Fuck off, you made a thread about women being evolved to manipulate men with The Power of Boobies. That's what you specifically asked the forum to talk about.
I'm starting to think more of us should be putting your posts in animated sigs, given your tendency to attempt to rewrite your own posting history.
Fuck off, you made a thread about women being evolved to manipulate men with The Power of Boobies.
Oh yes, you have seen through my ploy! I suggested that men becoming dumb when exposed to boobs is the women's mistake.
Much like how I think men entertaining thoughts of infidelity is the women's mistake too and hence they should cover up, because you know, I love that headscarf and black dress shit, as everyone knows.
In other words you're retarded. Seems like you actually do need those animated sigs since your memory seems to operate quite selectively without them.
Please refer to my above post calling out your poor distraction techniques and shitty critical thinking skills! Thanks for playing!
I just pointed out that your claim that I have an anti-woman agenda is in direct contradiction with my stances on many issues regarding gender equality and religious oppression of women.
ege02 on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Btw ege, it is appropriate to read the study you are citing, because rest assured I will:
It is appropriate to acknowledge the limitations of the present study. First, our samples
were composed of young male students, which poses problems for generalization across
populations. Indeed, prior research with female participants failed to find similar effects (Wilson
and Daly 2004).
I can't be fucked finding that reference too though, I need to get back to study. You do it ege.
In any case, the study discusses the mood factor: previous studies showed no effect of mood. Again, the references are in there. I was planning to have a look at them myself but again, back to study.
Most of the objections I had were discussed as limitations of the study.
My only real problem is they had no group experiencing non sexual picture that were still known to produce happy mood. They just did a covariate adjustment for the affects of mood. Pretty lazy.
The conclusions he makes, and the conclusions the reporter makes are like two different worlds. The reporter is a newsflash happy idiot. Other than a couple of logic leaps here and there, the actual experimenter at least tried to account for factors, even if I disagree with how he did it. So he's not that bad.
Might is a very different word from "does". Might does NOT imply causation.
In the end though, Ege read the bloody studies you cite you twit. I found this on google in about five seconds.
Please refer to my above post calling out your poor distraction techniques and shitty critical thinking skills! Thanks for playing!
I just pointed out that your claim that I have an anti-woman agenda is in direct contradiction with my stances on many issues regarding gender equality and religious oppression of women.
Why do you think I get so pissed off at you? how you act in these evo-psych threads is a huge disconnect from threads about religious oppression, etc. Its great that you don't think women should be purposefully hurt or held back, but I have no confidence in your ability to separate biology from society and talk about men and women and how they be in a neutral fashion. You just seem so opposed to the idea of societal influence, completely and deliberately blind to the way it shapes us. Looking for a biological root of the (alleged, universal) female love of shoes, a story you tried to distract me with earlier? Come the fuck on!
The Cat on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
(Incidentally they found out that women were more obedient to authority when asked to torture puppies than men)
See this?
This is what bothers me about you. This quote is the second time you've brought this tidbit up, completely free of cite, completely free of analysis, completely free of context or commentary. You seem to expect your audience to simply accept that women are biddable and less morally upright than men and make judgement accordingly. Your refusal to cite or comment on your own claim is extremely suspect.
You've noticeably made no attempt at analysis: there's no speculation about women's place in society, their common exposure to violent censure, the notion that obedience is a key feminine trait, nothing. There's no critique of the parameters of the experiment, the subjects used, their social limitations (here's a clue, american and western european women attending in their early twenties aren't the most empowered group in human history - women in our society don't get bullheaded in large numbers until they're much older, if at all). But you're still too cowardly to outright make the claim that weak morality in women is inbuilt and significantly different from men across the board. You just leave the persistent impression that you desperately want to, and that you're waiting for someone else to make the connection so you can jump on a self-created bandwagon.
That stinks.
Link your source, comment on it, critique it, show me that you're capable of critical thought. Until then, I will maintain my complete lack of confidence in your ability to deal with these topics.
In the Primetime series Basic Instincts, the Milgram Experiment was repeated in 2006, with the same results with the men; the second experiment, with women, showed they were more likely to continue the experiment. A third experiment, with an additional teacher for peer pressure, showed peer pressure is less likely to stop a participant.
Results of the Basic Instincs article, as taken from here:
In ABC News' version of the Milgram experiment, we tested 18 men, and found that 65 percent of them agreed to administer increasingly painful electric shocks when ordered by an authority figure.
