Rejoice nerds!
June 10, 2009 1:22 AM Subscribe
Recent studies indicate that while big muscular hunks get more sex they do so at a cost. Wimps have faster reaction times.
I like how there's this dichotomy between "big muscular hunks" and "skinnies" fabricated in the first article.
posted by jabberjaw at 1:37 AM on June 10, 2009
posted by jabberjaw at 1:37 AM on June 10, 2009
Flinching requires fast reaction times.
posted by JauntyFedora at 1:46 AM on June 10, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by JauntyFedora at 1:46 AM on June 10, 2009 [4 favorites]
I hated gym class, but I was master at dodgeball.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:05 AM on June 10, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:05 AM on June 10, 2009 [3 favorites]
Insert "probably from playing video games" joke, but actually that would be wrong.
The article doesn't say that whims have faster "reaction times" it says they underestimate the amount of time it takes for something to reach them after they are aware of it. It doesn't say that, for example, skinny people would be able to react to new stimulus more quickly.
In fact, the article states that 'wimps' are actually less correct then muscular people. So how is more accuracy in estimating arrival times a "cost" for muscular people?
Estimating arrival times is a key skill for playing video games, for everything from timing when a piranha plant will pop up to dodging rockets in quake. So if this article is right muscular people would actually be better at video games, but I think people play lots of games would actually do really well at this test, compared to those that don't. I bet that the difference between gamers and non-gamers would be much greater then the difference between skinny and muscular people.
posted by delmoi at 2:06 AM on June 10, 2009
The article doesn't say that whims have faster "reaction times" it says they underestimate the amount of time it takes for something to reach them after they are aware of it. It doesn't say that, for example, skinny people would be able to react to new stimulus more quickly.
In fact, the article states that 'wimps' are actually less correct then muscular people. So how is more accuracy in estimating arrival times a "cost" for muscular people?
Estimating arrival times is a key skill for playing video games, for everything from timing when a piranha plant will pop up to dodging rockets in quake. So if this article is right muscular people would actually be better at video games, but I think people play lots of games would actually do really well at this test, compared to those that don't. I bet that the difference between gamers and non-gamers would be much greater then the difference between skinny and muscular people.
posted by delmoi at 2:06 AM on June 10, 2009
That picture of a typical nerd in the second link sure does lend the article credibility.
WARNING: The above sarcastic comment is not shitting on the post as a whole, but is only shitting on that totally lazy picture of a 1950's poindexter with tape on his glasses. twoleftfeet, we are still on for Scrabble tommorow.
posted by Uppity Pigeon #2 at 2:06 AM on June 10, 2009 [2 favorites]
WARNING: The above sarcastic comment is not shitting on the post as a whole, but is only shitting on that totally lazy picture of a 1950's poindexter with tape on his glasses. twoleftfeet, we are still on for Scrabble tommorow.
posted by Uppity Pigeon #2 at 2:06 AM on June 10, 2009 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I'd be slow to react if I were stuck in smutty reverie too.
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:07 AM on June 10, 2009
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:07 AM on June 10, 2009
twoleftfeet, we are still on for Scrabble tommorow
I can't make it. I'm going to be bench-pressing hundreds of pounds (not all at once).
Anything for the ladies...
posted by twoleftfeet at 2:14 AM on June 10, 2009
I can't make it. I'm going to be bench-pressing hundreds of pounds (not all at once).
Anything for the ladies...
posted by twoleftfeet at 2:14 AM on June 10, 2009
I can't make it. I'm going to be bench-pressing hundreds of pounds (not all at once).
Uh. D-did I say Scrabble? I meant throwing tractor tires over a really, really high wall. The tractor tires weight 900 pounds each, because they are full of terrorists. And dynamite, to kill the terrorists.
(Brought to you by the twoleftfeet and Uppity Pigeon #2 Makeout Foundation)
posted by Uppity Pigeon #2 at 2:19 AM on June 10, 2009 [2 favorites]
Uh. D-did I say Scrabble? I meant throwing tractor tires over a really, really high wall. The tractor tires weight 900 pounds each, because they are full of terrorists. And dynamite, to kill the terrorists.
(Brought to you by the twoleftfeet and Uppity Pigeon #2 Makeout Foundation)
posted by Uppity Pigeon #2 at 2:19 AM on June 10, 2009 [2 favorites]
So the trick is to be some former bruiser turning to flab, like Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler, and get the best of both worlds.
posted by Abiezer at 2:22 AM on June 10, 2009
posted by Abiezer at 2:22 AM on June 10, 2009
In vaguely related news: New study suggests nerds like the Internet
posted by twoleftfeet at 2:40 AM on June 10, 2009
posted by twoleftfeet at 2:40 AM on June 10, 2009
I get the bus occasionally. A way to pass the time on the top deck of a London bus when people watching to divide the other passengers into herbivores, carnivores and omnivores based on their body language and comfort with who is around them.
