<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with evolutionarypsychology</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/evolutionarypsychology</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'evolutionarypsychology' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:28:49 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:28:49 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Why do we rape, kill, and sleep around?</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/82784/Why%2Ddo%2Dwe%2Drape%2Dkill%2Dand%2Dsleep%2Daround</link>
		<description> &lt;em&gt;Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, the 2000 book contended, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.&lt;/em&gt;

Newsweek&apos;s Sharon Begley examines evolutionary psychology and some of its most controversial theories (and how they are being rethought) in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newsweek.com/id/202789&quot;&gt;Don&apos;t Blame The Caveman.&lt;/a&gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2009:site.82784</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:28:49 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>caveman</category>
		<category>evolutionarypsychology</category>
		<category>murder</category>
		<category>newsweek</category>
		<category>rape</category>
		<category>sharonbegley</category>
		<category>theory</category>
		<dc:creator>hippybear</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>An evolutionary psychology debate</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/78892/An%2Devolutionary%2Dpsychology%2Ddebate</link>
		<description> Here is an interesting &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=four-fallacies&quot;&gt;critique &lt;/a&gt;of evolutionary psychology by philosopher of science David Buller. Clark Barrett and Edouard Machery published a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pitt.edu/~machery/papers/MAchery_Barrett_%202006_Buller.pdf&quot;&gt;critique of Buller&apos;s book&lt;/a&gt; &lt;small&gt;(pdf)&lt;/small&gt;. Anthropologist James Holland Jones has been &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stanford.edu/~jhj1/cgi-bin/blog/?p=217&quot;&gt;following the debate&lt;/a&gt; and is compelled by arguments on both sides. Here are some more &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/buller08.htm&quot;&gt;detailed responses&lt;/a&gt; to Buller by evolutionary psychologists, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/buller/reply%20to%20david%20buller.pdf&quot;&gt;this defense&lt;/a&gt; &lt;small&gt;(pdf)&lt;/small&gt; of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect&quot;&gt;Cinderella Effect&lt;/a&gt;. </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2009:site.78892</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:21:08 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>evolutionarypsychology</category>
		<category>philosophyofscience</category>
		<dc:creator>AceRock</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>May The Sluttiest, Male Or Female, Come Forward (Or Just Come And Get It Over With)</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/76297/May%2DThe%2DSluttiest%2DMale%2DOr%2DFemale%2DCome%2DForward%2DOr%2DJust%2DCome%2DAnd%2DGet%2DIt%2DOver%2DWith</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep06246282.pdf"&gt;I&apos;m neither a psychologist or a statistician, but perhaps some nations are sluttier than others.&lt;/a&gt; And I&apos;d like to know which. Or whether this is, academically or instinctually,  just another steaming - yet amusing - pile of the vilest-smelling bull poo. Warning: It&apos;s a pdf file and, to boot (for boot you may have to), a relatively new discipline, open to amiable derision and charming  condescension.  And yet the facts are here: Asian and Portuguese women are inherently honourable, whereas the rest of the female population skews as humanly as possible and desirable. How can you look yourselves in the mirror? Is the question we moral - not &quot;moron&quot; -  nations ask? If you&apos;re open to dinner, for example, our Weltanschauung may change like a butterfly. </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2008:site.76297</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:27:09 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>evolutionarypsychology</category>
		<category>internationalpruriencelevelstudies</category>
		<category>joy</category>
		<category>sexuality</category>
		<category>sluttiness</category>
		<category>surveys</category>
		<dc:creator>MiguelCardoso</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>More Beautiful Women Than Handsome Men</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/53570/More%2DBeautiful%2DWomen%2DThan%2DHandsome%2DMen</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101142.html"&gt;A new study&lt;/a&gt; by evolutionary psychologist &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/methodologyInstitute/whosWho/profiles/s.kanazawa@lse.ac.uk.htm&quot;&gt;Satoshi Kanazawa&lt;/a&gt; suggests there are more beautiful women than handsome men, finding that attractive people are significantly more likely to have a daughter than a son. Previous Kanazawa research found &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/methodologyInstitute/pdf/SKanazawa/JTB2005b.pdf&quot;&gt;big and tall&lt;/a&gt;  parents, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/methodologyInstitute/pdf/SKanazawa/JTB2005a.pdf&quot;&gt;scientists, mathematicians, engineers&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/methodologyInstitute/pdf/SKanazawa/JTB2006a.pdf&quot;&gt;violent men&lt;/a&gt; tend to have sons; while nurses, social workers and kindergarten teachers tend to have daughters. &lt;small&gt;[&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/2006/08/02/why-do-beautiful-women-sometimes-marry-unattractive-men/&quot;&gt;Via&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/small&gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2006:site.53570</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:43:14 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>beauty</category>
		<category>evolution</category>
		<category>evolutionarypsychology</category>
		<category>research</category>
		<dc:creator>CodeBaloo</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>&quot;well, it breaks the ice, doesn&apos;t it&quot;</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/46443/well%2Dit%2Dbreaks%2Dthe%2Dice%2Ddoesnt%2Dit</link>