22 women signed up for our experiment. Even though most people said that women would be less likely to inflict pain on the learner, a surprising 73 percent yielded to the orders of the experimenter.
Talking about this one Ege.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Please refer to my above post calling out your poor distraction techniques and shitty critical thinking skills! Thanks for playing!
I just pointed out that your claim that I have an anti-woman agenda is in direct contradiction with my stances on many issues regarding gender equality and religious oppression of women.
Frankly, it's more that you try to apply your extremely limited knowledge to everything you possibly can, oversimplifying anything you are not more deeply familiar with to fit in with what you already believe you understand.
Like with how creationists try to explain how evolution is impossible because of physics.
Women just happen to be especially far from your understanding, so you tend to apply more grotesque simplification toward them.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited June 2008
Icen, don't "mind read" him. He could really believe he is objectively interested, in which case he wont accept that anyway.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I just realized that this thread went exactly as the [chat]ters said it would, complete with Cat arriving and calling Ege out for a duel at dawn. And now we have devolved in thinly veiled ad hominems.
I've seen a similar experiment reenacted in a TV show. They showed a quick montage of pictures, and then they gave the panel three choices of pictures they said weren't in the montage. Turns out that all the picturs were in the montage after all, but most of the men in the panel chose a picture that came after a picture of full frontal nudity (with the reasoning that a man's brain dwells on the nudie picture and can't register the picture after it), while some of the women chose a picture that came after a bloody picture of a bomb victim (which is apparently good at distracting female brains).
As if you'd really need to run an experiment to tell you that boobs distract men...
Vangu Vegro on
In my PC: Ryzom, Diablo III, Naruto Shippuden UNSR, The Old Republic
In my 3DS: Super Smash Bros, AC New Leaf
Last game completed: Steamworld Dig
I wouldn't call that distracting, more like drawing focus.
Also: Well no fucking duh a shock image is going to make you more attentive. Did they show pictures of big erect penises to the women? Because I bet they would have remembered there too.
Its the pure definition of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". Without using other situations, that might have similar effects, that would test against the, "oh its sex that'll make them dumb," you don't have a scientifically controlled situation.
DeShadowC on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited June 2008
This seems like one of those experiments you'd see on a daytime talk show that sends out attractive women to hit on married men to see if they will attempt to cheat.
Its the pure definition of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". Without using other situations, that might have similar effects, that would test against the, "oh its sex that'll make them dumb," you don't have a scientifically controlled situation.
Finally, we get back to what I posted on page 4!
and TeaSpoon, never be surprised when the prophecies of [chat] are fulfilled.
Here are highlights, but I recommend reading it in full:
... The traits are the self-obsession of narcissism; the impulsive, thrill-seeking and callous behaviour of psychopaths; and the deceitful and exploitative nature of Machiavellianism.....
...."We have some evidence that the three traits are really the same thing and may represent a successful evolutionary strategy."
...The study found that those who scored higher on the dark triad personality traits tended to have more partners and more desire for short-term relationships, Jonason reported at the Human Behavior and Evolution Society meeting in Kyoto, Japan, earlier this month. But the correlation only held in males.
...He found a similar link between the dark triad and reproductive success in men. "It is universal across cultures for high dark triad scorers to be more active in short-term mating," Schmitt says. "They are more likely to try and poach other people's partners for a brief affair."...
I tried to find the actual study. No luck.
Quiet interested in people's opinion on the possibility that the "dark traits" are evolved specifically by men as a reproduction strategy. I'm a skeptic about it, mainly because I'm not at all convinced that what they define are actually evolutionary traits. I'd really like to read the study though.
I'm posting it here because I thought it's kind of relevant to the discussion of the first 6-7 pages.
You just seem so opposed to the idea of societal influence, completely and deliberately blind to the way it shapes us.
On the contrary, in the past I have complained extensively about how much social programming - what is being taught to us by our parents, teachers, friends, and our culture at large - influences the way we behave. The perception of diamonds as the eternal and ultimate symbol of love is not something that is genetically ingrained in anyone. There are many other examples I've given in past discussions.
But there are some biological fundamentals too, fundamentals that are pretty much set in stone. For instance, one of the things Matt Ridley talks about in his book The Red Queen was that, a study showed that even though the male opinion on what female body type is physically attractive has changed over the last 100 years, one factor has remained constant: hip-to-waist ratio. This suggested that, while culture does indeed have an influence on people's ideas of attractiveness, it has not changed the fundamentals: women with high HtW ratios have always been perceived as attractive by men (perhaps because a narrow waist emphasizes a woman's sexual and reproductive body parts?).
