Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

[Spoonist]

Care to point out the specific points where I'm wrong instead of a generic rejection? Or which parts where you think that the author is actually right?

You are saying that HE is wrong, therefore you have to show where he's gone wrong, and you don't even know how he arrived at his conclusions yet. It's only an excerpt, so screeching about the lack of documentation is just childish, and saying that I have to show why YOU are wrong for saying that HE is wrong is just sad.

Don't be stupid. It was to limit the discussion, otherwise I would have to repeat the whole long post with more text again and again.Something which would be tedious for all.

Its this baseless speculative reasoning made for getting more attention and getting more interest that I disagree with.

The Appeal to Motive fallacy does not become any less of a fallacy with repetition,

Since my problem was with his claims in the article being overly speculative to get more attention I don't see how I could otherwise present it?
Example of speculative reasoning to get attention:
-Factoid: Global warming is predicted to make sealevels rise.
-Article title: Florida will drown in the next 20 years.
-Factoid: Earth has during its history been hit by several asteroids with devestating effect and will probably be hit again.
-Article title: A planet killer asteroid is on its way to collide with earth.
The article titles is bad science regardless if the factoid the article is based upon is true or not. This is a common distortion of science made in the media which I personally hate.

In this particular case the bad science article is actually written by the author of the paper, but that does not make the article less offensive or less filled with bad science, regardless of whether the study/research behind it is true or not. Articles has to be internally consistent.

Questions so that I understand your position:
Would your arguments be different if it did not claim to be an excerpt?
Would your arguments be different if this article had been written by someone else then the author of the study?
Do you disagree that the author has "spiced up" the article to make it more sellable?

[Darth Wong]

Don't be stupid. It was to limit the discussion, otherwise I would have to repeat the whole long post with more text again and again.Something which would be tedious for all.

Repeating your earlier bullshit is not what I was asking for, you stupid asshole. I'm asking for a breakdown of his METHODOLOGY, since it's apparently so stupid according to you. Surely, if it sucks so much, you should be able to show what's wrong with it, instead of laboriously attacking what you perceive to be his motives and style.

You haven't looked at his methodology at all; you are merely taking one particular prediction of the mechanism, attempting to simplistically apply it elsewhere (rather than going back to the mechanism and generating new predictions for different situations), and then declaring victory.

The article titles is bad science ...

The title of the article is bad science? You ARE a fucking retard. Scientists don't judge things by their titles. They judge them by the soundness of their methodology.

Questions so that I understand your position:
Would your arguments be different if it did not claim to be an excerpt?
Would your arguments be different if this article had been written by someone else then the author of the study?
Do you disagree that the author has "spiced up" the article to make it more sellable?

Do you understand that none of these questions have ANYTHING to do with the methodology, moron?

[Spoonist]

Ouch. Concession time.

A friend pointed out that my numbered post makes no sense because I use the wrong defenition of factoid.

I thought that this definition was a positive one:
Factoid = "something that may not be true but is widely accepted as true because it is repeatedly quoted, especially in the media"

So I thought that Factoids = derived facts (for instance a study shows a certain thing but has not been proven beyond doubt would be a factoid)
But he pointed out that the common definition is a negative one that
Factoid = something that is untrue but is claimed to be true by repetition in the media.

I'm very sorry I will rewrite that post to make more sense.

[Spoonist]

OK here we go again. Either you are devil's advocate or you are deliberately misreading me.

The article titles is bad science ...

The title of the article is bad science? ... Scientists don't judge things by their titles. They judge them by the soundness of their methodology.

If you look at that in the context then it clearly refers to the examples given:

Since my problem was with his claims in the article being overly speculative to get more attention I don't see how I could otherwise present it?
Example of speculative reasoning to get attention:
-Factoid: Global warming is predicted to make sealevels rise.
-Article title: Florida will drown in the next 20 years.
-Factoid: Earth has during its history been hit by several asteroids with devestating effect and will probably be hit again.
-Article title: A planet killer asteroid is on its way to collide with earth.
The article titles is bad science regardless if the factoid the article is based upon is true or not. This is a common distortion of science made in the media which I personally hate.

