Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
76 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (2 members, 74 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,216 Year: 4,328/6,534 Month: 542/900 Week: 66/182 Day: 38/16 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Coming Soon


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Laws of Attraction: The seduction of Evolutionary Psychology?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 703 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 61 of 102 (291265)
03-01-2006 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Silent H
03-01-2006 2:05 PM


Re: EP Supporters please address Panksepp article
I gave alternatives which were consistent with their data.

Well, here's an alternative consistent with their data - the CIA infiltrated the volunteer group and supplied them with in-ear radio devices so that CIA agents could tell them, according to a complicated math equation, exactly what responses to give the researchers.

Entirely consistent with their data. And I notice reading through the study that they didn't check for any in-ear radio devices or perform the experiment in a Faraday cage to prevent the reception of radio signals.

Is that another alternative that you would believe is equally likely?

You never mentioned what the complexity was other than perhaps your incredulity?

Cultural influences that we have absolutely no other evidence of? I'd say that's an "unneccesarily multiplied entity" along Occam's lines.

My game? I have shown that my criticisms are shared by a number of scientists.

And rejected by others. So I guess we're back where we started, eh?

ultimately it advanced nothing in the knowledge of brain functions and how they evolved.

I don't believe that was their goal. Was it your intention to criticize them for failing to meet a goal that they did not have an intention to meet?

The function of evolutionary psychology is not to develop a paleontological history of the development of the brain over time. Its to determine what aspects of human behavior are influenced by evolved genetic factors.

Unless you are going to reply with specific statements regarding points made in my analysis or Panksepp's article, we are done.

We are done. I haven't seen you make a point yet that seems to accurately and realistically grapple with the methodology of the paper. Defending the papers presented by others is not something i intend to do, and if (as is your implication) Panksepp's article contains the same nonsense as you've been promulgating in your posts, there's nothing there to interest me, either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Silent H, posted 03-01-2006 2:05 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Silent H, posted 03-01-2006 5:19 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 62 of 102 (291298)
03-01-2006 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by crashfrog
03-01-2006 3:20 PM


Re: EP Supporters please address Panksepp article
Cultural influences that we have absolutely no other evidence of? I'd say that's an "unneccesarily multiplied entity" along Occam's lines.

People do not learn? They are born with all their knowledge and preferences? If not, if you accept learning, then the possible environmental influences (not just cultural) have been substantiated.

And rejected by others. So I guess we're back where we started, eh?

This makes no sense. You said it was my game. I pointed out that it had nothing to do with me. What difference does it make if others disagree with them? The questions are there and they are valid.

And we are not back where we started. In this case I gave a point by point analysis, and you have said "nonsense". I have pointed to a professional paper on the subject (submitted by someone else) with a detailed explanation of problems based on current neuro research, as well as reactions to that. You have said "rejected by others".

I can't believe someone as into science as you claim to be, could be satisfied with such behavior and responses. Why must you keep attacking me instead of just discussing the article or the analysis in a sober fashion?

The function of evolutionary psychology is not to develop a paleontological history of the development of the brain over time.

I did not say the above. I said "knowledge of brain functions and how they evolved". While that may involve the above, they are not the exact same thing. IF human behaviors are the product of brain processes then what I said is exactly what you said: "determining what aspects of human behavior (aka brain functions) are influenced by evolved genetic factors." They did not advance knowledge in that field.

Defending the papers presented by others is not something i intend to do, and if (as is your implication) Panksepp's article contains the same nonsense as you've been promulgating in your posts, there's nothing there to interest me, either.

What difference does it make if someone else cited it first? And how can you assert that a paper printed in a professional science magazine is "nonsense", just because I agree with much of it? Why wouldn't its general acceptance at least result in your addressing it seriously?

I want to get this straight though, you consider Stephen J Gould as unable to understand proper scientific methodology, and his arguments "nonsense" not worthy of being addressed?

This message has been edited by holmes, 03-01-2006 11:22 PM


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 03-01-2006 3:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 03-01-2006 5:41 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 703 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 63 of 102 (291306)
03-01-2006 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Silent H
03-01-2006 5:19 PM


Re: EP Supporters please address Panksepp article
I thought we were done. Guess not?