Similarly, there are some personality traits that are universally attractive regardless of the particular cultural influence of that time. For instance, confidence. Has there ever been a time when confidence was thought to be a repulsive trait in men? Why not? Is it because of cultural influence, or does it have an evolutionary reason that perhaps confidence translates to a stronger insurance for the female in terms of the protection and success of offspring?
Evolution and sexual selection offer a lot of explanatory power to the way we currently are, because evolutionary pressures throughout history have mostly remained constant, while cultural influences have changed. I am not suggesting that these phenomena can explain everything perfectly or even partially, because it is difficult and sometimes impossible to determine the line between nature and nurture. I am just suggesting that, in this particular case, evolution might have played a role.
evolutionary pressures throughout history have mostly remained constant
whut
It's hard to explain and I'm lazy right now. I'll come back to it later.
Basically the environment did not change as often or dramatically as the visions of Hollywood directors, which change every two years. Sure, there was the occasional ice age, but throughout history humans have generally faced similar challenges: get enough food, protect and nurture offspring, run away from or tame wild animals, etc. Culture is much more fluid.
ege02 on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Similarly, there are some personality traits that are universally attractive regardless of the particular cultural influence of that time. For instance, confidence. Has there ever been a time when confidence was thought to be a repulsive trait in men? Why not? Is it because of cultural influence, or does it have an evolutionary reason that perhaps confidence translates to a stronger insurance for the female in terms of the protection and success of offspring?
I have an alternate reason: confidence is, by definition, a positive trait. What changes over time is not whether confidence is considered positive, but rather, what constitutes confidence. For instance, what is considered confident now in our culture may well have been considered over-confident, rash, or rude in previous times and cultures. So while the behaviors people describe as confident may always be considered by those people doing the describing to be attractive, the referent of the term 'confidence' has nonetheless changed over time.
Saying confidence has always been attractive is only slightly more substantial than saying that attractiveness has always been attractive. While true, it's not going to demonstrate any evolutionary point until, at the very least, you strip it of it's normative language and present it in terms of descriptive physical or social traits.
Coincidentally, this seems exemplary of your tendency towards fast-and-loose jumps to the evo argument.
It's hard to explain and I'm lazy right now. I'll come back to it later.
Basically the environment did not change as often or dramatically as the visions of Hollywood directors, which change every two years. Sure, there was the occasional ice age, but throughout history humans have generally faced similar challenges: get enough food, protect and nurture offspring, run away from or tame wild animals, etc. Culture is much more fluid.
Obviously the Jewish goatherders and the inuits had the same environmental pressures as the Australian Aboriginals and the so of course I agree.
So this study proves men make dumb decisions when it comes to sex?
Well there goes more wasted tax payer money on COMMON FREAKIN' SENSE! :x
And so we come full circle - no it doesn't. It doesn't even really verify that the decisions made in the study are poor decisions, it merely shows that they are different.
Posts
If I had such a strong anti-female agenda why would I make a thread about boobs making men dumb?
Speaking of analytical skills!
I'm starting to think more of us should be putting your posts in animated sigs, given your tendency to attempt to rewrite your own posting history.
Oh yes, you have seen through my ploy! I suggested that men becoming dumb when exposed to boobs is the women's mistake.
Much like how I think men entertaining thoughts of infidelity is the women's mistake too and hence they should cover up, because you know, I love that headscarf and black dress shit, as everyone knows.
In other words you're retarded. Seems like you actually do need those animated sigs since your memory seems to operate quite selectively without them.
...you know, I'm sure I've made this exact post at you before, too.
I just pointed out that your claim that I have an anti-woman agenda is in direct contradiction with my stances on many issues regarding gender equality and religious oppression of women.
Two pages later.
...
...
Why do you think I get so pissed off at you? how you act in these evo-psych threads is a huge disconnect from threads about religious oppression, etc. Its great that you don't think women should be purposefully hurt or held back, but I have no confidence in your ability to separate biology from society and talk about men and women and how they be in a neutral fashion. You just seem so opposed to the idea of societal influence, completely and deliberately blind to the way it shapes us. Looking for a biological root of the (alleged, universal) female love of shoes, a story you tried to distract me with earlier? Come the fuck on!
Talking about this one Ege.
Frankly, it's more that you try to apply your extremely limited knowledge to everything you possibly can, oversimplifying anything you are not more deeply familiar with to fit in with what you already believe you understand.