I don't know whether I'm right, of course, but some people really are almost like mice or rabbits in terms of how much they twitch and look about before committing to where they sit.
posted by MuffinMan at 2:53 AM on June 10, 2009
I don't know whether I'm right, of course, but some people really are almost like mice or rabbits in terms of how much they twitch and look about before committing to where they sit.
posted by MuffinMan at 2:53 AM on June 10, 2009
That second link has some wonky thinking in it. Not that I follow the fast paced and exciting world of evolutionary psychology, and I'm sure somebody is going to link to the bingo thing, but are the conclusions always that spurious? That was a pretty crappy way of testing reaction time.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:14 AM on June 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by P.o.B. at 3:14 AM on June 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
And revealed that hunky men going hungry more often.
That's some fine copy editing right there.
posted by jbickers at 3:32 AM on June 10, 2009 [3 favorites]
That's some fine copy editing right there.
posted by jbickers at 3:32 AM on June 10, 2009 [3 favorites]
Every big muscular hunk has had more sex than me,
Does anyone else get that feeling?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:47 AM on June 10, 2009
Does anyone else get that feeling?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:47 AM on June 10, 2009
The first article also said that muscular guys have a weakened immune system and get sick more. Is it possible that the "wimpy guys" might have more sex throughout their lifetimes because they'll be more fit later on in life? The longitudinal study would be nice to see.
posted by explosion at 4:12 AM on June 10, 2009
posted by explosion at 4:12 AM on June 10, 2009
But aren't fast reaction times bad when it comes to sex?
posted by TedW at 4:17 AM on June 10, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by TedW at 4:17 AM on June 10, 2009 [3 favorites]
"It's beneficial [for the weaker] to react sooner rather than later," said Neuhoff. "The cost of responding too early is far less than the potentially fatal cost of responding too late."
And it's completely inconceivable that I might have *learned* to react sooner after years of living in my body. It must be a mystical evolutionary process!!! Rhesus monkeys (who are well known to be purely biological and incapable of learning) only prove it!!!
/furious bile towards all things ep
posted by carmen at 4:28 AM on June 10, 2009 [2 favorites]
And it's completely inconceivable that I might have *learned* to react sooner after years of living in my body. It must be a mystical evolutionary process!!! Rhesus monkeys (who are well known to be purely biological and incapable of learning) only prove it!!!
/furious bile towards all things ep
posted by carmen at 4:28 AM on June 10, 2009 [2 favorites]
Allegedly, they told the participants to hit a button at the point at which they thought the motorcycle would pass them. This was done by sound. So the unfit individuals, who they found by drawing a magical line in the sand and sorted people that way, hit the buttons sooner than fit individuals. And TA-DAA! They're scaredy cats 'cuz they're unfit and need more time to get away.... It was, supposedly, a bias perception. So when someone gets in shape, they're perception changes to allow for...asskicking time?
I still don't get it.
posted by P.o.B. at 4:53 AM on June 10, 2009
I still don't get it.
posted by P.o.B. at 4:53 AM on June 10, 2009
big muscular hunks get more sex
Based on a random sampling in my gym, most of those big muscular hunks seem to be getting more sex from the other big muscular hunks.
Which is fine and all, but it doesn't exactly hurt the odds for us boring, wimpy girl-seeking types, so I say: go for it, hunky guys!
posted by rokusan at 5:18 AM on June 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
Based on a random sampling in my gym, most of those big muscular hunks seem to be getting more sex from the other big muscular hunks.
Which is fine and all, but it doesn't exactly hurt the odds for us boring, wimpy girl-seeking types, so I say: go for it, hunky guys!
posted by rokusan at 5:18 AM on June 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
Personally, I typically find skinny fellow nerds to be cooler people than big muscular jocks, so this is one woman from whom the big muscular jocks aren't getting sex.
posted by kldickson at 5:25 AM on June 10, 2009
posted by kldickson at 5:25 AM on June 10, 2009
Evolutionary psychology thinks it's a big bad science like physics or chemistry, but it basically uses methods of art history. It never gets past interpretation or proposes anything that's actually testable or prognostic. Evolutionary psychology needs to go into its room, close the door, and think very hard about itself and not come out until it has a coherent statement of methodology and purpose.
posted by creasy boy at 5:30 AM on June 10, 2009 [11 favorites]
posted by creasy boy at 5:30 AM on June 10, 2009 [11 favorites]
"evolutionary costs could explain why males of our species do not all look like He-Man".
Really? Because I have a different explanation: not everyone looks like He-Man because not everyone lifts weights and eats five skinless chicken breasts a day. The bench press was only invented in the late 19th century. When was the first protein supplement invented?
Seriously -- this guy's question seems to be: why isn't the human species more muscular? Which is like asking: why aren't giraffes even taller? Why can't cheetahs run even faster? Why didn't deer evolve fucking rocket-launchers on each flank to scare away predators? "We found that when we strapped two rocket-launchers to a deer it weighed him down too much and he starved to death. That's why." Are these scientific questions? How does this guy get funding for his research?
posted by creasy boy at 5:58 AM on June 10, 2009 [6 favorites]
Really? Because I have a different explanation: not everyone looks like He-Man because not everyone lifts weights and eats five skinless chicken breasts a day. The bench press was only invented in the late 19th century. When was the first protein supplement invented?
