The very serious powerlifting and oly-lifting communities are small enough to completely write them off when talking about this shit.
Yeah, to do what they do you have to be in shape in a very specific way. If you met a serious bodybuilder with that body type you can tell that it's not fat.
Evo Pych is a little silly at times because it seems to attach values of a single culture to evolutionary traits. A more interesting study would take an athropogical approach by involving a more global cultural view of obesity as well as a historical perspective. If cultural constants could be found the evolutionary argument would work much better.
The very serious powerlifting and oly-lifting communities are small enough to completely write them off when talking about this shit.
Yeah, to do what they do you have to be in shape in a very specific way. If you met a serious bodybuilder with that body type you can tell that it's not fat.
Again, not with the heavyweights. Bodybuilders overuse of HGH leaves them looking like fat guys with pot bellies in the off season. With shirts on they're both going to look the same despite a 10%+ difference in bodyfat.
I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of the science behind this idea, Larger stronger fat guys don't typically get made fun of. Although that could have something to do with survival instinct. You don't laugh at something that can twist you into a pretzel.
Most of the time, evolutionary psychology when applied to sociological tendencies is pure crap. This is basically an instance of that.
On the other hand, I do have a serious issue with "fat activists." These people have their own organization, the NAAFA, and have a section on their website that lists famous fat people. Among the heifers? Gautama Buddha. These people aren't just fat, they're fucking stupid, too.
They propogate this bullshit idea that your body is just the way it is. Yes, for some people, they have less control over their weight than other individuals due to a variety of genetic or medical problems. Obesity has been linked to the absense of a certain protein which shuts down the hunger feeling from the hypothalamus. How many people lack this protein? About .05% have been shown to lack the ability to discern between hunger and non-hunger, and just about covers your cases of extreme obesity that show up on TLC every now and then. Thyroid and gastro-intestinal problems with digestion or processing account for another 3-5%, according a 2006 APA journal on obesity in America.
Anybody that doesn't fall into these categories has average control over their weight, but may still suffer from a handful of psychological disorders, or was basically trained to eat the way they eat. These fucking NAAFA people need to turn their slogan around. They need to understand. They need to support themselves. They need to accept fault. Do they have to conform? No. Do we have to respect their decision? Yes. Do they get to treat their weight as something which they can't control? No.
Pay for the two seats you take up on the plane.
Edit: Fat ass hall of fame. Not only was at least one of the individuals on here skinny because he starved himself under a fucking tree for ages, but many of them died because of obesity/health related issues. Fuck, why don't they just list Chris Penn and remove all doubt?
Why the general hatred for Evo Psych? I think it is a field that has a lot of potential to help us understand more about ourselves. Acknowledging the difficulty disentangling "nature" from "nurture" doesn't mean it isn't worth the effort.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Why the general hatred for Evo Psych? I think it is a field that has a lot of potential to help us understand more about ourselves. Acknowledging the difficulty disentangling "nature" from "nurture" doesn't mean it isn't worth the effort.
Seriously. Evo Psych is pretty awesome as far as I'm concerned. Doesn't mean it can explain everything, but certain areas it certainly can.
Check out Robin Baker's Sperm Wars for an example of good evo psych.
Why the general hatred for Evo Psych? I think it is a field that has a lot of potential to help us understand more about ourselves. Acknowledging the difficulty disentangling "nature" from "nurture" doesn't mean it isn't worth the effort.
The way it's been implemented historically has been pretty abhorrent. It's been, for the most part, men trying to justify a culturally patriachal society and the way that patriarchy works.
There is some good to be had of it, as somebody mentioned the anthropological aspect earlier. We're headed that direction, but there are still remnants of the bad shit nowadays, as evinced by this article. There's a modicum, a seed of knowledge in the study and the article, but it's application and spurious conclusions are utter crap.
Why the general hatred for Evo Psych? I think it is a field that has a lot of potential to help us understand more about ourselves. Acknowledging the difficulty disentangling "nature" from "nurture" doesn't mean it isn't worth the effort.
Because i think most people see it as something new, trying to give excuses to people for doing evil shit. The bullies on the playground made fun of the fat kid because he was an asshole. Not because he was just doing his evolutionary duty. I can just wait for this to be used as a criminal defense. "I had to kill the fat guy, before his fat disease spread!"
Don't we just tend to treat people who display undesirable (from a reproductive standpoint) traits poorly while we treat those with desirable traits well? i.e. how beautiful people are treated better by just about everyone and tend to succeed much more easily than ugly people. I could see how fat people would be treated worse than fit people since being fat is undesirable (for most, though there are exceptions).