Like with how creationists try to explain how evolution is impossible because of physics.
Women just happen to be especially far from your understanding, so you tend to apply more grotesque simplification toward them.
Ege is not maliciously ignorant. He just needs to stop pulling this "AH HAH!" shit every five minutes.
The alternatives are dismissing or patronizing.
As if you'd really need to run an experiment to tell you that boobs distract men...
In my 3DS: Super Smash Bros, AC New Leaf
Last game completed: Steamworld Dig
Also: Well no fucking duh a shock image is going to make you more attentive. Did they show pictures of big erect penises to the women? Because I bet they would have remembered there too.
Finally, we get back to what I posted on page 4!
and TeaSpoon, never be surprised when the prophecies of [chat] are fulfilled.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826614.100-bad-guys-really-do-get-the-most-girls.html
Here are highlights, but I recommend reading it in full:
I tried to find the actual study. No luck.
Quiet interested in people's opinion on the possibility that the "dark traits" are evolved specifically by men as a reproduction strategy. I'm a skeptic about it, mainly because I'm not at all convinced that what they define are actually evolutionary traits. I'd really like to read the study though.
I'm posting it here because I thought it's kind of relevant to the discussion of the first 6-7 pages.
On the contrary, in the past I have complained extensively about how much social programming - what is being taught to us by our parents, teachers, friends, and our culture at large - influences the way we behave. The perception of diamonds as the eternal and ultimate symbol of love is not something that is genetically ingrained in anyone. There are many other examples I've given in past discussions.
But there are some biological fundamentals too, fundamentals that are pretty much set in stone. For instance, one of the things Matt Ridley talks about in his book The Red Queen was that, a study showed that even though the male opinion on what female body type is physically attractive has changed over the last 100 years, one factor has remained constant: hip-to-waist ratio. This suggested that, while culture does indeed have an influence on people's ideas of attractiveness, it has not changed the fundamentals: women with high HtW ratios have always been perceived as attractive by men (perhaps because a narrow waist emphasizes a woman's sexual and reproductive body parts?).
Similarly, there are some personality traits that are universally attractive regardless of the particular cultural influence of that time. For instance, confidence. Has there ever been a time when confidence was thought to be a repulsive trait in men? Why not? Is it because of cultural influence, or does it have an evolutionary reason that perhaps confidence translates to a stronger insurance for the female in terms of the protection and success of offspring?
Evolution and sexual selection offer a lot of explanatory power to the way we currently are, because evolutionary pressures throughout history have mostly remained constant, while cultural influences have changed. I am not suggesting that these phenomena can explain everything perfectly or even partially, because it is difficult and sometimes impossible to determine the line between nature and nurture. I am just suggesting that, in this particular case, evolution might have played a role.
whut
--
As for this particular case, again, first you have to eliminate cultural possibilities. Have you eliminated cultural possibilities?
It's hard to explain and I'm lazy right now. I'll come back to it later.
Basically the environment did not change as often or dramatically as the visions of Hollywood directors, which change every two years. Sure, there was the occasional ice age, but throughout history humans have generally faced similar challenges: get enough food, protect and nurture offspring, run away from or tame wild animals, etc. Culture is much more fluid.
I have an alternate reason: confidence is, by definition, a positive trait. What changes over time is not whether confidence is considered positive, but rather, what constitutes confidence. For instance, what is considered confident now in our culture may well have been considered over-confident, rash, or rude in previous times and cultures. So while the behaviors people describe as confident may always be considered by those people doing the describing to be attractive, the referent of the term 'confidence' has nonetheless changed over time.
Saying confidence has always been attractive is only slightly more substantial than saying that attractiveness has always been attractive. While true, it's not going to demonstrate any evolutionary point until, at the very least, you strip it of it's normative language and present it in terms of descriptive physical or social traits.
Coincidentally, this seems exemplary of your tendency towards fast-and-loose jumps to the evo argument.
Obviously the Jewish goatherders and the inuits had the same environmental pressures as the Australian Aboriginals and the so of course I agree.
I mean really, all the continents are the same.
Well there goes more wasted tax payer money on COMMON FREAKIN' SENSE! :x
And so we come full circle - no it doesn't. It doesn't even really verify that the decisions made in the study are poor decisions, it merely shows that they are different.
For evidence, please look at the OP of the thread.
XBL Gametag: mailarde
Screen Digest LOL3RZZ
"It has been proven"