If not, if you accept learning, then the possible environmental influences (not just cultural) have been substantiated.

No, they haven't. Phat's ridiculous idea is nothing more than conflating genetic fitness with "fitness" as defined by bodybuilding magazines. That you've rushed to his defense suggests the bankrupcy of your position. I haven't seen you offer any social learning hypotheses at all.

The questions are there and they are valid.

If your posts so far are any indication they have no validity whatsoever.

In this case I gave a point by point analysis, and you have said "nonsense".

...and then rebutted your arguments. I notice you left that part out. Now you're simply repeating your objections and repeating about how they're not nonsense, so, yeah, we're back where we started. Absolutely no progress.

Like I said, I thought we were done. This is going to be my last go-around until you have something new.

I did not say the above. I said "knowledge of brain functions and how they evolved". While that may involve the above, they are not the exact same thing.

Seriously, Holmes. I have no patience for this game where you say the same thing two different ways and try to pretend that it's different each time.

They did not advance knowledge in that field.

My knowledge was advanced. I can't speak for you. If it was already common knowledge that ovulating women prefer the smell of symmetrical men then I don't know why they did the study in the first place.

What difference does it make if someone else cited it first?

You asked me to present a paper and then defend it. That's what I've been doing. Let the people who posted those other papers defend them.

I don't care to. I picked the paper I thought I could defend, and that's what I've done. You disagree, of course, but not for any legitimate reason that I can see or that you've been able to articulate successfully.

Why wouldn't its general acceptance at least result in your addressing it seriously?

What does that have to do with anything? I presume that people would disagree with my analysis, too. Is it your understanding that everybody in science has to agree with each other?

I would suggest that you cease trying to goad me into discussion. It's a form of ad hominem. Like I said this is my last go-around until you have something new.

I want to get this straight though, you consider Stephen J Gould as unable to understand proper scientific methodology, and his arguments "nonsense" not worthy of being addressed?

In this case? It's well-known that his criticisms were viewed by many to lack sufficient merit in regards to this field. SJG was a smart man but, again, science has room for people who disagree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Silent H, posted 03-01-2006 5:19 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Silent H, posted 03-01-2006 6:43 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 64 of 102 (291319)
03-01-2006 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
03-01-2006 5:41 PM


Re: EP Supporters please address Panksepp article
Phat's ridiculous idea is nothing more than conflating genetic fitness with "fitness" as defined by bodybuilding magazines.

Oh if that was all he was saying then his argument was not accurate. Perhaps I was granting him more than he meant, or you are cutting him down unfairly. Guess he'll have to speak for himself.

Regardless, I said if you accept learning, then the possible epigenic mechanisms are substantiated. They are not "unknown".

...and then rebutted your arguments

Did I miss a post? Where did you reply to my analysis? I've only seen replies to a post I made regarding the Panksepp paper.

Let the people who posted those other papers defend them.

??? I'm not asking you to defend the Panksepp paper, just to look at it and discuss why points raised in it are NOT valid, if you still feel that way after reading it.

Is it your understanding that everybody in science has to agree with each other?

No but it is my understanding that disagreement does not justify ignorance and not taking the other person's arguments seriously. Honest criticism is done by reading what someone you might disagree with has written, and then dealing with points in a calm logical fashion. Name calling, and blank dismissal is not that.

In this case? It's well-known that his criticisms were viewed by many to lack sufficient merit in regards to this field. SJG was a smart man but, again, science has room for people who disagree.

That's not what I asked. There is a difference between disagreeing with someone, and saying they don't know proper science and their arguments are wholly nonsense.

That some disagreed with SJG is a fact. That they are in the minority is also pretty much a fact. Mainstream (or pop) EP has been getting knocked by its originators as well as much of the psych and biology world because of its methods.

You claimed that I didn't know what I was talking about and that my arguments were wholly nonsense. Given that SJG shares much of the same (if not all) arguments with me, I'm asking if YOU believe HE didn't know proper science methodology and that his criticisms were wholly nonsense and so not worthy of addressing?

I'm curious to see if your hubris is so great that you'll actually berate a noted figure in science the same way you casually insult me. It sort of emphasizes the kind of guy you are.