The article is rather unpersuasive when making the case that we perceive fat people as diseased, though.
In some parts of the world, the fatter, the better.
Not really. It goes up to a certain point. Sure, women with wider hips and generally fuller figures have traditionally been the benchmark for beauty (I don't understand the stick woman fetish, honestly) but fat? As in, obese? No, not at all. The same for men. We want people who are well fed, but well fed != fat.
In some parts of the world, the fatter, the better.
Not really. It goes up to a certain point. Sure, women with wider hips and generally fuller figures have traditionally been the benchmark for beauty (I don't understand the stick woman fetish, honestly) but fat? As in, obese? No, not at all. The same for men. We want people who are well fed, but well fed != fat.
Few people find stick thin women attractive. Models aren't chosen for their attractiveness in a traditional sense, rather to show off the cloths.
In some parts of the world, the fatter, the better.
Not really. It goes up to a certain point. Sure, women with wider hips and generally fuller figures have traditionally been the benchmark for beauty (I don't understand the stick woman fetish, honestly) but fat? As in, obese? No, not at all. The same for men. We want people who are well fed, but well fed != fat.
Few people find stick thin women attractive. Models aren't chosen for their attractiveness in a traditional sense, rather to show off the cloths.
I know that about models (gf modeled before we met). However, the fetish for, say, anorexic women is really weird to me.
Then again, lots of fetishes are really weird to me.
People are robots with no capability to control their actions!
I'm not about to call this particular example great science or anything, but is it that unreasonable to submit that the basis of certain behaviors can be pretty irrational?
I will have trouble accepting that there is a genetic basis for this behavior until a cross-cultural experiment is designed to eliminate cultural variables.
The bigger problem I see here (and that is shown in the article) is that people want other people to be obscenely overweight. It's not healthy at all.
I didn't get that from the article at all. Got more of a don't attack people because they are different vibe from it. If anything, of late the trend seems to be getting people to develop healthier habits.
They use the word "food nazi's" and compare being overweight to racism and anti-semitism.
Wow, Godwined in the OP...
Also, did a sentence get cut out in the article? Like, it randomly goes
"It's a way to put sexism on the agenda," said Beth Ditto, the lead singer for The Gossip.
"All this stuff completely negates what feminism stands for, and you can't act like that's not connected to other issues."
In some parts of the world, the fatter, the better.
Not really. It goes up to a certain point. Sure, women with wider hips and generally fuller figures have traditionally been the benchmark for beauty (I don't understand the stick woman fetish, honestly) but fat? As in, obese? No, not at all. The same for men. We want people who are well fed, but well fed != fat.
There's a few other african countries that the BBC has news stories about where they imply that fallingman is correct (up to a point I imagine). Although standard disclaimer on things you read on the internet.
In some parts of the world, the fatter, the better.
Not really. It goes up to a certain point. Sure, women with wider hips and generally fuller figures have traditionally been the benchmark for beauty (I don't understand the stick woman fetish, honestly) but fat? As in, obese? No, not at all. The same for men. We want people who are well fed, but well fed != fat.
There's a few other african countries that the BBC has news stories about where they imply that fallingman is correct (up to a point I imagine). Although standard disclaimer on things you read on the internet.
Even if the article is correct, it's dying out (luckily, since force feeding is horrible). It's interesting, though; I didn't run across it when doing a cross-cultural analysis of beauty. Mostly, you find that poorer areas prize weight more than richer areas since obtaining sufficient food is difficult when you're poor. I would take that example as a significant aberration from the norm, as much so as the aforementioned anorexic fetish.
Also, when someone says "In some parts of the world..." warning flags go up. I could say almost anything (say, "In some parts of the world, people inject themselves with their own feces") and lo and behold, you can find examples of that (I can't remember the name of the disorder, but it exists).
Why the general hatred for Evo Psych? I think it is a field that has a lot of potential to help us understand more about ourselves. Acknowledging the difficulty disentangling "nature" from "nurture" doesn't mean it isn't worth the effort.
The problem is that the majority of them don't put in the effort.
The standard evo psych method is to take a behavior they perceive as common and try to find parallels in the imagined environment of prehistorical humans. Then once a parallel is found they declare that the behavior must have an evolutionary, and therefore biological, basis.
Problems with this approach:
- They often fail to check if the behavior is universal across cultures.
- They rarely check to see if the behavior is as common in their own culture as they presume.
