Never read any PUA material other than stuff that was provided in an EDF topic to sample. I believe it is complete garbage sold to desperate losers.

Henry,

Women love to shop. It has something to do with their gathering past.

Men love to play sports. It has something to do with their hunting past.


Ridiculously idiotic statements?

forest. trees.

omg phildo you are being such a nit.

No, but they are completely unscientific.

That it is completely unscientific speculation is a given but more importantly the gender differences can be explained by using a model based on learned behavior much better than it can be by genetics.

and you don't understand what science is.

Well then whey don't you tell me what science is.

start here

lol. OK. So the Red Queen is a survey of science but not actually science because the author did not actually test any hypotheses. But your stance that ep shouldn't even be discussed in the same breadth as evolution could only be characterized as political. Unless of course you believe that the theory of natural selection completely characterizes how today's human evolved from primordial slime, or even from apes. In which case I would suggest that you don't know as much as you think you know.

Scenario: Phildo and Boris are in the African savanna.

They see a lion. Boris goes to check out the lion. The lion eats him.
Phildo goes to check out the lion as well. The lion eats him.

In the afterlife, Boris asks Phildo why he went to check out the lion. Phildo says, "A sample size of one isn't statistically significant!"

you have no idea what you're talking about. you don't know what science is. you think that a guy with a phd saying things that make sense in your head is science. you seem to think that the experiment and peer review phases of the scientific method are optional.

the fact that you have the nerve to call my stance political blows my ****ing mind.
i really don't care whether ep "makes sense". people making this kind of mistake with science is a huge ****ing problem and is the biggest reason most people are so willing to swallow pseudoscience as fact.

but hey, sick burn

Phildo, I don't even have an opinion on this debate, I just saw a good opportunity for a sick burn

i would do anything for love...but i wont do that

wow. I have to wonder if you even read the book. At the very least it is very well reasoned speculation based on peer reviewed scientific articles and books written by people who have written many peer reviewed scientific articles. Furthermore, much of the book is simply a summary of peer reviewed scientific articles. In no place in the book does the author say that any of his hypotheses are fact. He specifically acknowledges that much of what he says may in the future be found to be untrue. Just as many peer reviewed scientific articles have subsequently been found to be complete BS. For you to call the book pseudo-science is ridiculous. For you to say it shouldn't even be discussed in the context of evolution is ridiculous. At some point, new frontiers in scientific knowledge have to be in the speculation/science phase. The author uses as his jumping off point, a few places where explanations offered by natural selection appear to be lacking. What the heck is wrong with that?

I'm just curious, what is your education level? I have a master's degree in Economics from Berkeley. I've thought about science quite a bit.

college dropout. but since you want to turn this into a dickwaving contest about science, my father and sister both have phds from harvard (sister's is virology, father's is biochemistry) and three of my uncles also have phds in various sciences. i've eaten dinner with two nobel laureates in physiology/medicine. i might have thought about science and even discussed it with very knowledgeable people a little bit as well.

anyway, i'm done trying to explain this to you, so i will just go with trolling.

the scientific method is pretty outdated. instead, we should replace it with the boris method. it's simple. every time a thought pops into a scientist's head, we run it by boris. if it makes sense to him, we accept it as fact.

this will save a bunch of time and should lead to science advancing far more rapidly.

I like you. You are a very bright fellow.

Phildo for such a smart guy I'm surprised you misconstrued my position so badly. But you did give me a good idea for improving our higher education system. Instead of wasting time going to classes and reading books and writing original papers and taking tests and doing research, we should just eat dinner with smart people and then we can get smart also.

my background in science is just about as relevant to this discussion as yours. and you're the one that started the dickwaving.

edit: **** i forgot to troll.

since you think my position on this is influenced by my politics (which i don't think you even know), how about your boy ridley? there's no way his politics are influencing his views on ep, right?

You made several bold statements without providing any detailed reasoning or explanation. It got to the point where I began to question your intellectual maturity. Both of our backgrounds are relevant to the discussion. It's just that mine makes me more qualified to speak on the topic. That being said, if you had provided any reasoned explanation for your otherwise dogmatic stance, I would not have pulled the "you don't got no education" card. However when you consistently insist that any knowledge worth knowing is only gained through controlled hypothesis testing based on observable data, it is abundantly obvious that you havn't thought very much about the scientific method.

lol social science

was your undergrad in econ, too? they require you to take anything past freshman bio? cause i took that too

feel free to dickwave because you went to berkeley, though. i was accepted by a school that is currently ranked better by us news and world report but didn't attend. these rankings were written by someone who is probably smart, so i assume they are true.
knowledge is a funny thing. it can encompass many things.

science is a completely different story.

Props for the monogamy bro. I PMed your wife a link to this thread. Now there's zero chance she gets suspicious when you and I go jackolope hunting in the part of the desert outside pahrump where the cellphones can't take incoming calls. Sometimes you just have to go outside the coverage areas to find the best prey amirite?

Snowball I don't think I should be seen with you anymore.

man with phd dismisses evolutionary psychology. his arguments make sense. therefore, we can consider evolutionary psychology to be scientifically debunked.

If this is true -- I would need to see proof to believe it -- all it says is that Berkeley has no standards or that one slipped though the cracks.