Seriously -- this guy's question seems to be: why isn't the human species more muscular? Which is like asking: why aren't giraffes even taller? Why can't cheetahs run even faster? Why didn't deer evolve fucking rocket-launchers on each flank to scare away predators? "We found that when we strapped two rocket-launchers to a deer it weighed him down too much and he starved to death. That's why." Are these scientific questions? How does this guy get funding for his research?
posted by creasy boy at 5:58 AM on June 10, 2009 [6 favorites]
Evolutionary psychology needs to go into its room, close the door, and think very hard about itself...
This is, as a matter of fact, the same method that leads to muscular hunks having more sex.
posted by Lemurrhea at 6:00 AM on June 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
This is, as a matter of fact, the same method that leads to muscular hunks having more sex.
posted by Lemurrhea at 6:00 AM on June 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
Huh? What? Did you say something?
imagine the competition to post "LAST" in this thread.
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:01 AM on June 10, 2009
imagine the competition to post "LAST" in this thread.
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:01 AM on June 10, 2009
Oh, and creasy, I think you're being unfair - to Art History!
(Lemurrheah, you made me spit up my protein shake from laughing so hard. We do indeed need an evolutionary hypothesis for why certain has-to-be-right types become evolutionary psychologists. Betcha Pinker has to fight off the groupies.)
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:07 AM on June 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
(Lemurrheah, you made me spit up my protein shake from laughing so hard. We do indeed need an evolutionary hypothesis for why certain has-to-be-right types become evolutionary psychologists. Betcha Pinker has to fight off the groupies.)
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:07 AM on June 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
I get the bus occasionally. A way to pass the time on the top deck of a London bus when people watching to divide the other passengers into herbivores, carnivores and omnivores based on their body language and comfort with who is around them.
I don't know whether I'm right, of course, but some people really are almost like mice or rabbits in terms of how much they twitch and look about before committing to where they sit.
Brings to mind the quote, "Only the paranoid will survive." Andy Grove?
posted by notreally at 6:13 AM on June 10, 2009
Now off to do deep knee bends
DON'T!!! It'll slow down you're reaction time...to danger...which doesn't make sense, I know you may get more sex, but seriously don't do it, a motorcycle might drive up on you and then you'll be to slow to figure out you're in Neo-Tokyo and it's a dude with clown makeup on and he has a pipe to whack you in the head...and other stuff!
posted by P.o.B. at 6:24 AM on June 10, 2009 [2 favorites]
DON'T!!! It'll slow down you're reaction time...to danger...which doesn't make sense, I know you may get more sex, but seriously don't do it, a motorcycle might drive up on you and then you'll be to slow to figure out you're in Neo-Tokyo and it's a dude with clown makeup on and he has a pipe to whack you in the head...and other stuff!
posted by P.o.B. at 6:24 AM on June 10, 2009 [2 favorites]
Evolutionary psychology thinks it's a big bad science like physics or chemistry, but it basically uses methods of art history. It never gets past interpretation or proposes anything that's actually testable or prognostic. Evolutionary psychology needs to go into its room, close the door, and think very hard about itself and not come out until it has a coherent statement of methodology and purpose.
Creasy boy,
Such a fab comment.
(Can I see a photo of you?)
posted by Jody Tresidder at 6:36 AM on June 10, 2009
Put this in the no crap category. Muscle is bulky and naturally slows you down. Having leaner, less muscles will make you faster. It is one of those thing, more str less spd. more spd less str. Look at UFC for a prime example. As for girls wanting the bulky guys more, let them. Those girls are the superficial, high maintenance types anyways. A good woman, not a girl, wouldn't sleep with a guy based on being muscular anyways so I doubt nerds are missing anything worth while.
posted by Mastercheddaar at 6:44 AM on June 10, 2009
posted by Mastercheddaar at 6:44 AM on June 10, 2009
it's one thing to GET the pussy.. it another to KEEP the pussy
posted by ChickenringNYC at 6:46 AM on June 10, 2009
posted by ChickenringNYC at 6:46 AM on June 10, 2009
The more I think about this the worse it gets. The data says: people with lower cardiovascular capacity estimate when an approaching sound is in front of them less accurately -- and this translates to "wimps have faster reflexes"? It has fuck-all to do with reflex speed. This "scientist" is assuming that, because the "wimps" estimate the arrival of the motorcycle prematurely, this means that they would've started running away earlier. But who said anything about running away? The "scientist" seems obsessed with some imagined situation of humans being chased by a lion or something, and seems to have projected this onto a completely different situation -- estimating when a motorcycle is in front of you. He didn't say to the subjects "estimate when you would dodge if the motorcycle were coming right at you" -- this might've produced vastly different results.
Besides, if in an "evolutionary" situation I see a lion coming for me, it doesn't matter whether I'm fucking Usain Bolt -- the time to start running is now. No-one has any evolutionary advantage from sticking around.
posted by creasy boy at 7:33 AM on June 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
Besides, if in an "evolutionary" situation I see a lion coming for me, it doesn't matter whether I'm fucking Usain Bolt -- the time to start running is now. No-one has any evolutionary advantage from sticking around.
posted by creasy boy at 7:33 AM on June 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
The more I think about this the worse it gets.
