Zachriel
Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
This entire thread exhibits an embarrassing richness of misunderstandings, Evolutionary psychology solves the Problem of Beauty (Goodness and Truth are next)
We start with the observation that perceptions of personal beauty are correlated with how others perceive the object of beauty.
idnet.com.au | Quote | | To assert that successfully reproducing and child rearing is the sum total of what life is about, and that there is no greater purpose or meaning is an assertion of reductionist evolutionary theory and is demeaning to women and to those who do not marry or have children. |
The *biological purpose* is to pass on one's genes (which doesn't require personal reproduction, but can involve helping close relations in their own reproduction). However, consciousness is not so constrained. A cat plays because it is fun. That it also has an important biological purpose is an orthogonal statement, and probably irrelevant to the cat.
bFast | Quote | | Watching those that are low on the evolutionary totem pole breed like rabbits (and my daughters’ birth-mother is surely not the only one) has caused me to conclude that this theory is, well, full of it. |
Um, take another look at that "evolutionary totem pole".
russ | Quote | | bFast, it’s my understanding that Darwinists’ explanation for your situation is that humans are (conveniently) no longer evolving. |
Whoever told you that is just wrong. Humans are evolving in all sorts of ways. Evolution happens every time someone dies of an illness or selects a mate.
This latter aspect of evolution can and has been tested by taking humans in one of their most sexually active stages and artificially crowding them into an enclosed structure. I think it's called a "High School". In this exaggerated environment, even the slightest misstep can result in the loss of a potential mate, a poorly chosen word, provoking a bullying response from a competitor, even a minor facial blemish. In this hyper-charged environment, social graces and conformity to cultural norms can often ensure successful mating.
Of course, some members of the species look to other than the superficial aspects of a potential mate and look for more intangible qualities, such as loyalty, sensitivity, intelligence. But this too is evolution.
idnet.com.au | Quote | | This study seems to detect self evident truth. |
All observations are evidence. There is no doubt that there has been a common wisdom, hence "lady wingman", but being able to demonstrate this empirically is what science is all about. And not everyone knew this fact or is willing to accept it...
JasonTheGreek | Quote | | So, if a man is a cheater, a scam artist, an all-around-scumbag- merely taking another woman along with him to smile at him will make him appear somewhat less scumbag-ish to the woman he wants to catch? |
Yes. I don't recommend taking scumbag lessons, but that is a typical ploy to getting laid. There is an entire repertoire.
JasonTheGreek | Quote | | Sorry, I find that people, in general, usually look at a person’s heart, their soul, what makes them unique as opposed to the superficial nonsense this study claims women look for. |
Some do. Some don't. The observation doesn't go away because you refuse to accept it. The Earth does move.
JasonTheGreek | Quote | | This is what’s wrong with this study. The absurd notion that women look for “healthy” men that can give them “healthy” children. |
And this shows what is wrong with your understanding. You don't have to look for a healthy mate. You naturally prefer them — even as you consciously look for other traits.
bdelloid | Quote | | Many of you seem to be criticizing this study, but do not seem to be questioning the actual results of this study... Evolutionary theory has a reasonable explanation for this observation... What does ID offer as an explanation for this observation ? |
I feel a ban coming on. (I have some experience in that regard.)
idnet.com.au | Quote | | The results of this study show that people are influenced by the opinions of others, both verbal and non verbal. This is not new. This does not provide confirmation that Random Mutation and Natural Selection provide the origin of this finding. |
It is consistent with what would be expected within the Theory of Evolution based on other observations of humans and observations of other, related organisms.
Avater | Quote | | I believe that this kind of behaviour is easily explained by the intelligence of the woman in question. |
Except this is the same behavior that can be seen in everything from guppies to quail.
Latemarch | Quote | | The headline claims too much. |
Quite so!
Latemarch | Quote | | he problem of beauty is only superficially dealt with between the sexes. |
The actual study doesn't purport to be anything more than the observation of a correlation.
Latemarch | Quote | | Just like conscienceness, TOE doesn’t explain the beauty in a sunset or seascape. |
Well, consciousness is still a very wide-open subject; however, it would be an overstatement to claim that the Theory of Evolution has not provided insights. This study is one such insight.
JasonTheGreek | Quote | | So, you first have to question the bold claim that people have sex to make babies, when in fact MOST sexual encounters across the globe are for pleasure, and most of these encounters include the active decision to avoid reproduction at all costs. |
Confusing proximate cause with ultimate cause. The purpose of sex from the participants view can be anything from pleasure to social bonding to reproduction. The cat doesn't much take note of biological explanations of why it plays or copulates.
JasonTheGreek | Quote | | Which is another reason I don’t think theories like this can even touch “mating” in regards to reproduction. |
In fact, monogamy has important biological advantages — as long as the male can reasonably ensure the fidelity of his partner so that he is raising his own children and not someone else's.
--------------
You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.
|
) 
However, orientation is not a choice. Differences don't have to be genetic to be valid. 
?