- They make hypotheses about early human behavior without acknowledging alternative explanations.
- That a given behavior had adaptive advantages early in the formation of human culture does not imply that the behavior is genetic rather than cultural in origin.
- Once an explanation is found, they dust of their hands and say 'my work here is done.' It's rare that they'll actually dig deeper and attempt to look for the genes they posit must exist.
Evolutionary psychology is not a scientific approach. They don't develop falsifiable hypotheses which they then attempt to test using experimental or observational data. They take existing data and try to construct narratives about it based on incomplete information. In this way, it's basically a pseudoscience - no matter the behavior, they can construct an arbitrarily complicated and circuitous evolutionary explanation for it.
There are other people who are using the actual scientific method to try to find evolutionary and biological foundations for human behavior - they just tend to call themselves cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists rather than evolutionary psychologists.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
In some parts of the world, the fatter, the better.
Not really. It goes up to a certain point. Sure, women with wider hips and generally fuller figures have traditionally been the benchmark for beauty (I don't understand the stick woman fetish, honestly) but fat? As in, obese? No, not at all. The same for men. We want people who are well fed, but well fed != fat.
There's a few other african countries that the BBC has news stories about where they imply that fallingman is correct (up to a point I imagine). Although standard disclaimer on things you read on the internet.
Even if the article is correct, it's dying out (luckily, since force feeding is horrible). It's interesting, though; I didn't run across it when doing a cross-cultural analysis of beauty. Mostly, you find that poorer areas prize weight more than richer areas since obtaining sufficient food is difficult when you're poor. I would take that example as a significant aberration from the norm, as much so as the aforementioned anorexic fetish.
Also, when someone says "In some parts of the world..." warning flags go up. I could say almost anything (say, "In some parts of the world, people inject themselves with their own feces") and lo and behold, you can find examples of that (I can't remember the name of the disorder, but it exists).
I's not enough if some people do it. It's more if something is a culturally accepted norm somewhere. For example: It's hard to say romantic love is evolutionary because in so many cultures romantic love is far from the accepted norms.
That's one of the purposes of real anthropology: to dispel preconcieved notions about humanity. Some of this Evo psych stuff is really old fashioned armchair anthropology in a new form since it really only takes one cultures perspective.
That's being said I think a global study on attitudes towards weight would be an interesting subject of study.
But its clearly preffered.
Look at Tyra Banks' career, she went into swimsuits because being 130 pounds (ie no bones sticking out) wasn't acceptable at the highest levels of modeling, so she switched to Victoria's secret and swimsuits.
I think that goes back to the whole not judging people by their appearance thing. I agree is not really the best comparison but at the same time I don't think they are telling readers to go out and eat cheese burgers.
Fair enough. I just think promoting being overweight as "Okay!" is very irresponsible. It's a condition you don't want to be in, and unlike race or body frame, it's something you can change.
This is what gets it for me. I don't want to say I think it's okay to make fun of fat people, but it is absolutely ridiculous to compare it to anti-semitism or racism. Eating salads and doing cardio on a daily basis is not going to make you any less black, and what makes racism bad (at least as I see it) is disliking people for things about themselves that they have no control over.
You have control over your weight. In the end, it is a choice.
Evo Psych is a bankrupt field; yeah, women love purses because the weight is similar to having a baby slung under your arm.
That's kind of a dumb thing to say.
Which part - the evo psych being bankrupt part, or the baby slinging part?
Both.
The otherwise perfectly valid field of Evolutionary Psychology has garnered a bad name from the crackpots who use it to justify their cultural biases and oppressions. But to call an entire field "bankrupt," when it is merely the study of how evolution affected our psychology, is pretty much wildly ignorant.
I's not enough if some people do it. It's more if something is a culturally accepted norm somewhere. For example: It's hard to say romantic love is evolutionary because in so many cultures romantic love is far from the accepted norms.
That's one of the purposes of real anthropology: to dispel preconcieved notions about humanity. Some of this Evo psych stuff is really old fashioned armchair anthropology in a new form since it really only takes one cultures perspective.
That's being said I think a global study on attitudes towards weight would be an interesting subject of study.
Oh, I certainly agree (being an Anthro major myself......ethno and cultural, physical kind of bored me). I'm just saying that claims to certain things being the norm in certain areas of the world needs far more evidence than is usually presented (that article being an example, given that even at its peak, only about 33% of the women were force fed and made obese). So to say that the overall standard for beauty was "the fatter the better" is not the truth; the truth was that some people in that culture wanted their wives to be obese, not because obesity itself was desirable, but that it indicated that their husbands loved them and took good care of them. And now it's changing, making it hardly a cultural norm then and even less of one now.