Yeah, like I said, the thinking in that article is wonky. Is there a link to the study?
posted by P.o.B. at 7:43 AM on June 10, 2009
Yeah, like I said, the thinking in that article is wonky. Is there a link to the study?
posted by P.o.B. at 7:43 AM on June 10, 2009
John G. Neuhoff, Katherine L. Long, and Rebecca C. Worthington Strength and cardivascular fitness predict time-to-arrival perception of looming sounds. (A) J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 125, Issue 4, pp. 2691-2691 (April 2009) (Conference proceeding)
Perceiving rapidly approaching sounding objects can be critical for survival. In studies of “auditory looming” perception, listeners consistently perceive sound sources as closer than they actually are, resulting in an underestimation of arrival time (Neuhoff, Planisek, and Seifritz, 2009; Rosenblum, Carello, and Pastore, 1987). This effect has been argued to provide an evolutionary advantage by allowing more time to prepare for the source. However, critical to this argument is the timely engagement of motor behaviors. Here, we tested the hypothesis that listeners with lower levels of physical fitness would have a larger anticipatory bias in perceived auditory arrival time, and thus a larger margin of safety in response to looming sounds. Listeners judged the arrival time of a three-dimensional looming sound. Physical fitness was measured using recovering heart rate after exercise and grip strength. Results show that the anticipatory bias in perceiving looming sounds is negatively correlated with physical fitness (r=−0.41). Those least prepared physically to interact with a looming sound source have a greater perceptual margin of safety. The findings are consistent with an evolutionary explanation of the anticipatory bias for looming sounds and provide evidence for fitness-based perception-action links between the auditory and motor systems.
Henceforth I shall no longer accept that I am clumsy if I bump into something -- I am just extremely well prepared physically to deal with it.
posted by Comrade_robot at 7:57 AM on June 10, 2009
Perceiving rapidly approaching sounding objects can be critical for survival. In studies of “auditory looming” perception, listeners consistently perceive sound sources as closer than they actually are, resulting in an underestimation of arrival time (Neuhoff, Planisek, and Seifritz, 2009; Rosenblum, Carello, and Pastore, 1987). This effect has been argued to provide an evolutionary advantage by allowing more time to prepare for the source. However, critical to this argument is the timely engagement of motor behaviors. Here, we tested the hypothesis that listeners with lower levels of physical fitness would have a larger anticipatory bias in perceived auditory arrival time, and thus a larger margin of safety in response to looming sounds. Listeners judged the arrival time of a three-dimensional looming sound. Physical fitness was measured using recovering heart rate after exercise and grip strength. Results show that the anticipatory bias in perceiving looming sounds is negatively correlated with physical fitness (r=−0.41). Those least prepared physically to interact with a looming sound source have a greater perceptual margin of safety. The findings are consistent with an evolutionary explanation of the anticipatory bias for looming sounds and provide evidence for fitness-based perception-action links between the auditory and motor systems.
Henceforth I shall no longer accept that I am clumsy if I bump into something -- I am just extremely well prepared physically to deal with it.
posted by Comrade_robot at 7:57 AM on June 10, 2009
Muscle is bulky and naturally slows you down. Having leaner, less muscles will make you faster.
This comment displays a shocking ignorance with regards to how muscular development and power generation work in the human body. Congratulations!
I am not surprised about the "muscular guys are hungrier" comment. Of course they're hungrier! Muscle burns more calories than fat, requires more calories to maintain, so your appetite is naturally higher.
posted by Anonymous at 8:07 AM on June 10, 2009
This comment displays a shocking ignorance with regards to how muscular development and power generation work in the human body. Congratulations!
I am not surprised about the "muscular guys are hungrier" comment. Of course they're hungrier! Muscle burns more calories than fat, requires more calories to maintain, so your appetite is naturally higher.
posted by Anonymous at 8:07 AM on June 10, 2009
Oh, uhm, I guess I should point out that an r value of -.41 is not incredibly 'good'. Also that despite our underlying desire for things to be fair, I know people who are strong _and_ fast. And strong and fast and smart.
posted by Comrade_robot at 8:12 AM on June 10, 2009
posted by Comrade_robot at 8:12 AM on June 10, 2009
...despite our underlying desire for things to be fair, I know people who are strong _and_ fast. And strong and fast and smart.
That's OK. Diana Moon Glampers will take care of 'em.
posted by TedW at 9:01 AM on June 10, 2009
That's OK. Diana Moon Glampers will take care of 'em.
posted by TedW at 9:01 AM on June 10, 2009
Fitness was measured by two variables: heart rate after a bout of moderate cardiovascular exercise and muscular power, measured by the strength of their hand grips.
...seriously?
Also what schroedinger said.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:34 AM on June 10, 2009
...seriously?
Also what schroedinger said.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:34 AM on June 10, 2009
Occam's razor: muscular bulk implies you eat better than a skinny guy, meaning you're a better hunter.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:05 AM on June 10, 2009
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:05 AM on June 10, 2009
Based on a random sampling in my gym, most of those big muscular hunks seem to be getting more sex from the other big muscular hunks.