Your distortion to win cheap points is tacky and unnecessary.

Questions so that I understand your position:
Would your arguments be different if it did not claim to be an excerpt?
Would your arguments be different if this article had been written by someone else then the author of the study?
Do you disagree that the author has "spiced up" the article to make it more sellable?

Do you understand that none of these questions have ANYTHING to do with the methodology, moron?

If you don't understand why I ask those questions then you are clearly debating something completely different from me. Which wouldn't be the first time for me and you. This probably means that this is a waste of time, but I will continue to give it a try.

[mauldooku]

This article blows cock. Like, huge cock. We're talking mega-cock levels here. There's almost nothing substantial backing up the 'ten points'; I mean, yeah, it's an excerpt. And that explains why it's so useless, but doesn't change the fact that it is.

Comparing this to an abstract is incredibly charitable. Yes, I get that the analogy is merely the part-of-the-whole idea, but man, abstracts might not give you data and figures and numbers, but they tell you what the researchers did. 'We injected cell lines A with 10 microliters of X, B with 5, C with none', etc. This article gives none of that; there's no reason to reject it, but reason to accept any of it, either. I'm not going to pretend that I'm going to go read the full text whenever it's released, because I doubt that the memory of a several month-ago discussion on an internet message board will be important in a few days. It still would be interesting to see if any of this stands up.

And, Christ, Worst Title for Anything of the Year Award. Did what the authors probably intended, though.

[Spoonist]

The article quoted in the OP claimed that it would present "Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature" and then goes ahead and presents the following claims: (listing them because below I refer to them by number)
1) Men like blond bombshells (and women want to look like them)
2) Humans are naturally polygamous
3) Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy
4) Most suicide bombers are Muslim
5) Having sons reduces the likelihood of divorce
6) Beautiful people have more daughters
7) What Bill Gates and Paul McCartney have in common with criminals (men are competetive)
8> The midlife crisis is a myth—sort of
9) It's natural for politicians to risk everything for an affair (but only if they're male)
10) Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist

I do not claim to have read his book, nor do I make any claims to being an expert in this field and I most certainly do not wish to debate the validity of the Trivers-Willards hypothesis and its predictability. Something which I have repeatedly said in the exchanges above but which has been ignored. What I have posted about is the unproffesional nature of the article and that it does not deliver what it promises. My opinion is also that by writing things to be controversial/commercial makes the author overstep the bounderies of the underlying thesis/science.

The first problem is that the article claims that it is about human nature and then in 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 gives facts, studies and opinions with a clear cultural bias, without saying that it is, instead of being generic.
The second problem is that the article claims the 10 to be politically incorrect when 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 are popular opinions and wouldn't be politically incorrect if proven beyond any doubt to be "truths".
Third problem is that the claims in 4, 5, 6, and 7 is really statistical observations, where the author only provides his own subjective explanations as to why they exist without references to why they support his theory (which a scientific article should have).
Forth problem is that the author limits the observation to one gender in 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, when the indication could (and in most cases would) have a similar correlation for the other gender.
Neither of the four problems above is of course any evidence that the author is full of shit, its just indications.

However if one or more of these claims is a false claim then it casts another indication in this direction.
Which is why I pointed out that 8 has no merit at all unless the author redifines what a "midlife crises" is.

And if one or more of these claims have a simpler testable explanation it casts another indication as well.
Which is why I pointed out that hormones like Testosterone can explain 6,7,9 and 10. It is easily verifiable and there has been several studies done on the effects of testosterone in males and females.

Another indication would be if the author has been critized before for making assumptions without 'proper' science.
Which is why I pointed out his flawed logic given the data of the sub-saharan region.

So when given all these indications sum up at least I (but maybe not others) start looking for a motive for the article...

Again all this is indications because we cannot know for sure unless we read his book and checks out the data to make our own predictive model, but with all the given indications and the author's history I wouldn't want to. Just like I wouldn't pick up a Graham Hancock / van Däniken book regardless of how facinating their theories are and how many interesting out of context tidbits of data they base them on.