You had a choice between analysis of a paper you cited, or another paper, and have instead decided to argue my person as well as apparently any and all scientists who might agree with my position (or is it I with there's?).

This message has been edited by holmes, 03-02-2006 12:43 AM

This message has been edited by holmes, 03-02-2006 12:45 AM


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 03-01-2006 5:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 03-01-2006 7:43 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 703 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 65 of 102 (291326)
03-01-2006 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Silent H
03-01-2006 6:43 PM


Re: EP Supporters please address Panksepp article
No but it is my understanding that disagreement does not justify ignorance and not taking the other person's arguments seriously.

Present a serious argument and I'll take it seriously. Until then we're done.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Silent H, posted 03-01-2006 6:43 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 5:20 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 66 of 102 (291369)
03-02-2006 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by crashfrog
03-01-2006 7:43 PM


Analysis: short form
Present a serious argument and I'll take it seriously. Until then we're done.

I had a post that was an analysis of your citation. It was serious and I put a bit of time in it. Perhaps it was too long. Let me break things down more easily...

1) New Question:
Three studies are conducted each with a small population. Two in Europe, and one in America. The majority are northern europeans. It is discovered that there is a modest correlation (higher than the one found in your cite) between a certain chemical and something that is bad in taste. That chemical could be found in plants which are not healthy. Does this analysis show convincing evidence that humans have evolved to detect that chemical because it produced a survival benefit?

2) Old Question:
This is from my analysis and I would like a more detailed explanation of why it was unreasonable... They used t-shirts to collect scent. Barring many other concerns I also mentioned, I raised the possibility that this would be biased against antisymmetric individuals. Scent comes from more than just armpits. Indeed pheromones or other chemicals which one may not detect as "smell" are produced all over the body. Most notably the genitals and the neck/head.

Human bodies often shift processes to make up for deficiencies. Asymmetry is specifically an issue with "left-right" development more so than "top-bottom". A t-shirt essentially picks up scents from a left-right scheme (obviously the armpits). It is possible that an asymmetric body may make up for a deficiency in output, (let's say the right armpit is not putting out as much as the left), by shifting greater production of pheromones elsewhere.

As such it would seem that a more accurate system would not be a t-shirt but rather some whole body covering, and perhaps a sample of saliva.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 03-01-2006 7:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2006 9:44 AM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 703 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 67 of 102 (291428)
03-02-2006 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Silent H
03-02-2006 5:20 AM


Re: Analysis: short form
It is possible that an asymmetric body may make up for a deficiency in output, (let's say the right armpit is not putting out as much as the left), by shifting greater production of pheromones elsewhere.

But the testers were instructed to report the "pleasantness" of the smell and it's intensity. Weren't they? Wouldn't we see a corresponding decline in intensity if this phenomenon were operating?

Do we, in the paper?

Sorry but I don't see this as a counfounding effect. I don't see in the study any indication that the assymmetric individuals were missing armpits or anything like that. Moreover, the assumption that just the armpit is the relevant source of scent is unsupported on your part.

Sorry Holmes but if that's the best you have, that's a remarkably specious objection.

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-02-2006 09:48 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 5:20 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 10:22 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 68 of 102 (291440)
03-02-2006 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
03-02-2006 9:44 AM


Re: Analysis: short form
But the testers were instructed to report the "pleasantness" of the smell and it's intensity. Weren't they? Wouldn't we see a corresponding decline in intensity if this phenomenon were operating?

No, quite the opposite. Actually intensity is a whole other issue so we don't need to deal with that yet. Let's look at pleasantness.

A t-shirt fits over the torso and so it misses large areas of the rest of the body. I am not suggesting that asymmetric individuals were missing armpits, but clearly the point is that (if this hypothesis is correct) they produce less of some chemical which is pleasant, or more of a chemical which is unpleasant.

A reasonable question is whether the study is picking up all the scent manufactured by the body. Right now it is pretty much just the armpits being tested. It is possible that asymmetric individuals might have imbalances in production in one area, and make up for it someplace else. A strong possibility would be seem to be a defect on a left-right axis on the body, being made up for in a top-bottom axis.

the assumption that just the armpit is the relevant source of scent is unsupported on your part.