Isn't that a modern irony.
When ever we get new homophobes at the boxing gym I'm always torn between politely asking them to tone it down and waiting a couple months watching them spar the biggest most ripped guys in the gym. Who are gay.
Muscle is bulky and naturally slows you down. Having leaner, less muscles will make you faster.
IF ONLY! My life would have been so much more injury free if this was so.
No. Muscle trained to explode, big or small, moves quickly. Have you seen how fast these HUUUUUGE modern NFL lineman move? Those monsters are fast.
This is the myth boxers back in the day used to believe. But what they were really seeing was fatigue. What big muscle does is soak up more oxygen. Which can effect endurance. Why marathoners are not bulked up. But big muscle can be extraordinarily fast.
posted by tkchrist at 10:10 AM on June 10, 2009
Isn't that a modern irony.
When ever we get new homophobes at the boxing gym I'm always torn between politely asking them to tone it down and waiting a couple months watching them spar the biggest most ripped guys in the gym. Who are gay.
Muscle is bulky and naturally slows you down. Having leaner, less muscles will make you faster.
IF ONLY! My life would have been so much more injury free if this was so.
No. Muscle trained to explode, big or small, moves quickly. Have you seen how fast these HUUUUUGE modern NFL lineman move? Those monsters are fast.
This is the myth boxers back in the day used to believe. But what they were really seeing was fatigue. What big muscle does is soak up more oxygen. Which can effect endurance. Why marathoners are not bulked up. But big muscle can be extraordinarily fast.
posted by tkchrist at 10:10 AM on June 10, 2009
Those monsters are fast.
Yeah, and if you check out sprinters there is a natural tendency for Type II B musculature.
measured by the strength of their hand grips.
Actually it's not an uncommon way to get a baseline (everybody young and old can usually do it), but probably not the best way.
posted by P.o.B. at 10:43 AM on June 10, 2009
Yeah, and if you check out sprinters there is a natural tendency for Type II B musculature.
measured by the strength of their hand grips.
Actually it's not an uncommon way to get a baseline (everybody young and old can usually do it), but probably not the best way.
posted by P.o.B. at 10:43 AM on June 10, 2009
Creasy boy - I don't know where this idea that evolutionary psychology doesn't produce testable hypotheses comes from. (Certainly, many evolutionary psychologists need to clean up their methodological act, but that is true of any field) Let me give you two examples of evolutionary hypotheses that are testable - one uncontroversial and one more controversial:
1. Fear of snakes. We know that snakes were prevalent in Africa during the time of our evolution, and that snake bites are harmful. It is a plausible hypothesis that humans may have evolved a special sensitivity to objects that look and/or move like snakes. This has been tested and it appears that it is true.
2. "The Cinderella Effect". Based on observations of animal behavior, it was hypothesized that human stepchildren are more at risk of violence and homicide than children living with their genetic parents. This was tested using a very large sample (the entire Canadian population between 1974 and 1990), as were alternative hypotheses such as reporting biases. The alternative hypotheses were ruled out after examining the data, and the Cinderella Effect appears to be a real phenomenon.
When understood correctly, evolutionary theory is actually a very powerful framework for producing testable hypotheses about the human mind and human behavior.
posted by AceRock at 10:46 AM on June 10, 2009
1. Fear of snakes. We know that snakes were prevalent in Africa during the time of our evolution, and that snake bites are harmful. It is a plausible hypothesis that humans may have evolved a special sensitivity to objects that look and/or move like snakes. This has been tested and it appears that it is true.
2. "The Cinderella Effect". Based on observations of animal behavior, it was hypothesized that human stepchildren are more at risk of violence and homicide than children living with their genetic parents. This was tested using a very large sample (the entire Canadian population between 1974 and 1990), as were alternative hypotheses such as reporting biases. The alternative hypotheses were ruled out after examining the data, and the Cinderella Effect appears to be a real phenomenon.
When understood correctly, evolutionary theory is actually a very powerful framework for producing testable hypotheses about the human mind and human behavior.
posted by AceRock at 10:46 AM on June 10, 2009
AceRock--about your #2: I have no doubt that this is a real phenomenon, but can you elaborate on where the evolutionary part comes in? It seems like there are many possible causes--jealousy of the attention given to the stepchildren, for example. What precisely is the evolutionary hypothesis there, and how specifically is it tested?
posted by equalpants at 11:35 AM on June 10, 2009
posted by equalpants at 11:35 AM on June 10, 2009
We know that snakes were prevalent in Africa during the time of our evolution,
Aren't we still evolving? Couldn't some evolutionary traits evolve out of humans as we adapt? I, too, am highly skeptical of evolutionary psychology.
posted by fuq at 11:58 AM on June 10, 2009
Aren't we still evolving? Couldn't some evolutionary traits evolve out of humans as we adapt? I, too, am highly skeptical of evolutionary psychology.
posted by fuq at 11:58 AM on June 10, 2009
No. Muscle trained to explode, big or small, moves quickly. Have you seen how fast these HUUUUUGE modern NFL lineman move? Those monsters are fast.
