Looks or Game? - Page 3

On February 14 2008 02:27 sawseech wrote: ya cuz we have such a nice sample for that shit don't forget to cite the bible next time argue the genes if you want. don't cite evolution in a vacuum. that's just fucking retarded.

a question was asked and i was merely responding in an appropriate way to try to communicate my knowledge. If you wanted me to cite this (which I have done since) you should have asked politely. There's no reason to be rude and if you had taken the time to see if this was a well accepted theory you would not be in this situation.

Solution for you two:

Start obfuscating and posting some one liners

On February 14 2008 02:53 KeanuReaver wrote: more explanation 0 anecdotal evidence i guess it's hard to test this sort of thing so because it sounds logical it should be accepted arguing this point is severely cutting into my masturbation time

the evidence is in the academic studies. I'm guessing most of them were likely done in US colleges too. You don't get to have established and accepted theories without evidence. I'm glad u admit it's logical and i think you're saying it should be accepted (not sure of this)

2. ^ Berscheid, Ellen; Walster, Elaine H. (1969). Interpersonal Attraction. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.. CCCN 69-17443.
3. ^ John P. Swaddle, Innes C. Cuthill [1]

* Kubitschek, Warren N., and Maureen T. Hallinan. Social Psychology Quarterly; Tracking and Students' Friendships. Vol. 61. American Sociological Association, 1998.
* Montoya, R. Matthew, and Robert S. Horton. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; on the Importance of Cognitive Evaluation as a Determinant of Interpersonal Attraction. (Author Abstract). Vol. 86. American Psychological Association, Inc, 2004.
* Aronson, Elliot, Timothy D. Wilson, and Robin M. Akert. Social Psychology Sixth Edition. New Jersey: Upper Saddle River, 2007.

accepted by who? evolutionary behaviourists with the aggregate scientific reputation of my ass? plz.

you're saying that anthropology = psychology = sociology = evolutionary biology = genetics

pick a fucking line and argue it

obv ur not going to find research journals or full published texts on this online the same way you can't find medical journals online without paying steeply. I knew a professor who studied in a similar field and these journals/evidence are simply not found online at least not without paid memberships to specific sites. BUT, that being said, theories don't become officially recognized scientific theories without convincing evidence (not these days at least)

yknow what, i give up

no, what im arguing is that people are way too quick to accept an evolutionary explanation about something with very little anecdotal evidence and insufficient research because it sounds good.

On February 14 2008 03:03 sawseech wrote: you're saying that anthropology = psychology = sociology = evolutionary biology = genetics pick a fucking line and argue it

lol, this is a great one liner, err two liner trying to confuse me, no?
I'm not saying anything that isn't already there.

Do you disagree that many of our emotions are based in evolution?
(btw, this is a double bind, i don't want you to look stupid by saying yes here)

On February 14 2008 03:06 KeanuReaver wrote: no, what im arguing is that people are way too quick to accept an evolutionary explanation about something with very little anecdotal evidence and insufficient research because it sounds good.

so now what you're arguing is that the world jumps to conclusions. You jumped to a conclusion when you started flaming the theory i posted and tried to rip it to shreds without ANY evidence against it. Even if i don't have evidence personally supporting it or if that evidence would cost me the price of an Ebook U flamed me when flaming this idea which it cannot be argued .... CANNOT BE ARGUED that this is less worthy that the other posts that say... 65% looks 5% game... lOLZ

i'm the only one in this forum trying to add something real and accepted... something WITH EVIDENCE and I'm the only one that gets flamed?

U, my friend, are too quick to flame

i haven't changed my argument at all, although personally i do think the world jumps to conclusions whether it be the scientific community or anyone else. i suppose that's because people tend to be relatively impatient? probably has something to do with evolution, after all i suppose cavemens couldn't wait for food to be brought to their caves, they had to go out and hunt it.

but thats beside the point

my argument started with "explanation is not enough, lets see some anecdotal evidence" and has since become "people accept explanation too quick, more anecdotal evidence is needed". it's the same thing.

cas argument started "research and sample size are insufficient to accept such theories, doing so is idiocy" and has since become "uh psychology is not evolutionary biology, nor is genetics; stay on track".

i mean hell, we can rationalize that because early man had to adapt to so many different environments that style and personality adapted to follow suit (ggs argument really). because of this we can just dismiss anthropology, sociology, and psychology all together as subsets of evolutionary biology. infact we might as well eliminate the nature vs nurture argument as well since nurture is nothing more than the consequence of nature anyway. point is, these are entirely different subjects of study and to mix them together would be as confusing and pointless as mixing every possible physical science together into one giant math amalgamation.

sure, they all have their overlaps and similarities, but they are different. you haven't argued that evolution is the cause of sexual attraction you've argued that evolution, psychology, genetics, and anthropology are the cause of sexual attraction.

now my argument has changed
but i don't feel like arguing the point
i still have to masturbate

btw, 1 more point, you were saying "use genetics, compare us to monkeys but leave evolution out"... that's a paraphrase (correct me if i'm wrong) but evolution and genetics are very tied

It is not really arguable if u believe in evolution at all that in many species one sex will perform a show/dance for a member of the opposite sex he/she is trying to seduce