		<description> Having sweated over the origins of the universe and split the atom, academics have finally tackled the question that has perplexed mankind since the dawn of time: &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article325167.ece&quot;&gt;what are the best chat-up lines?&lt;/a&gt; A &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;_udi=B6V9F-4HC76VB-1&amp;_coverDate=10%2F19%2F2005&amp;_alid=331830970&amp;_rdoc=1&amp;_fmt=&amp;_orig=search&amp;_qd=1&amp;_cdi=5897&amp;_sort=d&amp;view=c&amp;_acct=C000050221&amp;_version=1&amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;_userid=10&amp;md5=5667373c333a4e39839e137903e6c8ad&quot;&gt;study from psychologists at the University of Edinburgh&lt;/a&gt; tested 205 people for reactions to 40 vignettes of a woman approached by a man using &quot;verbal signals of genetic quality&quot; in different &lt;a href=&quot;http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/10/science-of-chat-up-lines.html&quot;&gt;categories&lt;/a&gt;, and found the best rated approaches to be those revealing character qualities, wealth and culture, although the puzzling winning line proved a flop in real life tests. Unsurprisingly, a direct request for sex received a low score. Previous findings by the Japanese proved &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1264362004&quot;&gt;equally dubious&lt;/a&gt;. But there&apos;s still hope, as the code seems to have been cracked &lt;a href=&quot;http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1604620,00.html&quot;&gt;in Dublin, where since last year &quot;there is definitely more pulling&quot;&lt;/a&gt;. The secret? A smoking ban, a lot of crowded pubs, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smirting&quot;&gt;&quot;smirting&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, an unexpected side effect of the health measure.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2005:site.46443</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Nov 2005 10:19:18 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>dublin</category>
		<category>evolutionarypsychology</category>
		<category>fun</category>
		<category>psychology</category>
		<category>science</category>
		<category>sex</category>
		<category>smoking</category>
		<dc:creator>funambulist</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>This post is dressed in blue</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/46253/This%2Dpost%2Dis%2Ddressed%2Din%2Dblue</link>
		<description> To invoke Fast and the Furious: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20051027/01&quot;&gt;It&apos;s not how you play the game that matters, it&apos;s the color of your uniform&lt;/a&gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2005:site.46253</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Oct 2005 23:10:16 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>brain</category>
		<category>colors</category>
		<category>evolutionarypsychology</category>
		<category>performance</category>
		<category>psychology</category>
		<category>sports</category>
		<dc:creator>daksya</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>You have evolved to like this interview.</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/43253/You%2Dhave%2Devolved%2Dto%2Dlike%2Dthis%2Dinterview</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&amp;amp;articleID=00022EBD-51CA-12C4-91CA83414B7F0000&amp;amp;ref=rdf"&gt;The fitness of evolutionary psychology&lt;/a&gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2005:site.43253</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2005 07:49:51 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>biology</category>
		<category>evolution</category>
		<category>evolutionarypsychology</category>
		<category>nature</category>
		<category>philosophy</category>
		<category>psychology</category>
		<category>science</category>
		<category>teleology</category>
		<dc:creator>daksya</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>On Why We Lie - The Evolutionary Roots of Deception and the Unconscious Mind by David Livingstone Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/37057/On%2DWhy%2DWe%2DLie%2DThe%2DEvolutionary%2DRoots%2Dof%2DDeception%2Dand%2Dthe%2DUnconscious%2DMind%2Dby%2DDavid%2DLivingstone%2DSmith</link>
		<description> &lt;small&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How often does the average person lie?&lt;/strong&gt; First, it&apos;s important to point out that lying is normal, and more often spontaneous and unconscious than cynical and coldly analytical. Our minds and bodies secrete deceit. That said, Robert Feldman, a psychologist at the University of Massachusetts, suggests that there are three lies for every ten minutes of conversation. I think that&apos;s plausible. And bear in mind that his research measured only the frequency of narrow, explicit, verbal lying. The real rate of deception, which includes our movements and expressions, must be considerably higher.&lt;/small&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.conference-board.org/articles/atb_article.cfm?id=267&quot; title=&quot;As a species, we are so well practiced in the art of deception that it comes to us almost as naturally and effortlessly as breathing&quot;&gt;Questioning Authority&lt;/a&gt;  - David Livingstone Smith, author of  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.neuroinf.de/News/2004/09/10_09-33-54&quot; title=&quot;Deceit, lying, and falsehoods lie at the very heart of our cultural heritage. Even the founding myth of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the story of Adam and Eve, revolves around a lie. We have been talking, writing and singing about deception ever since Eve told God, &apos;&apos;The serpent deceived me, and iIate&apos;&apos;. Our seemingly insatiable appetite for stories of deception spans the extremes of culture from King Lear to Little Red Riding Hood, retaining a grip our imaginations despite endless repetition. These tales of deception are so enthralling because they speak to something fundamental in the human condition. The ever-present possibility of deceit is a crucial dimension of all human relationships, even the most central: our relationships with our very own selves. David Livingstone Smith elucidates the essential role that deception and self-deception have played in human--and non-human--evolution and shows that the very structure of our minds has been shaped from our earliest beginnings by the need to deceive. Smith shows us that by examining the stories we tell, the falsehoods we weave, and the unconscious signals we send out, we can learn much about ourselves and how our minds work.&quot;&gt;Why We Lie: The Evolutionary Roots of Deception and the Unconscious Mind&lt;/a&gt;, is a liar. And he explains why you are too. ( &lt;small&gt;More Inside&lt;/small&gt; )  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2004:site.37057</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:35:42 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>evolutionarypsychology</category>
		<category>liars</category>
		<category>lies</category>
		<category>lying</category>
		<category>psychology</category>
		<dc:creator>y2karl</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