The study is assuming that the torso is the entire source for scent. I gave an armpit as an example as it is the major source of "scent" on the torso. There could be other sources on the torso. My argument is that there are other sources outside the torso. Is this not possible?

If you believe a tshirt is capable of capturing scents reliably from other parts of the body, I would like an explanation why.

Holmes but if that's the best you have, that's a remarkably specious objection.

This was one discussion among many. You have not explained why it is 'nonsense'. Would a suit which covered the body, be more likely to catch scents from all portions of the body and so more accurately reflect what a body produces?

I have no idea why you called this "specious".

This message has been edited by holmes, 03-02-2006 04:24 PM

This message has been edited by holmes, 03-02-2006 05:03 PM


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2006 9:44 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2006 11:04 AM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 703 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 102 (291463)
03-02-2006 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Silent H
03-02-2006 10:22 AM


Re: Analysis: short form
A reasonable question is whether the study is picking up all the scent manufactured by the body. Right now it is pretty much just the armpits being tested.

T-shirts cover more than just the armpits, and the armpits are not the sole source of body odors. We don't even know that this chemical is being secreted from the armpit or that it is concentrated there.

It is possible that asymmetric individuals might have imbalances in production in one area, and make up for it someplace else. A strong possibility would be seem to be anything on a left-right axis on the body.

I don't see that as a strong possibility, because the scent is related to gestational asymmetry due to environmental influences overcoming nonrobust genetics. I don't see differences in skin chemical production as inherently related to that. Just doesn't seem likely to me. I'd be happy to see whatever research you might have on the subject, but if we're just pitting speculation against speculation I don't see anything sufficiently compelling in yours to overturn the study in regards to its fairly limited conclusion.

My argument is that there are other sources outside the torso. Is this not possible?

Wasn't it possible that the CIA infiltrated the study? The question, as we've agreed, is what's likely and I don't see that this is a likely confounding factor.

I have no idea why you called this "specious".

Because it's as unlikely as my CIA example. It's not borne out by the data of the experiment which controlled for scent intensity. If you don't have any idea why I describe your objections the way that you do then you simply aren't reading my posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 10:22 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 11:29 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 70 of 102 (291470)
03-02-2006 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
03-02-2006 11:04 AM


Re: Analysis: short form
We don't even know that this chemical is being secreted from the armpit or that it is concentrated there.

First of all we don't know whether there is a chemical at all. That is what they went into this study to determine. That we don't know where it might be produced or concentrated is supporting my argument. If you don't know whether bodies may be producing chemicals to attract others, a tshirt fails to collect all the chemicals produced by the entire body.

because the scent is related to gestational asymmetry due to environmental influences overcoming nonrobust genetics.

I think you mean to say robust genetics. In any case what you are driving at once again supports my point. Gestational asymmetry would appear to generally effect the left-right axis of the body. Other portions may make up for it.

Since they are the ones making the conclusion, they are the ones that have to deal with these kinds of issues.

Wasn't it possible that the CIA infiltrated the study?

Sure its possible I suppose. Or the scientists themselves could have faked the study. I am not addressing intentional sabotage issues and focusing on internal methodological issues.

Thus this does not answer the point about t-shirts not being an appropriate or adequate medium to generate the kind of conclusion they are looking for. As long as you understand that the rest of the human body outside the area covered by a t-shirt produces chemicals, then there is a realistic potential for problems when using only a t-shirt to capture chemicals coming from the body.

It's not borne out by the data of the experiment which controlled for scent intensity.

Intensity, as I have already said, is not an issue when we are discussing the subject of if a t shirt is adequate to capture human body scent. Let me deal with this issue more clearly.

We do not know if the chemical is picked up by the system in a way that effects intensity. Indeed their results appear to suggest that whatever is being picked up is irrelevant to intensity. Attractive=/=intensity, but clearly their hypothesis is attractive=amount (or presence). Thus it may be an "unsmelled" or "hidden" pheromone which drives the attraction, its quantity determining attractiveness to any individual without effecting what they use to judge intensity.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2006 11:04 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2006 11:50 AM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 703 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 71 of 102 (291477)
03-02-2006 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Silent H
03-02-2006 11:29 AM


Re: Analysis: short form
I think you mean to say robust genetics.