So lets look at my claims then you can specify exactly which you disagree with that you want me to provide evidence for:

This author is full of shit (personal opinion which I don't think will make a fruitful debate)
This article is an example of speculative twists to given data, which doesn't explain how the conlcusion was reached from the given data (which Darth Wong didn't want to debate since more data would be in the actual book/study)
That 1,2,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 has a simpler explanation than the one the article gives
That male midlife crisis is not a myth, but a description/label of a psychological concept, like the eoidipus complex
That "Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy" is only true within specific contexts, and false in other specific contexts (cultural/historical) making the claim obvious or useless
That polygyny does not explain male muslim suicide bombers
That "Most suicide bombers are Muslim" is only true within specific contexts, and false in other specific contexts (region/timeframe/culture/definitions of bomber and muslim/is it numbers or percentage of population?/etc) making the claim redundant without its context
Sexual harassment is sexist if you differentiate the type of harassment depending on your own sexual preference
That a scientific article regardless of the facts behind it should be internally consistent and the facts given on a topic should actually have something to do with the topic
That evolition favors the healthy, young and fertile and therefore it should dictate that those traits are attractive
Not giving a fact its proper context is scientifically dishonest
If you claim something to be "true" in a scientific article and only reference your own research, then if you don't reference the underlying data you are being scientifically dishonest
and last but not least
That if someone had posted similar arguments with similar facts to back them up, but claiming to be their own theory, this forum would instantly ask for more evidence and chew the given 'evidence' to bits

[Aeolus]

Men like blond bombshells (and women want to look like them)

<snip>

When white folks showed up in the New Guinea Highlands they were perceived as dead people - which were also quite sexually unattractive as well as terrifying no matter how blond their hair and how blue their eyes. That is just one extreme example, but there is too much cultural indication of men liking raven-haired beauties outside of Europe for it to be coincidence. It would make more sense to postulate a preference in people of European descent (perhaps white skin was a marker of something else that indicated fitness) than to apply it to all of humanity. Euro-whatevers being, whether they admit it or not, a distinct minority in the global population
<snip>

Raven hair is glossy and very shiny. I think the gloss and shine is what really matters. It implies health.

[Aeolus]

So, what about gay people? Are they typically attracted to the same qualities (ex. lesbians liking busty blondes) for the same "reproductive" reasons?

Gay men tend to like "pretty" young men. It's not universal however. There is a large subset that likes "bears" Bigger older more "manly" men.

[Dooey Jo]

Yes. In order to generate a prediction from a theory, you have to understand the mechanism of the theory. What you're doing is looking at one prediction of the theory, assuming other predictions from that prediction without finding out more information about the underlying mechanism, and then declaring that you've disproven it. That is PRECISELY what creationists do with evolution.

No, I'm saying that it's indicative of a large probability that the theory is shit. Creationists are not looking at other predictions of evolution, they are looking at their own distorted version of it, ignoring the actual predictions. I did not do that. Furthermore, they did state at least part of their mechanism; sexual preference for youth, plus instinctive perception of blondness as being indicative of youth.

The fact that something is not necessarily a universal generalization does not mean the identified correlation is an "incorrect fact", moron. This is like those fucking idiots who say that cigarette/cancer correlations are false because they know people who smoked and didn't get cancer.

Except I am not talking about any of their correlations, I'm specifically talking about their claim that blonde hair turns brown with age. You can't have a correlation if the thing doesn't exist in the first place. So do not try to lump me with anyone who said the article is wrong because they personally don't like blondes.

And the claim that "when religion is involved [suicide bombers] are always Muslim" is also false, as well as an invalid distinction between types of suicide bombers. It does fit nicely with right wing conservative agenda, though (and no, I am not saying that is why it's wrong, it's just an interesting thing to note).

But why the fuck should I even have to explain this? I feel like I'm back on the twcenter forums, arguing with religious kiddies and trying to explain the most basic elements of logical thought to them.

It almost seems like you are assuming that you're back there. You shouldn't. I don't know why you want to defend it, but there are problems with this article (at the very least those two I mention in this post), and since it's written by the authors of the actual thesis, or book, or whatever it is, there probably will be in that too. And actually, looking just now on other things Dr. Kanazawa has written, I would be very surprised if there wasn't. His understanding of evolution and statistics seems to be roughly on par with those creationists you speak of.

