Humans and Instincts?

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

I have read in many places I am too lazy to look up now that a good body is a set of proportions. A ratio of hip/waste/thigh is consistantly picked by the vast majority of those polled world wide. Many cultures were polled.
Tall or short was irelelavant. Thick or thin was irrelavant. BREAST size was irrelavant. There was a set ratio that wasn't off by more than a tiny bit. This test was done with simple pencil sketches, like the "artist tests" you see on matchbook. (Can you draw Quacky the Duck?)
The single most important facial feature was symmetry.
By an odd COINCIDENCE, since we have no instincts, ( ) this ratio of bodily proportions coincides with optimum age and physical conditions for giving birth.
Symmetry is the best way to quickly determine genetic flaws.
Lopsidedness is usualy a problem or an indication of a problem in all higher animals. Uneven gate = predator's attention = less speed through loss of efficiency. Simple biomechanics, and predator stratagy. Look for the one walking funny.
Note. REALY fat women weren't considered unatractive until the proportions got too far from "ideal". If the ratio held, she was still a hottie.

By the way Molyneux, thin might look good, but thick fels good. Like the experiments with the poor little baby primate, given the choice of lifelike looking and hard, or wierd but soft and furry. The babies pick soft every time. Touch wins out over sight quite often.

And there is always the "Beauty Switch" on the wall that controles the light.
4 becomes ten at the flip, of a switch.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

How did you get them to remove sociology from the course list? Here, everyone has to take it as well as pyschology as a basic core class for general education.

[Keevan_Colton]

How did you get them to remove sociology from the course list? Here, everyone has to take it as well as pyschology as a basic core class for general education.

By giving various demonstrations such as when they spoke about their theories which had exceptions to the rule, I pointed out that what they had was not a theory...at least not in scientific terms. Gravity for example does not say "Objects attract one another with a force relative to thier mass and inversely proportional to their distance...except on the second tuesday in june." This alsoinvolved picking things up and dropping them as a visual aid.

I maintained that the teaching was counter productive as it fostered bullshit. In the finish up they decided to remove it from the required modules for my course.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

OH yea, I always see the loopholes. We are discussing theories in Sociology, and I mentioned what good is a theory that can never be proven wrong? There is always some backdoor in conflict theory, psychoanalysis, functionalism, etc.

If you pick at one thing, they just go back to some other door.

[kheegster]

How did you get them to remove sociology from the course list? Here, everyone has to take it as well as pyschology as a basic core class for general education.

By giving various demonstrations such as when they spoke about their theories which had exceptions to the rule, I pointed out that what they had was not a theory...at least not in scientific terms. Gravity for example does not say "Objects attract one another with a force relative to thier mass and inversely proportional to their distance...except on the second tuesday in june." This alsoinvolved picking things up and dropping them as a visual aid.

I maintained that the teaching was counter productive as it fostered bullshit. In the finish up they decided to remove it from the required modules for my course.

Jeeze mate, what uni are you in? You seem to be getting a lot of bollocks.

[wolveraptor]

*snip*

I think the ratio is something like breast>tummy.

[Keevan_Colton]

Jeeze mate, what uni are you in? You seem to be getting a lot of bollocks.

Napier University, or Numpty U. as one person here calls it. (Even when dealing with the student awards agency)

[Molyneux]

By the way Molyneux, thin might look good, but thick fels good. Like the experiments with the poor little baby primate, given the choice of lifelike looking and hard, or wierd but soft and furry. The babies pick soft every time. Touch wins out over sight quite often.

And there is always the "Beauty Switch" on the wall that controles the light.
4 becomes ten at the flip, of a switch.

To steal a phrase...I like big butts, and I cannot lie
Seriously, though, I never was that big of a stickler for any particular body type. As long as a girl/guy is intelligent, moderately nice, and otherwise mentally compatible, I'm happy

[Darth Wong]

And people wonder why I refuse to recognize psychology and sociology as real sciences. Until they start observing actual standards, they will always be the red-headed stepchild of science, not a legitimate part of the family. It's not enough to say that some psychologists aren't complete fucktards; you simply can't have people teaching this kind of asinine bullshit without some kind of censure.

[wolveraptor]

Doesn't this particular incident have to do more with the jackassery of professors than the jackassery of soc/psych? Do sociologists or psychologists generally agree that humans don't have instincts, or was it just the "professors"?

[Darth Wong]

Doesn't this particular incident have to do more with the jackassery of professors than the jackassery of soc/psych? Do sociologists or psychologists generally agree that humans don't have instincts, or was it just the "professors"?

You sure as hell wouldn't be able to find an engineering professor at any accredited university who teaches something that goes totally against accepted physics like "power and energy are interchangeable". Why are you able to find idiot psychology and sociology profs in accredited universities? Because the fields in question make no effort to separate the wheat from the chaff. Since ruthless, unremittingly harsh peer review is necessary for the scientific method, this is no small indictment of the practices of these fields.