I don't even know how you'd do a global study on attitudes toward weight. You'd have to take into account the scarcity of food in certain areas of the world, which has a major impact on weight attitudes. Then genetics is a factor (the one island where the vast majority of people are obese due to genetic factors is one example) along with climate, local agricultural traditions/access to the global food market, and common lifestyle.
I agree that it's interesting, I just think that it's very complex and possibly not even useful. We know how to measure health pretty well; people should be in shape and eating well. Instead of focusing on weight, we should be focusing on overall health. The weight issue will take care of itself, then, and we'll see less "lose 25 lbs without exercising or changing your diet with this pill!" and more "Exercise and proper nutrition are necessary to maintain one's health. You'll have more energy, a better overall mental state, and happier life if you're healthy."
But to call an entire field "bankrupt," when it is merely the study of how evolution affected our psychology, is pretty much wildly ignorant.
Defining evolutionary psychology as "the study of how evolution affected our psychology" is like defining psychoanalysis as "the analysis of the human mind."
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
But to call an entire field "bankrupt," when it is merely the study of how evolution affected our psychology, is pretty much wildly ignorant.
Defining evolutionary psychology as "the study of how evolution affected our psychology" is like defining psychoanalysis as "the analysis of the human mind."
Hardly. With people like Schmitt and Buss in the field, who do extensive research in dozens of countries and huge surveys, it seems disingenuous to paint the field as bankrupt and crackpotty. Evo psych, when done right, is the study of inherited behaviors. If you're going to dispute that they exist, then I applaud you for your obstinance in the face of reality. But if you don't, then the study of them carries no negative connotations in and of itself. Are there crackpots? Yes. Are there, I'd venture to say, an incredible amount of crackpots and lazy research, more so than many other scientific field? Probably so, yes. It's very hard to be thorough, and there is not a lot known about the Pleistocene. Does that invalidate the pursuit of that knowledge?
Of course not.
Dismissing an entire field is so much easier than weighing each of its contributions against a standard of science.
But its clearly preffered.
Look at Tyra Banks' career, she went into swimsuits because being 130 pounds (ie no bones sticking out) wasn't acceptable at the highest levels of modeling, so she switched to Victoria's secret and swimsuits.
Im pretty sure nearly every guy in the world would rather bang a victoria's secret or swimsuit model then a runway model...
i think runway models are the closest thing we can get to human clothes hangers, so they do a good job showing us what our clothes will look like hanging in our closet and also what they look like being worn by people at the same time.
Victorias Secret models show us what we want our women too look like when we remove the clothes the runway models show us.
Im pretty sure nearly every guy in the world would rather bang a victoria's secret or swimsuit model then a runway model...
i think runway models are the closest thing we can get to human clothes hangers, so they do a good job showing us what our clothes will look like hanging in our closet and also what they look like being worn by people at the same time.
Victorias Secret models show us what we want our women too look like when we remove the clothes the runway models show us.
Some runway models have pretty faces... as long as their cheeks aren't sunken from hunger.
"It's a way to put sexism on the agenda," said Beth Ditto, the lead singer for The Gossip.
"All this stuff completely negates what feminism stands for, and you can't act like that's not connected to other issues."
Wasn't she the fat woman on the front of a music magazine naked recently? And lots of feminists bloggers went off on one about how fat was sexy. That was weird.
Wasn't she the fat woman on the front of a music magazine naked recently? And lots of feminists bloggers went off on one about how fat was sexy. That was weird.
Yes.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Posts
Yeah, to do what they do you have to be in shape in a very specific way. If you met a serious bodybuilder with that body type you can tell that it's not fat.
Again, not with the heavyweights. Bodybuilders overuse of HGH leaves them looking like fat guys with pot bellies in the off season. With shirts on they're both going to look the same despite a 10%+ difference in bodyfat.
I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of the science behind this idea, Larger stronger fat guys don't typically get made fun of. Although that could have something to do with survival instinct. You don't laugh at something that can twist you into a pretzel.
On the other hand, I do have a serious issue with "fat activists." These people have their own organization, the NAAFA, and have a section on their website that lists famous fat people. Among the heifers? Gautama Buddha. These people aren't just fat, they're fucking stupid, too.