This is the myth boxers back in the day used to believe. But what they were really seeing was fatigue. What big muscle does is soak up more oxygen. Which can effect endurance. Why marathoners are not bulked up. But big muscle can be extraordinarily fast.
Those guys are getting involved in MMA now, which somehow scares me. (Too much skinny fighter empathy?) There's going to be a whole pack of Brock Lesnar-types in the UFC heavyweight division in a few years. Skill is going to be tested harder than ever.
posted by ignignokt at 12:02 PM on June 10, 2009
This is the myth boxers back in the day used to believe. But what they were really seeing was fatigue. What big muscle does is soak up more oxygen. Which can effect endurance. Why marathoners are not bulked up. But big muscle can be extraordinarily fast.
Those guys are getting involved in MMA now, which somehow scares me. (Too much skinny fighter empathy?) There's going to be a whole pack of Brock Lesnar-types in the UFC heavyweight division in a few years. Skill is going to be tested harder than ever.
posted by ignignokt at 12:02 PM on June 10, 2009
Aren't we still evolving? Couldn't some evolutionary traits evolve out of humans as we adapt?
Adapt to what? Have people who don't fear snakes become more likely to reproduce than people who do?
posted by ludwig_van at 12:03 PM on June 10, 2009
Adapt to what? Have people who don't fear snakes become more likely to reproduce than people who do?
posted by ludwig_van at 12:03 PM on June 10, 2009
AceRock -- if evolutionary psychologists examined the conditions in which humans evolved, and from there made predictions about what species-wide traits would follow and were able to verify their existence, I would be impressed. But in every example I've seen it works the other way around, something like this:
1) We have some universal trait x
2) The evolutionary psychologist says, "oh, it's evolution"
3) The evolutionary psychologist invents a plausible story: trait evolved because of y.
All the work is pretty much already done in step 1, before the ep begins. Step 2 is always the same, no matter what the content of 1, and step 3 is untestable. For example:
Humans have the muscle system they have; we have the response to testosterone that we have; these are species-wide facts. The ep-ologist then says, in our example: we evolved to our current size, and not bigger or stronger, because testosterone negatively affects the immune system. But this is untestable speculation. How does the ep know? How does he know that if our immune system didn't have this response to testosterone, we would have evolved to get bigger and stronger? Maybe there's simply never been any evolutionary pressure to get stronger. Maybe, if there had been an advantage to greater strength, we would have evolved to be stronger and have a better immune system that deals with testosterone better. Maybe some third or fourth factors are involved. Etc.
The existence of universal traits can be proven, but the story "we evolved to have these traits because of x, y and z" is untestable speculation. Sometimes it's very plausible, as in your snake example, other times less so.
It might be interesting to create stories about why humans might have evolved as they did, but it's not testable empirical science. It would only be testable is you could repeat the evolutionary process while changing certain variables. Maybe this can be done for virusus or insect populations, but not for the human organism.
posted by creasy boy at 12:43 PM on June 10, 2009
1) We have some universal trait x
2) The evolutionary psychologist says, "oh, it's evolution"
3) The evolutionary psychologist invents a plausible story: trait evolved because of y.
All the work is pretty much already done in step 1, before the ep begins. Step 2 is always the same, no matter what the content of 1, and step 3 is untestable. For example:
Humans have the muscle system they have; we have the response to testosterone that we have; these are species-wide facts. The ep-ologist then says, in our example: we evolved to our current size, and not bigger or stronger, because testosterone negatively affects the immune system. But this is untestable speculation. How does the ep know? How does he know that if our immune system didn't have this response to testosterone, we would have evolved to get bigger and stronger? Maybe there's simply never been any evolutionary pressure to get stronger. Maybe, if there had been an advantage to greater strength, we would have evolved to be stronger and have a better immune system that deals with testosterone better. Maybe some third or fourth factors are involved. Etc.
The existence of universal traits can be proven, but the story "we evolved to have these traits because of x, y and z" is untestable speculation. Sometimes it's very plausible, as in your snake example, other times less so.
It might be interesting to create stories about why humans might have evolved as they did, but it's not testable empirical science. It would only be testable is you could repeat the evolutionary process while changing certain variables. Maybe this can be done for virusus or insect populations, but not for the human organism.
posted by creasy boy at 12:43 PM on June 10, 2009
Why the silly binary? You can be big and strong and also smart and be so busy with staying strong and smart that you will most likely have no time or energy left for social activities including sex and those activities that may lead to sex.
posted by idiopath at 12:58 PM on June 10, 2009
posted by idiopath at 12:58 PM on June 10, 2009
Creasy boy, you realize that your example of testosterone and the immune system is not psychology, rather it is the evolutionary biology of the human body. Do you think that biology is also untestable? Let me give you an example from human biology that has nothing to do with psychology, but is a pretty good at illustrating how an evolutionary framework can guide theoretical thinking in general. Conclusions are somewhat controversial, but hopefully it can show the reasoning behind testable evolutionary theories.
