U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-08-2012, 08:53 AM
 
1,119 posts, read 1,211,005 times
Reputation: 652

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
Sexual reproduction.
ok whatever
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-09-2012, 07:26 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,662 posts, read 76,357,401 times
Reputation: 36232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
Sexual reproduction.
Exactly. Scientists who are beautiful are more likely to be chosen as mates, to contribute their scientific intellect into the gene pool and make more scientists who are brilliant (and beautiful), furthering the success of the human species in competition with the cockroaches.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2012, 08:33 AM
 
Location: Westwood, MA
3,826 posts, read 4,941,851 times
Reputation: 4874
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Exactly. Scientists who are beautiful are more likely to be chosen as mates, to contribute their scientific intellect into the gene pool and make more scientists who are brilliant (and beautiful), furthering the success of the human species in competition with the cockroaches.
Wrong. Even stupid, ugly women can get men to impregnate them. If you don't believe me, just watch any trashy daytime talk show. Even unattractive female scientists have pretty good odds of finding a mate if that's what they want. That's not a reasonable explanation for objectifying a bunch of female scientists; it certainly doesn't excuse objectifying a bunch of teenagers as appears to have been done in later links. Try again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2012, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,662 posts, read 76,357,401 times
Reputation: 36232
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom View Post
Wrong. Even stupid, ugly women can get men to impregnate them. If you don't believe me, just watch any trashy daytime talk show. Even unattractive female scientists have pretty good odds of finding a mate if that's what they want. That's not a reasonable explanation for objectifying a bunch of female scientists; it certainly doesn't excuse objectifying a bunch of teenagers as appears to have been done in later links. Try again.
The question was:
"What does beauty has to do with science?" The answer was:
"Sexual reproduction"

I agreed with the answer, and I think that answer is on pretty firm scientific footing. Biololgically, physical attraction is undisputed as a factor in mate selection.

Relying on trashy daytime talk shows as a primary resource produces Todd Akin science.

Last edited by jtur88; 09-09-2012 at 09:51 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2012, 09:59 AM
 
Location: Westwood, MA
3,826 posts, read 4,941,851 times
Reputation: 4874
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
The question was:
"What does beauty has to do with science?" The answer was:
"Sexual reproduction"

I agreed with the answer, and I think that answer is on pretty firm scientific footing. Biololgically, physical attraction is undisputed as a factor in mate selection.
What does mate selection have to do with science? Certainly scientists can be selected as mates, but even that is a tenuous connection at best. It would be like a discussion of the 2012 NFL season centered on which players were the most attractive. Interesting to those who like looking at attractive men, but related to football about as much as any of these discussions have been related to science.

And considering that women are the bottlenecks in mate selection rather than men (meaning that females are generally much more selective of mates than males), it doesn't really make any difference how attractive female scientists are, they will be able to find someone to impregnate them (or be able to simply purchase donated sperm, barring the absence of an acceptable mate). So while physical attraction is a factor in mate selection, mate selection isn't a relevant issue.

Men like looking at pictures of attractive women, so they get posted and people make silly comments. The only thing it has to do with science is that these women happen to be scientists (and engineers).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2012, 03:04 PM
 
15,922 posts, read 17,868,038 times
Reputation: 7647
The way this thread has changed is hilarious, it actually took until the 10th post for the thread to be hijacked....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2012, 07:31 PM
 
Location: God's Gift to Mankind for flying anything
5,422 posts, read 11,471,892 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom View Post
Why would a tenured or tenure-tracked professor go work for a Wall Street Firm? I think the world is a better place when we can let scientists do science.
You must be misunderstanding what it means to be called *a Wall Street Firm* ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2012, 10:06 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,662 posts, read 76,357,401 times
Reputation: 36232
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom View Post
What does mate selection have to do with science? .
It depends on whether you think evolutionary processes have anything to do with science of not,

Mate choice, or intersexual selection, is an evolutionary process in which selection of a mate depends on attractiveness of its traits. It is one of two components of sexual selection (the other is male-male competition or intrasexual selection). Darwin first introduced his ideas on sexual selection in 1871 but advances in genetic and molecular techniques have led to major progress in this field recently.

Mate choice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2012, 04:08 AM
 
Location: Westwood, MA
3,826 posts, read 4,941,851 times
Reputation: 4874
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
All female scientists are beautiful, but some of them just barely. Here's the winner of the 2011 Google Science Fair, who is also exceptionally beautiful.

Google Science Fair Grand Prize Winner 2011 – Shree Bose

The runners-up weren't bad, either

http://shreebose.com/wp-content/uplo...hite-house.jpg
Google Science Fair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Google Science Fair is an online science competition sponsored by Google, Lego, CERN, National Geographic and Scientific American.[1][2][3] It was announced in January 2011; all entries were due at 11:59:59 pm Eastern Daylight Time on April 7, 2011 and judging occurred in July 2011. The competition is open to 13–18 year old students around the globe, who formulate a hypothesis, perform an experiment, and present their results.[1][2] All students must have an internet connection and a free Google Account to participate, as the projects are submitted through Google Sites in English, German, Italian, Spanish, or French.[4] The final submission must include ten sections, which are the summary, an "About Me" page, the steps of the project, and a works cited page.[5]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
It depends on whether you think evolutionary processes have anything to do with science of not,

Mate choice, or intersexual selection, is an evolutionary process in which selection of a mate depends on attractiveness of its traits. It is one of two components of sexual selection (the other is male-male competition or intrasexual selection). Darwin first introduced his ideas on sexual selection in 1871 but advances in genetic and molecular techniques have led to major progress in this field recently.

Mate choice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If that's what you use to justify posting links to pictures of teenagers and commenting on their attractiveness then go with it. Mate selection in nature is certainly relevant to evolutionary biology. Posting pictures and links to pictures of attractive women has about as much to do with a intellectual discussion of mate selection as posting pictures of topless women has to do with a discussion of infant nutrition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2012, 11:14 AM
 
Location: Here.
14,554 posts, read 13,274,329 times
Reputation: 17030
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom View Post
What does mate selection have to do with science? Certainly scientists can be selected as mates, but even that is a tenuous connection at best. It would be like a discussion of the 2012 NFL season centered on which players were the most attractive. Interesting to those who like looking at attractive men, but related to football about as much as any of these discussions have been related to science.

And considering that women are the bottlenecks in mate selection rather than men (meaning that females are generally much more selective of mates than males), it doesn't really make any difference how attractive female scientists are, they will be able to find someone to impregnate them (or be able to simply purchase donated sperm, barring the absence of an acceptable mate). So while physical attraction is a factor in mate selection, mate selection isn't a relevant issue.

Men like looking at pictures of attractive women, so they get posted and people make silly comments. The only thing it has to do with science is that these women happen to be scientists (and engineers).
First of all let me thank jtur88 for explaining and defending my apparently not so humorous rhetorical answer.

I have to disagree that this is comparable to football. Football is mainly appealing to men and football players are not ranked by men based on their attractiveness, but by their playing abilities. Whereas with science, which is also mainly appealing to men, the few women who are interested in science will be ranked by men not based solely on their scientific abilities, but their attractiveness. Now, if you had a bunch of female football fans, they would rank male football players based on attractiveness more than ability.

While it is true that even ugly women can be impregnated, this does not disprove the fact that men are more eager to impregnate attractive women than unattractive women. Thus, scientifically, a male geek would be more inclined to be attractive to attractive female scientists and post pictures of them on a website where he knows other male geeks would appreciate them. And that my friends is worthy of a Noble Prize.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top