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.
Obsessing over study after study of what women find attractive does not a scientist make.
I don't think I'm obsessive, I just like to read. It's what I spend 90% of my free time doing. Although that number is probably down to 70% since I joined CD.
If it were a hard science, then there'd be no debate on it.
Ever wonder why aren't debating whether planes can fly or if boats can float? Because the hard science told us so.
This little study hasn't told us anything for certain.
Exactly, and simple observation has shown us that a richer man does not win out over a less rich man at a 1000X rate.
Meanwhile, science DOES show us that controlled studies do not necessarily translate accurately to real-time situations, that self-reporting is generally unreliable, that numeric scales are slippery to comprehend and can change even from being asked one time to the next, and that visual attraction scales by no means unilaterally win out over real-time scenarios that include a variety of actual, typical factors.
I don't think I'm obsessive, I just like to read. It's what I spend 90% of my free time doing. Although that number is probably down to 70% since I joined CD.
I'm glad you read the actual study in full, please answer my questions me when you get a chance. Thanks for your help.
If it were a hard science, then there'd be no debate on it.
Ever wonder why aren't debating whether planes can fly or if boats can float? Because the hard science told us so.
This little study hasn't told us anything for certain.
It's not that it isn't "hard science" or even common sense. It's just an issue of coming to terms with the fact that our inherent characteristics are not always the most flattering. But major problems in society arise when people deny their own nature and pretend to be something else.
It's not that it isn't "hard science" or even common sense. It's just an issue of coming to terms with the fact that our inherent characteristics are not always the most flattering. But major problems in society arise when people deny their own nature and pretend to be something else.
Something else? Like what - a rhesus monkey? A porpoise? A goat?
It's not that it isn't "hard science" or even common sense. It's just an issue of coming to terms with the fact that our inherent characteristics are not always the most flattering. But major problems in society arise when people deny their own nature and pretend to be something else.
Not necessarily; actually, for a not unimpressive percentage of violent criminals, problems in society arise from NOT denying their nature.
And why is the developed human brain and its intellect not nature? The brain IS a part of the umbrella of biology. Our development that includes intellect, abstractions, critical thinking, and yes, flexibility rather than running simply on instinct have been developing in a decidedly species-specific way for easily 250,000 years now. Thinking as A REAL PART OF the late selection process is in no way a new, nor have indeed small, running and that type of reasoning is literally hardwired into is by now.
If just being supported by a guy of means were the deepest goal and indeed, literally sexually attractive, why have women been clawing for their freedom for centuries now in a huge percentage of societies? They were married off and supported, as their "biology" dictated they seek, what was the problem? If it were biology and biology in this way is always the heavier influence then why have so many women been willing to risk everything, go hungry, he outcasts, to have freedom *rather than* be given to some financially stable man?
Oh no, we're human all right, along with a brain that thinks rather than solely reacts and is flexible, and has been individual for a quarter of a million years now, give or take a few generations.
We have not run on just instinct for a very, very long time. Literally, our brains are not shaped/organized to do so.
This IS biology.
There are drawbacks. Abstract thinking makes confirmation bias possible, for example. Hint. For other animals that might literally be insanity. Not so for humans.
Not necessarily; actually, for a not unimpressive percentage of violent criminals, problems in society arise from NOT denying their nature.
And why is the developed human brain and its intellect not nature? The brain IS a part of the umbrella of biology. Our development that includes intellect, abstractions, critical thinking, and yes, flexibility rather than running simply on instinct have been developing in a decidedly species-specific way for easily 250,000 years now. Thinking as A REAL PART OF the late selection process is in no way a new, nor have indeed small, running and that type of reasoning is literally hardwired into is by now.
If just being supported by a guy of means were the deepest goal why have women been clawing for their freedom for centuries now in a huge percentage of societies? They were married off and supported, as their "biology" dictated they seek, what was the problem? If it were biology and biology in this way is always the heavier influence then why have so many women been willing to risk everything, go hungry, he outcasts, to have freedom *rather than* be given to some financially stable man?
You can modify behavior, but you can't change what you are.
Food, shelter, safety. These will always be primary among mammalian species, and probably every single species on earth. This is what motivates us, both inherently and willfully. So why are you grappling with the concept that we may choose mates based upon their ability to provide food, shelter and safety?
You can modify behavior, but you can't change what you are.
Food, shelter, safety. These will always be primary among mammalian species, and probably every single species on earth. This is what motivates us, both inherently and willfully. So why are you grappling with the concept that we may choose mates based upon their ability to provide food, shelter and safety?
Because (among other things) of the last paragraph of mine that I quoted above.
We do NOT always put our own, or anyone's survival first. That is your biggest clue.
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.