No, I meant nonrobust genetics. Why do you think I meant the opposite of what I said, out of curiosity?

I am not addressing intentional sabotage issues and focusing on internal methodological issues.

Why not?

We do not know if the chemical is picked up by the system in a way that effects intensity. Indeed their results appear to suggest that whatever is being picked up is irrelevant to intensity. Attractive=/=intensity, but clearly their hypothesis is attractive=amount (or presence). Thus it may be an "unsmelled" or "hidden" pheromone which drives the attraction, its quantity determining attractiveness to any individual without effecting what they use to judge intensity.

And your evidence for this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 11:29 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 12:36 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 72 of 102 (291489)
03-02-2006 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by crashfrog
03-02-2006 11:50 AM


Re: Analysis: short form
Why do you think I meant the opposite of what I said

Because you said the following...

the scent is related to gestational asymmetry due to environmental influences overcoming nonrobust genetics.

If they were nonrobust genetics then why would environmental influences have to overcome them? They'd simply lead to poor development. Its possible I wasn't clear on what you meant by robust.

Why not?

Because I am trying to stick to sober analysis of what their theory, methods, and analyses were. That is given what their intent was, did the rest fit, assuming no one was looking to sabotage the study.

The reason why this is the focus is because that is what all other scientists would have to deal with when trying to study that phenomena. Sabotage, and so external security, is something outside the study and needs to be handled differently based on the situation each scientist faces.

And your evidence for this?

Evidence? Uh... their study results? But I wouldn't even need to have that in order for my point to be a reasonable concern. Pheromones (or other chemicals) do not have to be overt to our senses, in order to create a reaction in us. Indeed none of the chemicals which make up the active scent, need be the chemical which ultimately triggers attraction to a scent, if there are underlying physical reactions which can create attraction.

The reason this is somewhat supported by the data, is that they did not see a correlation between intensity and attraction. If amount of a material was important for degree of attraction, then that connection should have been seen. That was a fact they specifically mentioned in order to support their argument that they had shown a difference between lo and hi fert risk women.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2006 11:50 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2006 1:16 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 703 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 73 of 102 (291497)
03-02-2006 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Silent H
03-02-2006 12:36 PM


Re: Analysis: short form
If they were nonrobust genetics then why would environmental influences have to overcome them?

I guess I wasn't clear; what I meant was that the genetics aren't robust because environment was able to overcome them.

The reason this is somewhat supported by the data, is that they did not see a correlation between intensity and attraction. If amount of a material was important for degree of attraction, then that connection should have been seen.

Which would seem to disprove your point. If amount of material was not related to attraction then the fact that an asymmetric individual wasn't putting out the same amount of material into a T-shirt wouldn't matter.

Which is what I was saying in the first place.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 12:36 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 2:10 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 74 of 102 (291510)
03-02-2006 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by crashfrog
03-02-2006 1:16 PM


Re: Analysis: short form
I guess I wasn't clear; what I meant was that the genetics aren't robust because environment was able to overcome them.

Okay, that makes sense.

If amount of material was not related to attraction then the fact that an asymmetric individual wasn't putting out the same amount of material into a T-shirt wouldn't matter.

No, you are not understanding. Amount of material IS related to attraction, but NOT related to intensity. Thus we cannot know if the asymmetric individuals were putting out less material than symmetric individuals in the body area covered by the t shirt, yet putting out more material (or other material) in other areas to compensate.

Thus while intensities stayed the same, attraction could have been different for a tshirt, though if all body scents were captured then (intensities being equal) attraction would have ended up being the same.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2006 1:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2006 2:19 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 703 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 75 of 102 (291515)
03-02-2006 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Silent H
03-02-2006 2:10 PM


Re: Analysis: short form
Thus we cannot know if the asymmetric individuals were putting out less material than symmetric individuals in the body area covered by the t shirt, yet putting out more material (or other material) in other areas to compensate.

Thus while intensities stayed the same, attraction could have been different for a tshirt, though if all body scents were captured then (intensities being equal) attraction would have ended up being the same.

Deeper and deeper. So you really believe these various ad hoc scenarios are a more likely explanation than the explanation given in the paper?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 2:10 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 2:34 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022