/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4615765
Harriet is right about this, or close to. I don't recall how the sham acupuncture (with the needle not actually being properly in the skin) came out.

The treatment is covered at length in Alternative Medicine on Trial (book).

The documentary series Hjernevask, covers homosexuality in one of them. It is pretty decent.

http://genusnytt.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/se-hjernevask-avsloja-genusmyterna/
It is in norwegian but it has english subs, so np. The password is "hjernevask". (This word means brain washing in norwegian/danish.)

>>4615586
> Can IQ measure persons compassion?

No, IQ tests measure general intelligence. There are other tests for measuring other things. I'm not aware of any cross-race studies on compassion. But, it is known that US-africans are more likely to be 'psychopaths'. That wud seem to indicate that they are lower on the average compassion, assuming that compassion follows a standard distribution.

>>4615500
There is no argument in that post.

>IQ is a narrow metric of human quality.

Not it isn't. It measures general intelligence, which by definition is.. general, not narrow. It shows up pretty much everywhere.

Not saying that there are other other desirable traits, i'm just saying that one shud not underestimate IQ (i.e. g).

>>4615689
And now since u've found at least one thing u disagree with, then the site is not good or?

The 1/3 number is surely false. Not 1/3 women (or men) have it, and the transmission rate isn't 100%.

>>4615616
>That's what I said.

Ur way of saying it is confusing.

>>4615598
>As OP said, male animals and humans want to spread their seed and secure the existence of their species. The best way is to mate with all females they can, whereas females are more careful to only mate with healthy and fit males.

Careful. This 'want to' is the evolutionary reason why men want sex (the reason why the sex drive evolved). It need not be any conscious reason on the part of men.

>>4615534
>Men don't want children, men want sex. Two entirely different things.

I think Harriet is right about this. However, now a days, men don't want children when they are cheating on their partner (perhaps they did earlier? at least some of them did, e.g. high status men). But there is a difference between why a specific behavior is there and why people consciously engage in that behavior. Sometimes there is a gross mismatch between these two. This is why survey data about "what women want" etc. can only take one so far.

>>4615531
>You seemed to imply you were mocking my post when I said "Most men do not do that"

No no. I was mocking ur comment about immoral men, which is a gross generalization. Hence my comment about a fairy tale world. ;)

I dunno if i agree that most men do not cheat. Are we talking about in each relationship or over life time? I wud think that over the entire life time, it might be that >50% of men that have ever had a girlfriend have cheated on at least one of them.

-

>n this scenario, we are talking about a woman who knows the man is in a relationship, and she wants him anyway. So she is the one who is going to try to initiate the affair.

>I think this is highly unusual; almost all affairs are initiated by men.

I wasn't talking specifically about that. It cud be that the man initiated contact and flirted and she indulged it in even tho she knew he was cheating on his partner.

Yes, most relationships cross sex are initiated by men. No surprise there.

>>4615520
>In fact, it's much easier I think since men want as much children/partners as possible. Of course, this isn't really true anymore today, but still part of our instincts.

I also forgot to include health, fysical and mental. I was talking about long term potential mates. For short term mating, it is much closer to anything goes.

>>4615499
>You think that the majority of men cheat on their partners?

Didn't say so. And no, since the majority of men don't even have partners... Most men are evolutionary losers, historically speaking.

>And how do you suppose that this woman stranger would get this man alone without arousing suspicion?

U ask the most strange questions. This happens all the time, even in our society with lots of surveillance "mate guarding" technology? It was much easier back then to be in secret. Hard to find people without mobile phones, maps, GPS, cities, artificial light, etc.

>>4615493
>Altho the morality questions and interesting
→
Altho the morality questions are interesting

typo

>>4615480
>Most men do not do that; only immoral men.

What do u live in, a fairy tale world? Srsly?

>You can also potentially commit a crime without getting caught, this does not make it right, not does it make it a wise thing to do.

Why do u keep talking about morality? This thread is not about whether it is right or wrong. Only what is the case. Altho the morality questions and interesting and not nearly as straightforward as u seem to think, this thread is not about them.

>For the most part we do.
It would be very unusual for a woman to flirt with a man that she knows is in a relationship. Everyone in the vicinity would view her as a homewrecking bitch.

U seem to have forgotten the comment about the privacy thing. They wud obviously do it in private. Even chimps understand that when one is having an extra-couple relationship, it is good to do so in private and watch out if one is being watched (cite: Good Natured, de Waal).

>>4615476
>I always back off the moment they tell me about their boyfriend.

Quote out of context. His comment was about men not caring about it in a good way, as in, men does not think that it is a good thing if the woman has a partner. At least, that is what he thinks. I'm not sure. U shud work for the same reason it works for women, just to a lesser degree. It is easier for men to evaluate whether a woman is a good partner: does she look nice? Any children around/pregnant? Good to go!

>>4615447
>The amount of children raised by men who were not really their fathers has only increased in recent years.

Cite please.

>Even without paternaty tests the women of earlier generations didn't cheat on their men. The risk is too big to destroy you cost you your position in society.

Cite please.

>>4615456
>Even if he is considered more attractive subconsciously because he has a girlfriend, flirting with him would be extremely socially unacceptable.
>We accept that he is off limits do not dwell on it.

This is just wrong. Since the man is also interesting in extra-coupled sex, he is probably interesting in running the risk. U do realize it is possible to have an affair.. without getting caught, right? Many people do so.

It is simply not true that women just 'accept' it.

>>4615446
>Wheter or not a woman has a boyfriend isn't important for guys

U sure about that? Have a cite?

>>4615437
>Yes, it was one of the options but I selected otherwise.

I think that is a very strange choice. It is impossible to understand human psychology without understanding evolution and its effects. There has been adaptions for the brain that affect behavior just as there have been adaptions for all kinds of other things. Evo psych is the only grand theory of psychology capable of uniting all the other fields of psychology.

>>4615419
>Social rank is a benefit but not the top spot. The top spot is always the most vulnerable position with dozens of equally capabale individuals in the second row who are eager to get to the top.

I think there is cross species differences here. In some species the alfa male stays that for long periods, many years sometimes. I don't recall the numbers for our nearest relatives, but i imagine that they are like that too.

>>4615413
>A man who has managed to attract and keep a woman is probably more desirable than one who has not.

Yes ofc. The correlation is not perfect, obviously, but it only needs to be a bit stronger than pure chance for evolution to catch on.

Does ur university not have classes on evo psych or?

>>4615411
Download the book i linked to earlier, do a search for "sexy son hypothesis", or read the Wikipedia page.

>>4615399
>Passing one womans 'screening' does not mean that he is automatically attractive to all women. We do not all like the same qualities.

No one said anything about "all women". This is generalities we are talking about. This is how evolutionary works. Probabilities over time. Now i am curious as to what ur education background is.

>>4615390
>That is not what I am disputing; I know that jealousy of a good boyfriend is real.
>I was disputing this.

I gave the reason for that in >>4615356