Peacocks show their feathers, many other animals have mating calls where the opposite gender assesses the likely health of their potential mate through the strength of their voice... there are hundreds of examples of this, maybe thousands

these things have evolved and both obviously pertain to genetics and evolution

the human being is simply one of those species and arguing that we don't find traits that are symptoms of good health attractive is the same as arguing that a peacock doesn't spread it's wings for sexual purposes and that the female peacock (i think it's the male one that displays his feathers) always seems to prefer the one with healthier feathers and have sex with that one for totally arbitrary reasons... it's been a series of ridiculous coincidences

On February 14 2008 03:33 KeanuReaver wrote: i haven't changed my argument at all, although personally i do think the world jumps to conclusions whether it be the scientific community or anyone else. i suppose that's because people tend to be relatively impatient? probably has something to do with evolution, after all i suppose cavemens couldn't wait for food to be brought to their caves, they had to go out and hunt it. but thats beside the point my argument started with "explanation is not enough, lets see some anecdotal evidence" and has since become "people accept explanation too quick, more anecdotal evidence is needed". it's the same thing. cas argument started "research and sample size are insufficient to accept such theories, doing so is idiocy" and has since become "uh psychology is not evolutionary biology, nor is genetics; stay on track". i mean hell, we can rationalize that because early man had to adapt to so many different environments that style and personality adapted to follow suit (ggs argument really). because of this we can just dismiss anthropology, sociology, and psychology all together as subsets of evolutionary biology. infact we might as well eliminate the nature vs nurture argument as well since nurture is nothing more than the consequence of nature anyway. point is, these are entirely different subjects of study and to mix them together would be as confusing and pointless as mixing every possible physical science together into one giant math amalgamation. sure, they all have their overlaps and similarities, but they are different. you haven't argued that evolution is the cause of sexual attraction you've argued that evolution, psychology, genetics, and anthropology are the cause of sexual attraction.

i brought to the forefront a theory that states that men perceive women to be attractive based on traits which suggest they are more/less likely to produce healthy offspring

this is pretty much a fact

evolution certainly has a great way of explaining it

maybe genetics can explain it too

if you have so much hate for the theory then perhaps you should write an article and send it to "Popular Science" magazine
personally, i agree with the scientific community's views and theories so I have no beef but arguing here wont change what people believe and you don't seem to be arguing against it

fuck, we could say evolution is nothing more than the result of nomological possibility and thus we could say sexual attraction is math based
how cute would that be

On February 14 2008 03:50 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On February 14 2008 03:33 KeanuReaver wrote: i haven't changed my argument at all, although personally i do think the world jumps to conclusions whether it be the scientific community or anyone else. i suppose that's because people tend to be relatively impatient? probably has something to do with evolution, after all i suppose cavemens couldn't wait for food to be brought to their caves, they had to go out and hunt it. but thats beside the point my argument started with "explanation is not enough, lets see some anecdotal evidence" and has since become "people accept explanation too quick, more anecdotal evidence is needed". it's the same thing. cas argument started "research and sample size are insufficient to accept such theories, doing so is idiocy" and has since become "uh psychology is not evolutionary biology, nor is genetics; stay on track". i mean hell, we can rationalize that because early man had to adapt to so many different environments that style and personality adapted to follow suit (ggs argument really). because of this we can just dismiss anthropology, sociology, and psychology all together as subsets of evolutionary biology. infact we might as well eliminate the nature vs nurture argument as well since nurture is nothing more than the consequence of nature anyway. point is, these are entirely different subjects of study and to mix them together would be as confusing and pointless as mixing every possible physical science together into one giant math amalgamation. sure, they all have their overlaps and similarities, but they are different. you haven't argued that evolution is the cause of sexual attraction you've argued that evolution, psychology, genetics, and anthropology are the cause of sexual attraction. i brought to the forefront a theory that states that men perceive women to be attractive based on traits which suggest they are more/less likely to produce healthy offspring this is pretty much a fact evolution certainly has a great way of explaining it maybe genetics can explain it too if you have so much hate for the theory then perhaps you should write an article and send it to "Popular Science" magazine personally, i agree with the scientific community's views and theories so I have no beef but arguing here wont change what people believe and you don't seem to be arguing against it

running around in circles isn't any fun

Less talk, more pictures

--- Nuked ---

also there fields are a little intermingled because while evolution is normally thought of as physical changes in a species, there is now a branch of science that studies are our emotional framework has evolved through time... for instance, while fight/flight mechanism is physical, it is also emotional. The idea that we feel emotions for purely arbitrary reasons is silly. Instead they were evolved and they are designed in such a way as to be advantageous to us from an evolutionary standpoint. I know an author sharing the same name as me has done some work on the subject, ----------

On February 14 2008 03:51 KeanuReaver wrote: fuck, we could say evolution is nothing more than the result of nomological possibility and thus we could say sexual attraction is math based how cute would that be

circles? restating well founded points taht you refuse to recognize is not going in circles. Oh, and yes, if we had all the countless variables and the exact code, i'm sure that the level of sexual attraction could be mathematically derived

On February 14 2008 03:51 KeanuReaver wrote: fuck, we could say evolution is nothing more than the result of nomological possibility and thus we could say sexual attraction is math based how cute would that be

or did u think it was magical?

now that's cute