They propogate this bullshit idea that your body is just the way it is. Yes, for some people, they have less control over their weight than other individuals due to a variety of genetic or medical problems. Obesity has been linked to the absense of a certain protein which shuts down the hunger feeling from the hypothalamus. How many people lack this protein? About .05% have been shown to lack the ability to discern between hunger and non-hunger, and just about covers your cases of extreme obesity that show up on TLC every now and then. Thyroid and gastro-intestinal problems with digestion or processing account for another 3-5%, according a 2006 APA journal on obesity in America.
Anybody that doesn't fall into these categories has average control over their weight, but may still suffer from a handful of psychological disorders, or was basically trained to eat the way they eat. These fucking NAAFA people need to turn their slogan around. They need to understand. They need to support themselves. They need to accept fault. Do they have to conform? No. Do we have to respect their decision? Yes. Do they get to treat their weight as something which they can't control? No.
Pay for the two seats you take up on the plane.
Edit: Fat ass hall of fame. Not only was at least one of the individuals on here skinny because he starved himself under a fucking tree for ages, but many of them died because of obesity/health related issues. Fuck, why don't they just list Chris Penn and remove all doubt?
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Seriously. Evo Psych is pretty awesome as far as I'm concerned. Doesn't mean it can explain everything, but certain areas it certainly can.
Check out Robin Baker's Sperm Wars for an example of good evo psych.
The way it's been implemented historically has been pretty abhorrent. It's been, for the most part, men trying to justify a culturally patriachal society and the way that patriarchy works.
There is some good to be had of it, as somebody mentioned the anthropological aspect earlier. We're headed that direction, but there are still remnants of the bad shit nowadays, as evinced by this article. There's a modicum, a seed of knowledge in the study and the article, but it's application and spurious conclusions are utter crap.
Because i think most people see it as something new, trying to give excuses to people for doing evil shit. The bullies on the playground made fun of the fat kid because he was an asshole. Not because he was just doing his evolutionary duty. I can just wait for this to be used as a criminal defense. "I had to kill the fat guy, before his fat disease spread!"
The article is rather unpersuasive when making the case that we perceive fat people as diseased, though.
Not really. It goes up to a certain point. Sure, women with wider hips and generally fuller figures have traditionally been the benchmark for beauty (I don't understand the stick woman fetish, honestly) but fat? As in, obese? No, not at all. The same for men. We want people who are well fed, but well fed != fat.
Few people find stick thin women attractive. Models aren't chosen for their attractiveness in a traditional sense, rather to show off the cloths.
I know that about models (gf modeled before we met). However, the fetish for, say, anorexic women is really weird to me.
Then again, lots of fetishes are really weird to me.
I'm not about to call this particular example great science or anything, but is it that unreasonable to submit that the basis of certain behaviors can be pretty irrational?
Wow, Godwined in the OP...
Also, did a sentence get cut out in the article? Like, it randomly goes
Where the hell did that come from?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3429903.stm
There's a few other african countries that the BBC has news stories about where they imply that fallingman is correct (up to a point I imagine). Although standard disclaimer on things you read on the internet.
Even if the article is correct, it's dying out (luckily, since force feeding is horrible). It's interesting, though; I didn't run across it when doing a cross-cultural analysis of beauty. Mostly, you find that poorer areas prize weight more than richer areas since obtaining sufficient food is difficult when you're poor. I would take that example as a significant aberration from the norm, as much so as the aforementioned anorexic fetish.
Also, when someone says "In some parts of the world..." warning flags go up. I could say almost anything (say, "In some parts of the world, people inject themselves with their own feces") and lo and behold, you can find examples of that (I can't remember the name of the disorder, but it exists).
I thought it was because it was hard to get fat in those countries, while in the US its hard to stay thin.
The problem is that the majority of them don't put in the effort.
The standard evo psych method is to take a behavior they perceive as common and try to find parallels in the imagined environment of prehistorical humans. Then once a parallel is found they declare that the behavior must have an evolutionary, and therefore biological, basis.
Problems with this approach:
- They often fail to check if the behavior is universal across cultures.
- They rarely check to see if the behavior is as common in their own culture as they presume.
- They make hypotheses about early human behavior without acknowledging alternative explanations.
- That a given behavior had adaptive advantages early in the formation of human culture does not imply that the behavior is genetic rather than cultural in origin.
- Once an explanation is found, they dust of their hands and say 'my work here is done.' It's rare that they'll actually dig deeper and attempt to look for the genes they posit must exist.