[Aeolus]

Yes. In order to generate a prediction from a theory, you have to understand the mechanism of the theory. What you're doing is looking at one prediction of the theory, assuming other predictions from that prediction without finding out more information about the underlying mechanism, and then declaring that you've disproven it. That is PRECISELY what creationists do with evolution.

No, I'm saying that it's indicative of a large probability that the theory is shit. Creationists are not looking at other predictions of evolution, they are looking at their own distorted version of it, ignoring the actual predictions. I did not do that. Furthermore, they did state at least part of their mechanism; sexual preference for youth, plus instinctive perception of blondness as being indicative of youth.

The fact that something is not necessarily a universal generalization does not mean the identified correlation is an "incorrect fact", moron. This is like those fucking idiots who say that cigarette/cancer correlations are false because they know people who smoked and didn't get cancer.

Except I am not talking about any of their correlations, I'm specifically talking about their claim that blonde hair turns brown with age. You can't have a correlation if the thing doesn't exist in the first place. So do not try to lump me with anyone who said the article is wrong because they personally don't like blondes.

And the claim that "when religion is involved [suicide bombers] are always Muslim" is also false, as well as an invalid distinction between types of suicide bombers. It does fit nicely with right wing conservative agenda, though (and no, I am not saying that is why it's wrong, it's just an interesting thing to note).

But why the fuck should I even have to explain this? I feel like I'm back on the twcenter forums, arguing with religious kiddies and trying to explain the most basic elements of logical thought to them.

It almost seems like you are assuming that you're back there. You shouldn't. I don't know why you want to defend it, but there are problems with this article (at the very least those two I mention in this post), and since it's written by the authors of the actual thesis, or book, or whatever it is, there probably will be in that too. And actually, looking just now on other things Dr. Kanazawa has written, I would be very surprised if there wasn't. His understanding of evolution and statistics seems to be roughly on par with those creationists you speak of.

Blond hair on women does tend to turn darker with age. My Mom was born a platinum blonde and was brown haired by her early twenties.

[the wicked prince]

It is interesting regarding the age factor on blonde and blue if true, however selection for this is very weak if it exists

[Broomstick]

Actually, the blond-hair-turning-darker-with-age need have NO sexual selection component at all.

An alternative reason could be that children have less pigmentation while young to permit greater absorption of vitamin D while the skeleton is growing most rapidly, then more pigmentation post-puberty to protect against the harmful effects of prolonged UV both on the reproductive system and the skin. This would be most advantageous in high lattitudes where there is considerably less sunlight than other areas, and where other sources of vitamin D may be less than sufficient for growing humans.

[Darth Wong]

Well, I missed a few days, but there's something that a lot of you people seem to have completely lost: the science to which this article refers is NOT the part about how men in European countries prefer blondes. It's about why they do. So all of you fucking idiots who said "AHA! The article is shit because not all men everywhere prefer blondes" are completely missing the mark, because the article is obviously geared toward a European or American audience and the particular application of the underlying idea is obviously tailored to that audience. The idea that we should take this idea and apply it to, say, Africa is totally absurd and comes from, as I've said before, people who apparently don't know how to read in context. The point is about sexual selection for age-indicator traits, not about blondes in particular. Blondes are identified because that's how it works for the target audience, which happens to be American and European. It's amazing how some people completely miss the forest for the trees.

[Justforfun000]

Aeolus Wrote:

Gay men tend to like "pretty" young men. It's not universal however. There is a large subset that likes "bears" Bigger older more "manly" men.

tend to like "pretty" young men? Where did you get this idea? As someone who has lived in the very large gay community of Toronto for many, many years, I can assure you that a good 80% or more of gay men I know have their major preference as 30+, masculine, rugged, slightly furry guys.

I'm having a hard time finding perfect links to just a pic for examples, but here is one example:

Warning. Nudity. But he's hot.

http://www.queerclick.com/archive/2006/ ... _at_ho.php

[Justforfun000]

God! I could kill you Aeolus. After searching through dozens of pages looking for hot man pics now I'm all hot and bothered!