Most pregnant women, early in pregnancy, experience morning sickness. Traditionally, this has been viewed as a breakdown of the system. That something is not working, the woman gets sick, etc. A plausible hypothesis would be that rather morning sickness serves a biological function. While a fetus is developing in the uterus, it is particularly vulnerable to various pathogens, parasites, etc. Perhaps female humans evolved a hypersensitivity to foods that might damage the baby. Now, that's a nice story. But the key is that it doesn't just end there. We can make predictions based on this theory and test them.
What kinds of predictions can we make? We can predict that the timing of onset and offset of morning sickness should correspond to the period when the fetus is most vulnerable. We can also predict that the foods avoided should correspond to the kinds of foods that were most dangerous (and actually available) during the time when humans evolved. So, for example, women do not appear to get morning sickness from consuming alcohol, because even though alcohol is dangerous to a developing fetus, it wasn't invented yet when humans were evolving.
These are the kinds of things I mean when I say that evolutionary theory can produce testable hypotheses. You have a theory, you make predictions based on that theory, you test them, you test alternative hypotheses, and you see how valid your theory is. That is science.
Of course, we cannot repeat the evolutionary process and change variables and directly see what happens, etc. But indirect evidence can still be compelling evidence.
posted by AceRock at 1:16 PM on June 10, 2009
Most pregnant women, early in pregnancy, experience morning sickness. Traditionally, this has been viewed as a breakdown of the system. That something is not working, the woman gets sick, etc. A plausible hypothesis would be that rather morning sickness serves a biological function. While a fetus is developing in the uterus, it is particularly vulnerable to various pathogens, parasites, etc. Perhaps female humans evolved a hypersensitivity to foods that might damage the baby. Now, that's a nice story. But the key is that it doesn't just end there. We can make predictions based on this theory and test them.
What kinds of predictions can we make? We can predict that the timing of onset and offset of morning sickness should correspond to the period when the fetus is most vulnerable. We can also predict that the foods avoided should correspond to the kinds of foods that were most dangerous (and actually available) during the time when humans evolved. So, for example, women do not appear to get morning sickness from consuming alcohol, because even though alcohol is dangerous to a developing fetus, it wasn't invented yet when humans were evolving.
These are the kinds of things I mean when I say that evolutionary theory can produce testable hypotheses. You have a theory, you make predictions based on that theory, you test them, you test alternative hypotheses, and you see how valid your theory is. That is science.
Of course, we cannot repeat the evolutionary process and change variables and directly see what happens, etc. But indirect evidence can still be compelling evidence.
posted by AceRock at 1:16 PM on June 10, 2009
I am a wimp, and I can totally tell you that my skinny 22-year old 250lb. bench pressing martial-arts ass-kicking self had ridiculously faster reflexes than I do now. He was faster and more reactive than my scrawny 15 year old self. Well trained muscles are, well, awesome. The real trade off was that I was failing out of college because I was training 35 hours a week because such development takes a lot of time for someone who's naturally a wimp and skinny.
posted by mrmojoflying at 1:22 PM on June 10, 2009
posted by mrmojoflying at 1:22 PM on June 10, 2009
equalpants, here is a good overview of the Cinderella Effect, if you are interested in the specifics.
posted by AceRock at 1:42 PM on June 10, 2009
posted by AceRock at 1:42 PM on June 10, 2009
AceRock, I think your morning sickness example is missing a couple of steps. Shouldn't you also need to demonstrate that morning sickness actually serves the purpose you attribute to it--i.e. that women who experience morning sickness have healthier babies (i.e. a lower incidence of the specific things that you think morning sickness protects against)? And if evolution is to be involved, shouldn't you be able to identify a heritable trait that corresponds to morning sickness? Although that hypothesis is testable, it seems like the easiest predictions to test (i.e. the duration of the sickness) are also the least compelling.
When I was speculating about the Cinderella thing earlier, I kept getting hung up on little details like that. It's easy to say something like "treating your own kids better than your stepkids should give your genetic material an advantage", but it seems like it'd be incredibly hard to conclusively prove such an advantage, or to identify the genes involved.
on preview: thanks for the link, I'll go give it a read...
posted by equalpants at 1:55 PM on June 10, 2009
When I was speculating about the Cinderella thing earlier, I kept getting hung up on little details like that. It's easy to say something like "treating your own kids better than your stepkids should give your genetic material an advantage", but it seems like it'd be incredibly hard to conclusively prove such an advantage, or to identify the genes involved.
on preview: thanks for the link, I'll go give it a read...
posted by equalpants at 1:55 PM on June 10, 2009
equalpants, good points. I can't locate the study in question (morning sickness), but I remember that they did test whether or not higher levels of morning sickness were correlated with healthier babies and they found that it did.
posted by AceRock at 2:16 PM on June 10, 2009
posted by AceRock at 2:16 PM on June 10, 2009
As a nerd, I daresay that this Onion article will ring very true to other nerds as it did to me.
But If We Started Dating It Would Ruin Our Friendship Where I Ask You To Do Things And You Do Them.
posted by Effigy2000 at 2:16 PM on June 10, 2009 [2 favorites]
But If We Started Dating It Would Ruin Our Friendship Where I Ask You To Do Things And You Do Them.
posted by Effigy2000 at 2:16 PM on June 10, 2009 [2 favorites]
Adapt to what? Have people who don't fear snakes become more likely to reproduce than people who do?