Evolutionary psychology is not a scientific approach. They don't develop falsifiable hypotheses which they then attempt to test using experimental or observational data. They take existing data and try to construct narratives about it based on incomplete information. In this way, it's basically a pseudoscience - no matter the behavior, they can construct an arbitrarily complicated and circuitous evolutionary explanation for it.
There are other people who are using the actual scientific method to try to find evolutionary and biological foundations for human behavior - they just tend to call themselves cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists rather than evolutionary psychologists.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That's kind of a dumb thing to say.
I's not enough if some people do it. It's more if something is a culturally accepted norm somewhere. For example: It's hard to say romantic love is evolutionary because in so many cultures romantic love is far from the accepted norms.
That's one of the purposes of real anthropology: to dispel preconcieved notions about humanity. Some of this Evo psych stuff is really old fashioned armchair anthropology in a new form since it really only takes one cultures perspective.
That's being said I think a global study on attitudes towards weight would be an interesting subject of study.
But its clearly preffered.
Look at Tyra Banks' career, she went into swimsuits because being 130 pounds (ie no bones sticking out) wasn't acceptable at the highest levels of modeling, so she switched to Victoria's secret and swimsuits.
Which part - the evo psych being bankrupt part, or the baby slinging part?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You have control over your weight. In the end, it is a choice.
Both.
The otherwise perfectly valid field of Evolutionary Psychology has garnered a bad name from the crackpots who use it to justify their cultural biases and oppressions. But to call an entire field "bankrupt," when it is merely the study of how evolution affected our psychology, is pretty much wildly ignorant.
Oh, I certainly agree (being an Anthro major myself......ethno and cultural, physical kind of bored me). I'm just saying that claims to certain things being the norm in certain areas of the world needs far more evidence than is usually presented (that article being an example, given that even at its peak, only about 33% of the women were force fed and made obese). So to say that the overall standard for beauty was "the fatter the better" is not the truth; the truth was that some people in that culture wanted their wives to be obese, not because obesity itself was desirable, but that it indicated that their husbands loved them and took good care of them. And now it's changing, making it hardly a cultural norm then and even less of one now.
I don't even know how you'd do a global study on attitudes toward weight. You'd have to take into account the scarcity of food in certain areas of the world, which has a major impact on weight attitudes. Then genetics is a factor (the one island where the vast majority of people are obese due to genetic factors is one example) along with climate, local agricultural traditions/access to the global food market, and common lifestyle.
I agree that it's interesting, I just think that it's very complex and possibly not even useful. We know how to measure health pretty well; people should be in shape and eating well. Instead of focusing on weight, we should be focusing on overall health. The weight issue will take care of itself, then, and we'll see less "lose 25 lbs without exercising or changing your diet with this pill!" and more "Exercise and proper nutrition are necessary to maintain one's health. You'll have more energy, a better overall mental state, and happier life if you're healthy."
Defining evolutionary psychology as "the study of how evolution affected our psychology" is like defining psychoanalysis as "the analysis of the human mind."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Hardly. With people like Schmitt and Buss in the field, who do extensive research in dozens of countries and huge surveys, it seems disingenuous to paint the field as bankrupt and crackpotty. Evo psych, when done right, is the study of inherited behaviors. If you're going to dispute that they exist, then I applaud you for your obstinance in the face of reality. But if you don't, then the study of them carries no negative connotations in and of itself. Are there crackpots? Yes. Are there, I'd venture to say, an incredible amount of crackpots and lazy research, more so than many other scientific field? Probably so, yes. It's very hard to be thorough, and there is not a lot known about the Pleistocene. Does that invalidate the pursuit of that knowledge?
Of course not.
Dismissing an entire field is so much easier than weighing each of its contributions against a standard of science.
I was wondering about that too. There's a joke here about how women make everything about feminism. But seriously. It's unrelated.
So? Are you actually trying to make a point here?
i think runway models are the closest thing we can get to human clothes hangers, so they do a good job showing us what our clothes will look like hanging in our closet and also what they look like being worn by people at the same time.
Victorias Secret models show us what we want our women too look like when we remove the clothes the runway models show us.
Some runway models have pretty faces... as long as their cheeks aren't sunken from hunger.
Speak for yourself.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Wasn't she the fat woman on the front of a music magazine naked recently? And lots of feminists bloggers went off on one about how fat was sexy. That was weird.
He can speak for me.
Sure, as long as we also refrain from making generalizations about what men, collectively, find attractive, because (zomg) there are variations.
Yes.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Thirded.