[Spoonist]

Well, I missed a few days, but there's something that a lot of you people seem to have completely lost: the science to which this article refers is NOT the part about how men in European countries prefer blondes. It's about why they do. So all of you fucking idiots who said "AHA! The article is shit because not all men everywhere prefer blondes" are completely missing the mark, because the article is obviously geared toward a European or American audience and the particular application of the underlying idea is obviously tailored to that audience. The idea that we should take this idea and apply it to, say, Africa is totally absurd and comes from, as I've said before, people who apparently don't know how to read in context. The point is about sexual selection for age-indicator traits, not about blondes in particular. Blondes are identified because that's how it works for the target audience, which happens to be American and European. It's amazing how some people completely miss the forest for the trees.

I agree that the point was "for sexual selection of age-indicating traits". However claiming that favoring blond bombshells is an indication for this is not scientific nor true and the author has no research at all that confirms this, its only given for speculative reasons. If blondes where the only hair color that clearly showed age/health there would definately be something to this, but it isn't, instead almost all of the 'odd' western/european haircolors (black/blonde/red) show this. If this had been a real sexual preference they would have been much more prevalent, instead its the haircolor that has the least age-indicating traits that is the most common one among western/eauropean haircolors=brown/brunette. Therefore its a stupid example of an otherwise interesting theory and bad science to boot. If he really wanted to take an european haircolor example he should have selected redheads since research have shown that they have more sex and secual partners. What also has been researched and confirmed is a preference for a 'good' hip to waist ratio, a preference for 'perky&jiggly' breasts and a preference for a larger areola. (Yes there are scientific studies of this - some have all the fun). These are all indicators of high levels of progesterone/estrogen in the developing female.
So again, in my opinion, the author is full of shit and tries to explain something with an advanced theory which is instead explained by a much simpler one. A clear indicator of bad science.

[Darth Wong]

I agree that the point was "for sexual selection of age-indicating traits". However claiming that favoring blond bombshells is an indication for this is not scientific nor true and the author has no research at all that confirms this, its only given for speculative reasons.

If the book comes out, you read it, and you confirm that he actually has zero research to back up the claim which this article is a teaser for, then you might have a point. Otherwise, your absolute claims are sheer nonsense.

If blondes where the only hair color that clearly showed age/health there would definately be something to this, but it isn't, instead almost all of the 'odd' western/european haircolors (black/blonde/red) show this. If this had been a real sexual preference they would have been much more prevalent, instead its the haircolor that has the least age-indicating traits that is the most common one among western/eauropean haircolors=brown/brunette.

Do you have some basis for your claim that black hair in children tends to turn a different colour with age, or that the same is true for red hair?

[Aeolus]

God! I could kill you Aeolus. After searching through dozens of pages looking for hot man pics now I'm all hot and bothered!

lol I did state that there was a subset of gays who like bears. But really we both know that more gays like twinks than bears.

[Spin Echo]

I agree that the point was "for sexual selection of age-indicating traits". However claiming that favoring blond bombshells is an indication for this is not scientific nor true and the author has no research at all that confirms this, its only given for speculative reasons.

If the book comes out, you read it, and you confirm that he actually has zero research to back up the claim which this article is a teaser for, then you might have a point. Otherwise, your absolute claims are sheer nonsense.

While I can't make a claim for this particular book as I haven't read it, I do tend to find these sorts of books tend to practice, not necessarily bad science, but rather incomplete science to try and make things more entertaining. Considering I've read a least half a dozen different theories on the reason why men like large breasts or the appeal of blondes or blue eyes (some of which contradict each other) in the past two years, I'm rather skeptical to the book as a scientific work.

If blondes where the only hair color that clearly showed age/health there would definately be something to this, but it isn't, instead almost all of the 'odd' western/european haircolors (black/blonde/red) show this. If this had been a real sexual preference they would have been much more prevalent, instead its the haircolor that has the least age-indicating traits that is the most common one among western/eauropean haircolors=brown/brunette.

Do you have some basis for your claim that black hair in children tends to turn a different colour with age, or that the same is true for red hair?

Redheads tend to lose the bright red colour as they age.