How femininity may have shaped modern society

[Gallstones]

Women really do run the world: How femininity may have shaped modern society

There may be more advantages to having a gentler personality than we think: a new study suggests a "feminine" mindset that prioritizes cooperation over aggression may have helped humans advance over the last 50,000 years.

In their study, Robert Cieri, Steven Churchill, Robert Franciscus, Jingzhi Tan and Brian Hare said craniofacial feminization—or more feminine faces—reflect social tolerance and cooperative cultural behaviors.
...
study, which appeared Aug. 1 in the journal Current Anthropology, found changes in human skulls including lower testosterone levels at around the same time culture was blooming.

An emerging trend indicated a reduction in the brow ridge and shortening of the upper face, which may suggest a reduction in testosterone.

"The modern human behaviors of technological innovation, making art and rapid cultural exchange probably came at the same time that we developed a more cooperative temperament," it quoted Cieri as saying.

So now all those girly-men can openly celebrate their femininity.

[Animavore]

So now all those girly-men can openly celebrate their femininity.

They have in Europe for years.
Those in America may be worried about getting shot.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, I'm not surprised by this. I think society needs more women leaders. And not women who act like men to get the job. Real women.

[Animavore]

And not women who act like men to get the job.

Don't be so hard on Ann Coulter.

[pErvinalia]

The only republican I get hard on is Sarah Palin...

[Tero]

Where's the guns? I'm confused.

[JimC]

Where's the guns? I'm confused.

They are contained in a simply delightful little pink holster...

[DaveDodo007]

Scienze ur doin itz rong.

This is why I think evolutionary psychology sucks balls.

How an evolutionary psychologist thought pattern operates:

Find male skull and measure its facial features, assume characteristics are aggressive (even if true this has fuck all to do with testosterone levels.) Links assumed aggression to testosterone levels (testosterone has been falsely linked to aggression.) Early humans were more aggressive therefore more testosterone. (WTF.) Modern humans have fewer 'aggressive' characteristics therefore less testosterone. The lowering of aggressive features in humans were selective for and caused civilization (because reasons.)

Correlation+speculative leaps+causation+giant jump=conclusion.

You can make any shit up with such assumptions (fuck poor Occam spinning in his grave.)

Any evolutionary biologist worth his salt would (have fuck all to do with this at all but lets say we put a gun to his/her head.) They would speculate the being part of civilization lowered levels of testosterone because high levels were not needed for survival. A more sedate manner, more time to think, would allow society to grow. Then run away from the person with the gun and hope they are never ask to prove this.

[mistermack]

I'm not a fan of psychology in general, but to make up a load of rubbish, and then point out why it's rubbish, is a bit unfair.
Isn't there any REAL evolutionary psychology that you can have a go at?

[DaveDodo007]

I don't really care enough about the subject to actively seek it out but if it does cross my path then I'm more than happy to show its methodology is flawed.

[Scott1328]

Because, as everyone knows, starting from your pet conclusion is much easier than following the evidence. Tell me, why is it you think you are a rational skeptic? You are much better at the bigoted ideologue schtick.

[DaveDodo007]

I think you missed the part about showing the methodology to be flawed, when that can't be done then I will hold up my hand and admit I was wrong. What with EP's small sample sizes, none repeatable premises and just so stories I can't see that happening any time soon. What do you want me to do, have 'faith' in evolutionary psychology.

[Scott1328]

You've shown nothing. You have asserted it.

[DaveDodo007]

Where? I give three examples of EP flawed methods, in my first post on this thread I showed how such methods lead to flawed conclusions. Feel free to show me were I erred.

[Scott1328]

Where? I give three examples of EP flawed methods, in my first post on this thread I showed how such methods lead to flawed conclusions. Feel free to show me were I erred.

You didn't give specific criticisms of the specific study. This just underscores your lazy thinking. It shows that once again you are applying general stereotypes to specific cases. It is a fallacy.