Evo-Pysch Break Throughs
by MikeGeneEffectively, the new theory–"selective investment theory"–presents a striking alternative to traditional self-interest theories of close relationships that tend to emphasize what individuals get from others, not what they give.
"Viewed through the lens of selective investment theory," Stephanie Brown said, "the fabric of close relationships appears different. Sacrifice becomes a characteristic feature of healthy, enduring relationships rather than aberrant, inexplicable, or diagnostic of pathology".
What makes selective investment theory distinctive is not only its focus on high-cost altruism, but also its premise that "selfish genes" are ultimately responsible for selfless, other-directed behavior. -Here
If you say ID theory, that's evidence that you don't understand what theory is and thus you don't understand science. If you say selective investment theory, that's a new theory in science. That new, fruitful field of evo-psych keeps coming up with new theories.
Men who have skipped lunch find larger women more attractive than their slimmer counterparts, new research has revealed.
A team of psychologists established that men who are hungry are attracted to plumper women, but the researchers found that, once they had eaten, men's taste in women reverted to those with slimmer figures.
The academics suggest the phenomenon arises from primeval associations between larger body sizes and health and survival. -Here
Why be so PC about this? This is powerful evo-psych evidence that selection shaped us to be cannibals.
July 28th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
"Why be so PC about this? This is powerful evo-psych evidence that selection shaped us to be cannibals.":shock:
"That new, fruitful field of evo-psych keeps coming up with new theories.":twisted:
Comment by Ilion — July 28, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
July 28th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
"Why be so PC about this? This is powerful evo-psych evidence that selection shaped us to be cannibals."
This would explain the prevalence of food related pet names in reference to women, like sweetie, honey, cupcake, sugar, etc…
Comment by jhudson — July 28, 2006 @ 3:53 pm
July 28th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
rofl why does this remind me of that Seinfeld episode where Newman pictures Kramer as a chicken leg.
Comment by Guts — July 28, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
July 28th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
I'd eat a fat woman.
I'd eat any woman!
If I was hungry.
But I'd prefer a fat one. Plump and juicy. Yum!
I expect I could subsist on a skinny woman, like a supermodel. But I could really live off a fat woman!
Now that's livin'!
Any fat women out there interested in corresponding with me?
Comment by Rock — July 28, 2006 @ 7:05 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
BTW, any recipes may be posted here
Comment by Rock — July 30, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/...
Comment by Rock — July 30, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
…so you're looking for my sister-in-law's prize-winning Niger-ian Upside-Down Yellowcake Surprise? Not on your life, buster! §;o)
Comment by Joy — July 30, 2006 @ 4:45 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
This anti-science banter must stop.
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2006 @ 4:52 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Hey, we didn't start it. E.O. Wilson did. Only he called it "Sociobiology" instead of Evo-Psych. Either way it's so soft that it can be considered the brie of anti-science. Though I like the term "pseudoscience" better… §;o)
Comment by Joy — July 30, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
I wonder if the "fatness" so to speak can be precisely, unsubjectively measured. In other words, where is the line between "fatness" and "slimness",and is it proportional to hunger, and can that be measured?:mrgreen:
Comment by Guts — July 30, 2006 @ 5:34 pm