arises from biological coding, programming, and wiring rather than philosophy. Individual coding differs, yielding varied roles within the mission. Sex-specific traits contribute to different biological roles, with men tending toward greater size, speed, strength, and physical defense. In threat states, people seek and elevate protective figures, sometimes excessively.
Read at Psychology Today
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]