Thoughts on the Sartorialist

[wojt]



Why don't you send me a link to the actual study? Academic papers are full of things like methodology, citations, and detailed claims that a 6 minute video cannot substitute for. Even the links you provided didn't link to actual studies, but rather exceedingly brief articles on the subject. I'm being serious, if you want me to review evidence, send me real evidence (i.e.: the actual studies), preferably that you have read yourself so that we can discuss it intelligently.

http://courses.washington.edu/evpsych/SexDifferencesinJealousy.pdf
this is the articule mentioned

 

[Caustic Man]

Well, that's a research report. It's not the same thing as an academic paper on a particular subject. It's basically no better than the layman's articles you linked to before because it's a basic summary of what was done rather than a detailed description of it. But just for the sake of fun, can I assume you've read it and will be ready to discuss it?

 

[wojt]

yes you can

 

[Caustic Man]

Good, now what do you think could be wrong with this study?

 

[Inter]

Well, that's a research report. It's not the same thing as an academic paper on a particular subject. It's basically no better than the layman's articles you linked to before because it's a basic summary of what was done rather than a detailed description of it.

Just chiming in here to say that this is definitely an academic article. It's as detailed as it needs to be. It's a simple method with simple analyses, even for the 90s. There's not much to write up. You'd be hard pressed to get more than 4 or 5 pages out of it.

 

[double00]

holy threadjack batman!

*POW!*

*BIFF!*

 

[wojt]



Good, now what do you think could be wrong with this study?

well for starters it would have ahard time convincing a creationist who doesn't believe in evolution or someone who haven't read it, and you?

ps. next time before you use term 'layman' i'd suggest you at least care to find out who the author is

 

[derrida26]

Why don't you send me a link to the actual study? Academic papers are full of things like methodology, citations, and detailed claims that a 6 minute video cannot substitute for. Even the links you provided didn't link to actual studies, but rather exceedingly brief articles on the subject. I'm being serious, if you want me to review evidence, send me real evidence (i.e.: the actual studies), preferably that you have read yourself so that we can discuss it intelligently.

While I agree with you in general, I don't think that something needs to be an academic paper with citations, etc. in order to be useful for intellectual discussion. I mean if his point is relatively simple, then a 6 minute video may be able to suffice for the claims involved — I think the burden of proof is on you, in fact, to show why exactly the video isn't sufficient in explaining the study.

 

[Spehsmonkey]

Oh evo psych...why don't we extrapolate the behaviors, cultures, and psyches of ancient humans to make a claim about present-day humans from just about the most fragmentary fossil record imaginable, some dust, and contemporary sociocultural practices? It's a testament to how much the scientific community can at times have its head up its ass that this field has any legitimacy.

 

[wojt]



Oh evo psych...why don't we extrapolate the behaviors, cultures, and psyches of ancient humans to make a claim about present-day humans from just about the most fragmentary fossil record imaginable, some dust, and contemporary sociocultural practices? It's a testament to how much the scientific community can at times have its head up its ass that this field has any legitimacy.

Yea right.. because we can observe and learn about sex practises of apes, lions and other mamals, but the moment we touch humans it's having a head up your ass and bs. Humans are not immune to evolving behaviours you know.

 

[Caustic Man]

well for starters it would have ahard time convincing a creationist who doesn't believe in evolution or someone who haven't read it, and you?

Alright, you're not prepared to discuss it seriously. Thanks anyway.

 

[Spehsmonkey]



Yea right.. because we can observe and learn about sex practises of apes, lions and other mamals, but the moment we touch humans it's having a head up your ass and bs. Humans are not immune to evolving behaviours you know.

Observational studies have their place, but observation alone does not equal experimentation, which is what you need to make/hint at a strong evidence-based causal claim in a wildly complex system. Epidemiological studies on smoking hit at some middle ground here, for example. But more importantly, observation of modern humans with social structures that are significantly more complex than those of animals is not observation of ancient human ancestors. Our "observation" of ancestors relies on extremely limited and fragmentary evidence that would not fly in another scientific discipline

 

[double00]

Alright, you're not prepared to discuss it seriously. Thanks anyway. You are dismissed.

ftfy!

 

[LA Guy]

http://courses.washington.edu/evpsych/SexDifferencesinJealousy.pdf
this is the articule mentioned

So, I read the study.

I have trouble immediately with the methods used. The questions are very broad and the parameters are ill defined. To ask your subjects to "imagine" something both has no controls and is perhaps impossible to control. Moreover, the question is much too broadly worded. In the question, the wording "interested in" is not necessarily mean "sexually interested in" for all subjects. The interpretation is dependent on the subject. You can't control for that, and there was not even a follow up question to try to glean more accurate data.

Also, there are a wide range of "former, present, or desired" partners, and each subject's relationship to those and history with those would very highly color their answers.

Let's not even address the fact that what constitutes "interested in" is highly culturally contextual. In some cultures, looking at an attached member of the opposite sex is verboten. In others, you can have intimate dinners with an attached member of the opposite sex and it's seen as normal.

There are a bazillion issues with this study, even at a cursory glance.

If I had been chosen as a reviewer, this would not have been published in its current form, even as a report.

 

[LA Guy]

well for starters it would have ahard time convincing a creationist who doesn't believe in evolution or someone who haven't read it, and you?

ps. next time before you use term 'layman' i'd suggest you at least care to find out who the author is

Just for the sake of clarity, a "layman's" article does not say anything about the author, but about the intended audience. In my (pre-internet business thing) life, I was definitely not a layman, but I did write articles/briefs/summaries for people without any background in the field about which I was writing. Those were layman's articles, or "Popular" articles.