|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: More Bunk Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined:
|
Are Pretty People More Selfish?
Brad Pitt and Natalie Portman: People with symmetrical faces more likely to be selfish | Daily Mail Online These kind of 'scientific" studies, when examined closely, are always so horribly done, and simply do not reflect the truth. The researchers are trying to find a conclusion and they find exactly what they are proposing to find. For instance, Brad Pitt and George Clooney are not attractive because they are symmetrical. Take Brad Pitt, and give him a recessed chin, patchy balding hair, and a fat nose, but keep him just as symmetrical, and then see if he rates as "attractive." Make George Clooney completely bald and give him and fat neck and see how how he rates as attractive. Give Michelle Pfeiffer patchy freckled skin, kinky reddish black hair, black baggy eyes and bucked teeth and then compare her to someone with radiant golden hair, pure white skin, bright blue eyes, and lopsided ears and see who scores higher? I will take all bets on this. Is Harrison Ford attractive? Why? Check out how lopsided his nose is. This ridiculous notion that you can pick out one thing and say THAT is the key to attractiveness is just plain stupid science, but the people needed to validate their study, which had decided beforehand that its symmetry we are after because that somehow will coincide with their preconceived ideas about how evolution works, and so they just put the pieces together anyway they want. Pop-bunk science. Coffee House
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thread copied here from the More Bunk Science thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
This ridiculous notion that you can pick out one thing and say THAT is the key to attractiveness is just plain ****** science, Not disagreeing with you but the math people do well at least they used to in the Renessanse era they used the golden ratio to judge what is esthetically pleasing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
The Daily Mail
Urban Disctionaryquote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Isn't the Daily Mail basically a tabloid?
"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This ridiculous notion that you can pick out one thing and say THAT is the key to attractiveness is just plain ****** science ... Which I guess is why this ridiculous notion is something that you've made up in your head rather than anything that any scientist has ever actually claimed. You really can misunderstand absolutely anything, can't you? Do you want to be Kent Hovind when you grow up?
... but the people needed to validate their study, which had decided beforehand that its symmetry we are after because that somehow will coincide with their preconceived ideas about how evolution works, and so they just put the pieces together anyway they want. That people have a preference for facial symmetry is a well-established fact. Which perhaps explains why a creationist is calling it "bunk science".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Isn't the Daily Mail basically a tabloid? No: the word "tabloid" implies a depth of integrity and seriousness of purpose which the Daily Mail does not possess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined:
|
It is not a well established fact that people prefer symmetry of ones ears or nose, over any other thing they like to look at-it is a well accepted bit of pop-bunk, by people like you who never question anything they are told by someone they think has authority.
Some people also have a preference for blue eyes. Some also have a preference for people with dimples. Some people also like people with scrunched up features. And in Europe and America many people prefer blondes (its a well established fact!). So why did they choose symmetry as the criteria for judging if the people were beautiful and selfish, instead of choosing if the people were blonde and selfish. or had dimples and were selfish? The answer is obvious to anyone with an active brain (the answer is not obvious to you A, draw your own conclusion as to why..er, a nevermind, catch 22), the reason they didn't choose some other random factor. Studies that attempt to correlate evolution with modern psychology are so fraught with nonsense data like this, and so full of people like you who are quick to jump on it and say its a well established fact, even when you know nothing about it, and have never stopped to consider the methods employed for drawing these bogus conclusions because it would fry your brain to think for the required two minutes. I could do a study tomorrow just like this one, and find people who ALWAYS choose the less symmetrical faces, and show this is people's preference. I would start by showing them Harrison Ford and Dom Delouise and see which one they choose. Or Pierce Brosnan (he is famous for having a good side and a bad side, did you know?) and Ernest Bourgnine. And my results would fit the conclusion I want to find. Unfortunately A, you are just another one of those gullible individuals who just swallow whatever you are told is science. So you are not really able to see the problems that lie therein at all. This is a well established fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
You don't think the Daily Mail is the source of this study do you? Really?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I meant tabloids like this:
Those tabloids hardly strive for anything that could come close to being called integrity, let alone seriousness."Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
Gee, I dunno. Why don't you enlighten us as to what the source is, since you so keenly left it vacant form your OP. You decided to attack a tabloid article instead of the actual study. Hint: I already looked up the journal and everything. Did you?
(psst: media sensationalizes stuff)"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Bolder-dash.
Bolder-dash writes: For instance, Brad Pitt and George Clooney are not attractive because they are symmetrical. I think I can grant that symmetry is not the only factor influencing attractiveness. Still, the most that can be made of this is that somebody slightly oversold their results. But, this is all part of the scientific process: when someone oversells their results, it stimulates debate and encourages other scientists to do more research. For example, in the article you cited, the researchers overselling their results will lead skeptical scientists to study other aspects of attractiveness, to see if the results will still hold. If so, then we can confirm that there is a correlation between attractiveness and selfishness. If not, then we've identified exactly which components of attractiveness are correlated with selfishness, and this will help refine the theory and improve our understanding.-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
I didn't track down the journal source, but I did find the Guardian version. The there title and subtitle is:
quote: as opposed to the Daily Mail's title:
quote: I guess this topic may come down to considerations of the popular presses coverage of science stories. Is the Guardian's version a better coverage of the material? Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Hmm, let's see. Did they sensationalize a bit?
paper writes: Recent research has analyzed how individual characteristics, like the exposure to different hormones and symmetry, affect decision-making and strategic behaviour. The present article investigates the effect of symmetry, of exposure to testosterone (T) in utero and during puberty and of current T on cooperation in a Prisoners’ Dilemma Game (PDG). T is a hormone with well known effect on males’ behaviour, and that promotes activities that seek to increase reproductive success. Fluctuating Asymmetry (FA) reflects the ability of the organism to maintain a stable development and it is usually employed as a variable reflecting genetic quality (low FA values are thought to signal higher genetic quality). Our results show that subjects with intermediate levels of second to fourth digit ratio (a proxy of exposure to T in utero) and with high FA cooperate more often in the PDG. We also observe that the latter effect is due to the fact that FA has an impact on subjects’ expectations about the behaviour of their counterpart in the game. These results reinforce the described link between markers related to genetic quality and cooperative behaviour. This possible linkage of individual condition and pro-social behaviour in humans clearly merits further attention. Sauce Notice the last line.... So, creationists. Let's discuss the paper, and not the headline, eh? Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given."Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It is not a well established fact that people prefer symmetry of ones ears or nose, over any other thing they like to look at ... Which is why no-one ever said it was.
So why did they choose symmetry as the criteria for judging if the people were beautiful ... Answer: they didn't.
I could do a study tomorrow just like this one, and find people who ALWAYS choose the less symmetrical faces, and show this is people's preference. This study was not into whether people found symmetry attractive. That has already been done.
I would start by showing them Harrison Ford and Dom Delouise and see which one they choose. Or Pierce Brosnan (he is famous for having a good side and a bad side, did you know?) and Ernest Bourgnine. And my results would fit the conclusion I want to find. Or you could follow the scientific method ... well, you couldn't. But one could.
Unfortunately A, you are just another one of those gullible individuals who just swallow whatever you are told is science. So you are not really able to see the problems that *** therein at all. This is a well established fact. If it is your intention to make a fool of yourself, I guess this sort of nonsense will do as well as anything.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024