No, but it accounts for virgin fetishes, foot binding, female seclusion, rape as property damage, female genital mutilation. and the general trend of controlling women and their sexuality- a topic that EP enthusiasts prefer to trace to cavemen.
And, that tells us jack shit about “human nature” or caveman mating practices, because large populations of blue eyed people are only found in a few, very specific, relatively similar societies.
Enjoy the caricature.
Something more interesting than your incorrect perceptions:
Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children
Even in this study, their ideology shows through. In their discussion, they say there study shows that “pink and blue toy aisle” represent “natural” tendencies. Except that in their study, they show that males show a strong preference for wheeled toys (which they call “male toys”) and females show a fairly even preference for both plush and wheeled toys. If females are equally happy to play with the wheeled toys, how does it make sense to call the wheeled toys “male” and the plush ones “female”? And how does this support the toy aisle dichotomy? It’d make more sense, according to the study, for toy stores to have one unisex aisle, and one female-targeted aisle.
A fairly good example of taking a study of instincts (males prefer wheeled toys and females don’t show a strong preference between plush and wheeled toys) and trying to smash it into an ideology ("there are ‘boy’ toys and ‘girl’ toys and it’s natural for toys to be gendered in the pink-blue dichotomy of today’s toy marketing.)
More stuff to misread. This time its oxytocin/vasopressin. Now that I got more free time I think I will spend more time on it. It’s always been an interesting topic. Just so weird how all this genetic variation seems to be associated with human behavioral variation.
Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism <– this isn’t about genetic variation
Oxytocin receptor (OXTR) and serotonin transporter (5-HTT) genes associated with observed parenting
Genetics of Human Social Behavior <– a free review, has that prairie vole, meadow vole stuff in it.
How did I misread the toy study?
Yep, I agree that even sven-flavour EP is pseudoscience.
Normal EP however is not (not intrinsically anyway; like all sciences it is not immune to cranks).
The wiki page on EP is as good a place to start as any.
You see that sexuality is only one small facet of EP, and it is usually just considering broad observations, e.g. the general male willingness to engage in “transactional” sex, and general female hesitance.
Nitpick 1: that’s not in their discussion. I think it’s their introduction, although the section’s not labeled. Nitpick 2: They refer to the wheeled toys as “putatively male toys.” That word “putatively” is important.
Non-nitpick: they never suggest that girls don’t play with putatively male toys, and indeed go quite some distance to suggesting that girls play equally with such toys. I can’t imagine why you’d pull one sentence out of context to suggest otherwise, unless you’re taking a study of instincts and trying to smash it into an ideology.
I never said different. Their findings make this clear. What gets messy is when they try to say stuff like this:
[QUOTE=that study]
The “pink” and “blue” aisles in toy stores thus reflect marked gender preferences for activities and not necessarily societal imposition of gender norms on boys and girls.
[/QUOTE]
Which is something that their results don’t actually support. The toy world of rhesus monkeys would probably have one small pink aisle of toys appealing to part of the female population, and a large “purple” aisle of toys appealing to both boys and girls.
Agreed that that sentence in their introduction could have been worded better. Baffled why that’s the one sentence in the entire thing you’re focused on, when the rest of their paper is clearly saying something else.
I took it as a metaphorical sentence and it really is throwaway in the context of everything else they said in their introduction. Unless of course, you are looking for holes.
Here’s some stuff on society’s complete failure to raise what are genetically boys as females due to their feminine phenotype:
Androgens and the Evolution of Male-Gender Identity among Male Pseudohermaphrodites with 5α-Reductase Deficiency
And of course, the classic cautionary tale about trying to ignore our biology:
As nature made him: the boy who was raised as a girl
Because when papers get sloppy like this and say things they don’t mean but which fit a particular agenda, other people walk away saying “It’s okay to buy my girl toy vacuums and my boy science kids, because science says that’s the natural order of things!.”
Just like they walk away saying “It’s natural for women to make less money than men” or “It’s natural to be so attracted to a scantily clad woman that you might rape her” or “It’s natural for black people to fall lower on the achievement scale.”
This is a topic that you can’t get sloppy about, even a little bit, because it is so often misused.
I know Pinker seems to be so popular around here, but you should never ignore Daly and Wilson. This wikipedia article summarizes some of their work on the Cinderella Effect: the biasing of parental investment toward related offspring.
Not only are adopted children 7x more likely to be selectively abused by adoptive parents, but there is also the biasing of adoptions toward kin. Then there is the biasing of inheritances toward biological children.
I wonder how else we might find evidence of behavior improving inclusive fitness in humans? Here’s an interesting review (WARNING PDF). I have to admit that a lot of it sounds forced, but the stuff showing greater spousal similarity on highly heritable sounds pretty hard to argue with. You can find that on p.10 and it maybe takes up 3 paragraphs of your time.
I really find it interesting given some topic that has been very popular in this thread…what was it? Oh yeah, assortative mating based on eye color.
Nonsense. The article says nothing of the sort, and you’re taking one sentence entirely out of context to twist its meaning to fit your own anti-EP agenda. It’s absurd. If people are saying the sort of thing you suggest, then they’re proponents of the naturalistic fallacy and should be smacked for suggesting natural things are necessarily good.
I’ve been pointing out the weaknesses that IMO, affect both the usefulness and rigor of EP as a scientific discipline.