Perhaps, yes.
posted by fuq at 2:51 PM on June 10, 2009
Perhaps, yes.
posted by fuq at 2:51 PM on June 10, 2009
Upon reading the article: I agree with the authors that questions of "agency", "determinism", blah blah blah, are beside the point, and that they probably get a lot of undeserved abuse from people who don't care to see themselves (even partially) as automatons. But it seems to me that there's still something missing.
Their hypothesis is that stepchildren are abused disproportionately because what they call "discriminative parental solicitude" has been selected for. They mention that discriminative solicitude has been shown in several species. Presumably they think it exists in humans (and I wouldn't be surprised if it does). But even granting all that, that doesn't show that discriminative solicitude is the dominant cause (or even a cause) of disproportionate stepchild abuse.
Even if we assume that stepparent behavior is totally determined by genes, there may be many genes that increase stepchild abuse, and many more that decrease it. The authors mention poverty and stress; there might be genes involved with both of those. There might be a gene for being resentful of kids that don't show enough appreciation when you provide for them; stepchildren might show less appreciation, due to not having a parental bond (which could be another gene). Maybe one gene makes you hate kids in general, and another makes you like your own kids--stepparents with the second gene would have a preference, but only those with both would stoop to actual abuse.
I mean, it certainly sounds plausible that we'd have this discriminative solicitude trait; that it would be advantageous, and that it'd be selected for. And it's also very plausible that this trait would cause stepchild abuse. Actual, documented stepchild abuse is certainly a piece of evidence for both of those claims. But it's not a very good piece of evidence for either. It shows that we've arrived at the theorized destination; it doesn't show that we got here by the theorized path. Better evidence would be: identifying actual genes that correlate with stepchild abuse; identifying other preferential behaviors that also correlate with those genes; showing that those genes have actually been selected for; showing that the preferential behaviors are correlated more strongly with the genes than with non-genetic forces like cultural norms, etc.
posted by equalpants at 3:10 PM on June 10, 2009
Their hypothesis is that stepchildren are abused disproportionately because what they call "discriminative parental solicitude" has been selected for. They mention that discriminative solicitude has been shown in several species. Presumably they think it exists in humans (and I wouldn't be surprised if it does). But even granting all that, that doesn't show that discriminative solicitude is the dominant cause (or even a cause) of disproportionate stepchild abuse.
Even if we assume that stepparent behavior is totally determined by genes, there may be many genes that increase stepchild abuse, and many more that decrease it. The authors mention poverty and stress; there might be genes involved with both of those. There might be a gene for being resentful of kids that don't show enough appreciation when you provide for them; stepchildren might show less appreciation, due to not having a parental bond (which could be another gene). Maybe one gene makes you hate kids in general, and another makes you like your own kids--stepparents with the second gene would have a preference, but only those with both would stoop to actual abuse.
I mean, it certainly sounds plausible that we'd have this discriminative solicitude trait; that it would be advantageous, and that it'd be selected for. And it's also very plausible that this trait would cause stepchild abuse. Actual, documented stepchild abuse is certainly a piece of evidence for both of those claims. But it's not a very good piece of evidence for either. It shows that we've arrived at the theorized destination; it doesn't show that we got here by the theorized path. Better evidence would be: identifying actual genes that correlate with stepchild abuse; identifying other preferential behaviors that also correlate with those genes; showing that those genes have actually been selected for; showing that the preferential behaviors are correlated more strongly with the genes than with non-genetic forces like cultural norms, etc.
posted by equalpants at 3:10 PM on June 10, 2009
I still think that most evolutionary psychology is crap and here is why. So if the wimps start working out at the gym, their reaction time will get slower?
posted by bluesky43 at 6:25 PM on June 10, 2009
posted by bluesky43 at 6:25 PM on June 10, 2009
"I still think that most evolutionary psychology is crap"
It is and always has been.
Also if you start working out I guarantee you will feel better. That's the main reason to do it. If you're going to get laid you're going to get laid (and if not then you're not)- there are plenty of big guys who are social retards and don't get laid.
Be healthy, be strong, for yourself.
OK I lied once you get in shape you'll get more ass than a toilet seat but honestly you'll feel so much better day to day the pussy will just be a fringe benefit. Seriously.
posted by hamida2242 at 11:31 PM on June 10, 2009
It is and always has been.
Also if you start working out I guarantee you will feel better. That's the main reason to do it. If you're going to get laid you're going to get laid (and if not then you're not)- there are plenty of big guys who are social retards and don't get laid.
Be healthy, be strong, for yourself.
OK I lied once you get in shape you'll get more ass than a toilet seat but honestly you'll feel so much better day to day the pussy will just be a fringe benefit. Seriously.
posted by hamida2242 at 11:31 PM on June 10, 2009
« Older Minecraft | Just getting along Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
*sigh*
posted by chillmost at 1:32 AM on June 10, 2009 [6 favorites]