Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They might have said that, but evo psych experiments do not comply with the Scientific Method. As such their results are unreliable to the point of being utterly worthless.
You assume too much, they showed their methods and i thought they were very compelling. Maybe not fool proof, but it is a psych experiment, hard to be 100%.
There are too many posts to read for my little brain, but my theory is that vows are simply tradition that people follow in a marriage ceremony. It doesn't mean they live by them.
There are too many posts to read for my little brain, but my theory is that vows are simply tradition that people follow in a marriage ceremony. It doesn't mean they live by them.
Well, why would you get married? What is the benefit if you dont mean? Why not just date? I guess i dont understand what your point is. I think your missing the whole point behind marriage.
You assume too much, they showed their methods and i thought they were very compelling. Maybe not fool proof, but it is a psych experiment, hard to be 100%.
I know their methods, and they are compelling to people who already have preconceived notions. However, they are unscientific and as such, have no value to an unbiased observer. It's not the least of problems in such experiments that they fail to define "status" or to isolate qualities that they claim make people attractive.
Well, why would you get married? What is the benefit if you dont mean? Why not just date? I guess i dont understand what your point is. I think your missing the whole point behind marriage.
That's a joke, right?
My point is that I think most people want to follow tradition. Tradition often means reciting the same vows. Saying those vows does not mean they will follow them.
I don't care about marriage. I am simply putting my 2 cents out there. Don't take it so seriously.
I know their methods, and they are compelling to people who already have preconceived notions. However, they are unscientific and as such, have no value to an unbiased observer. It's not the least of problems in such experiments that they fail to define "status" or to isolate qualities that they claim make people attractive.
I guess you know all and see all. Even without knowing their methods or how they came to define status. Status is not hard to define, neither is attractiveness. For example, money is an easy way to define status in our culture. I already know your going to disaggree with that statement because you have disaggreed with everything ive said.
My point is that I think most people want to follow tradition. Tradition often means reciting the same vows. Saying those vows does not mean they will follow them.
I don't care about marriage. I am simply putting my 2 cents out there. Don't take it so seriously.
I dont mean to take it so seriously, i'm just saying that it is a vow, which people are suppose to follow. Thats what vow means. My point is the same as yours, people do it out of tradition, like you said, and they dont understand the meaning of what they are doing. And because of that they cheapin it for the rest of us who do mean it. When we, as a culture, look around at married people they only see people who havent got divorced....yet.
I guess you know all and see all. Even without knowing their methods or how they came to define status. Status is not hard to define, neither is attractiveness. For example, money is an easy way to define status in our culture. I already know your going to disaggree with that statement because you have disaggreed with everything ive said.
I don't claim to know everything, but I know enough to reject claims that are specious on their face. To define status through money is erroneous, and not justified simply because it's too hard to define it otherwise. There are coops right here in New York City that you can't buy for any amount of money because you don't have the right kind of status. There are clubs that you can't join even with money, and you can't buy your way into, say, a professorship at a respectable university. No amount of money will make you a Knight of the Order of the Garter. The list is endless. So the automatic identification of status with money is a fallacy, and I will not let it slide simply because jeez louise, those evo psych people can't prove their so-called hypothesis otherwise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