138 - you had some criticisms but most were based on a poor understanding of how evolution can work without “knowledge” and the rest of your post is just speculation along with psedopsychological talk. THe Elektra complex? Really? No research psychologist, especially not EPs take Freud seriously anymore. Freud is more often discussed with seriousness outside psychology.
139 - caricature.
144 - you actually think that rape, to be a reproductive strategy, would have to be the only means by which a male inseminates females.
147 - you link to a trend which shows scientists do research or something
150 - you make it clear you are creating a carictature - have my past few posts dissuaded you from that yet? Probably not.
153 - the tired pseudocriticism “Oh yeah then why do men rape their hands?” argument. Obtaining an orgasm is not about procreation. It can be a consequence but its not the point. You really ought to watch that video, about 6 min. in.
155 - cite free mumbo-jumbo…ignoring that fertile women are dispropportionately at risk for rape…not just more likely.
160 - ignoring to re-iterate…you haven’t talked about EP in a long time
162 - showing a clear pattern of saying the opposite to say the opposite. At this point you seem to be only interested in why EP is not studying child rape.
Pretty much not even discussing anything but how common child rape is or something.
177 - the difference between Darwin’s Finch’s critiques and yours is that his are plausible. None of your critiques addressed all the data. You just made up shit and piled on top thinking it added something but it didn’t.
180 - in this post you show how easily you fall victim to statistics abuse. You actually regurgitated this idiot paper’s stats when it had a mean of 11 and MODE OF 16? Anything strike you as inappropriate to you about that? It screams skew. I guarantee you the median was 14 or 15. 16 - Adolescents! What can girls do starting in their teenage years? Further hint: it starts at around 11!
188 to when I asked you the question you responded to in the your last post: question me about a factoid that is completely irrelevant to EP.
So, your first post. I am most upset about post 180. You must have known the cutoff age was 18 yet you persisted in posting the link to the stat that looked as though it bolstered your argument. How could you have missed it?
I really wish I could post the link to the full studies, but…
Ovulatory cycle effects on tip earnings by lap dancers: economic evidence for human estrus?
Changes in women’s choice of dress across the ovulatory cycle: naturalistic and laboratory task-based evidence. - so sexier women are more likely to be ovulating..hmm.
Ovulatory shifts in human female ornamentation: near ovulation, women dress to impress. and that last one was just a replication with a different design.
Ah, the “sexy period” ones are my favorite, since they clearly illustrate the authors have never actually bothered to speak to a living woman.
You know what happens after your period? All your frumpy clothes are dirty because you’ve been wearing them on your gosh-darm period. So after a few days to make sure it really is over, you are eager to bust out the short, tight, light colored, filmy stuffy that you couldn’t wear when you stuck wearing your black thick-pants.
You know what else sucks to do on your period? Energetic writhing while scantily clad. That stuff leaks.
Use your brain. Try engaging in some mild lateral thinking.
if you are dancing less vigorously at one point in time, you are probably dancing more vigorously at another.
If you are dressing less provocatively at one point in time, you are probably dressing more provocatively at another.
Ovulation typically occurs a few days after bleeding stops. In other words, at exactly the point that women are thinking “Whew, my period really is over. Time to put on my long neglected miniskirt! And if I’m a stripper, it’s time to really shake my ass to make up for the lackluster tips I made last week while I was freaking out that my DivaCup was gonna spill.”
Really, thanks modern science for finally telling men who have never talked to women that women are generally more sexual soon after their period has ended…which, I’m sure has nothing to do with the fact that many women are abstinent or sexually cautious on their period. But no thanks to the pseudo-scientific musings about pheromones.
Ovulation isn’t just a few days after the period ends. You should learn more about your body.
Also, really interesting to know that women must dress provocatively to some level. Here I thought they could just dress nonprovocatively all the time if they wished.
The luteal phase occurs even further away from menstruation. The dancers peaked in tips at ovulation and it declined during the luteal phase. The outfits were more revealing at ovulation in the other study. This isn’t some carryover effect from the period. That’s controlled for in all the studies.
Here’s something unrelated on behavior and strong reciprocity: Eyes are on us, but nobody cares: are eye cues relevant for strong reciprocity?. It has an interesting and wide-ranging introduction showing all the different subfields of sociology and psychology interested in this apparently uniquely human behavior.
I never claimed belief in Freud theories. Just suggested an alternative hypothesis that strikes me as a lot more plausible than blue-eyed preference being rooted in biology. Familial bias doesn’t require much of stretching of the imagination to believe. Blue-eye males having an inheritable preference towards blue-eyed women does.
No, I never said this. I haven’t claimed that “rape is a reproductive strategy” is false. Since it involves sex and therefore carries the potential of causing impregnation (in some cases), it is not incorrect to point out what amounts to be a trivially obvious thing. Anything that can lead to procreation counts as a “reproductive strategy”.
But it’s a statement that is of little utility in helping us actually understand why people rape, which is the mistake EP enthusiaists routinely engage in (see who I was responding to). Also it fails to account for why the nature and prevalence of rape varies so widely across cultures, time periods, and societal conditions.
I’m not bothering to reply to the rest of what you wrote because some of it was misattributed to me and also was just too whiny to read. And no offense, but your objections about mode and mean are so silly, unsound, and desperate that I understand now why EP seems so persuasive to you. You’ve basically unmasked yourself as a scientific rookie.
(The mean and median in that study were 11. Which means that there was no “skewing” to speak of. Big whoop if the mode was 16! For all you know the second most common age was 5. The mode tells you very little about what a distribution looks like, especially when your sample size is large. )