Mokele

Well, now that I'm back, I'm going to disappear again, albeit only for a bit more than a week. Every alternate year, Brown sponsors a trip for the new grad students and a group of undergrads to Belize for a trip into the jungle and then fieldwork on a small coral island. Unfortunately, this means I'll be without internet from the 11th to the 20th. On the upside, I leave freezing Providence for a week in a tropical paradise, and may actually get to do some experiments I've wanted to for a long time (brittlestar locomotion). Mokele

No, they're hypotheses. And that's all we have. If you want actual *answers*, you're going to have to wait until we actually locate the genes responsible. "Gay" and "Lesbian" does not always mean "100% exclusive to the same sex", even in humans. Consider the Kinsey Scale. Mokele

You know, if you're not going to at least make some effort towards an intellectually honest discussion, I don't think there's a reason for me to continue to bother with this thread. It's blatantly obvious you're blind to the man logical errors you've committed, and are so enthralled by your conclusion you'll simply grasp at any excuse to dismiss legitimate criticism. Go back and actually *read* and *think about* the points I raised, rather than trying to find the quickest and easiest way to brush them aside. Mokele

Also, technically a hamster ball only works with an external force: friction. If there's no friction to prevent the ball slipping against the substrate, the hamster will only succeed in spinning the ball around, generating no forward movement. As for the gun, remember that guns have recoil. Equal and opposite.

I'll be more interested when the post count tops 500,000

This is a science forum, so yes. If you want unquestioning acceptance, try religion forums. You have completely missed the point. You claimed that psychopaths gain lots of sexual partners, and inferred from this that women are attracted to them. I pointed out they use deception, and thus you cannot infer anything about female preferences. Consider it like this - I'm a nerd. But, desiring sex, I pretend to be a rocker. I learn to play guitar badly, and even join a cover band, and sex results. Does this mean women are attracted to nerds, since I got sex? No, because I had to conceal my undesirable aspects behind a facade that women *do* desire. Women are evaluating the psycho by what he presents, by his mask, and he can make that mask as desirable as he wants. The success of the Phantom of The Opera does not prove that girls dig burn victims. Yet you continually insist that, because women like guys who express normal levels of social dominance, they will also like those who express traits to the extreme. Clearly this is not the case with many other personality traits (a clean guy vs. one with OCD, a funny guy vs. an unrelenting joker, a sensitive guy vs. one who cries at the drop of a hat, etc.), so why do you assume that you can extrapolate a desire for slightly bad guys into a desire for psychos? If your theory were true, this month's Playgirl would have a double centerfold of Hannibal the Cannibal and The Joker (Heath Ledger's version, of course). Yes, I have. Here's the list: Jonason et al, Schmitt, Harris et al., and numerous others Because NONE of those support your claim - that girls like true psychopaths. This is all based on a false equivalence. You cite research on "bad boys", but then equate it with psychopaths. Psychopaths are NOT the same thing as 'bad boys'. The 'bad boy' girls want is the biker dude who gets in fights and maybe once had a knife pulled on him. The Psycho is the guy who stabs someone else in the eye with a broken beer bottle for looking at him funny. The 'bad boy' is the rough cowboy from the outskirts of town. The psycho is Ed Gein, who decided to re-upholster his living room using human skin. These are not even remotely the same thing. My contentions are simple: 1) Women only like 'bad boys' up until a point, and beyond that, interest declines. 2) As a result of 1, psychopaths hide their true nature, and those women who do fall for them are only attracted because they cannot see what's inside; they fall for an illusion, a lighter version of what's actually there. Both of these completely explain all of the results you mentioned, and you have yet to provide evidence that there is true, widespread desire for honest-to-god psychopaths. The next GQ cover model?

So, let me get this straight: When faced with the possibility of a confounding factor (deception), rather than actually address it, you just wave your hands and assume the answer is what you want it to be. How is this scientific? When faced with the possibility that preferences aren't linear and unimodal, you dismiss it and bury your head in the sand rather than considering a very real possibility. How is this scientific? When criticized for extending a theory beyond the known bounds, you simply ignore it and present no evidence that the extension is legitimate. How is this scientific? This entire thread is nothing but speculation without any direct empirical evidence. If you think this is harsh, you should see what happens at real scientific conferences. Evidence is what science is based on, not extrapolation.

Firstly, don't assume homosexuality equals zero fitness. IIRC, lesbian swans mate with males, then raise the eggs together, so they pass on their genes quite well. Secondly, evolution isn't perfect, and mutations which are less-fit show up all the time. Consider albino animals. Finally, there may be an underlying selection pressure to maintain some low level of homosexuality, but until we can actually ID the genetic mechanisms at work, we can only speculate.

No, I'd say the same if it was a claim that women automatically love smart guys. There are several serious methodological flaws in the argument which have not been addressed and which undermine any conclusions. You are aware that almost every species of animal on the planet is either a beetle or a nematode, right? And that in both cases, 'scramble competition' (first come first served) is the dominant mating strategy, right? Even in vertebrates, direct competition is rare, with most species using complex displays, either to establish heirarchy among males or in display groups ("leks") that allow females to choose. There's a difference between a socially dominant male and a psychopath, though. Nobody has made that assertion, but rather claimed that the cumulative observer bias of *all* males has led to this phenomenon being accepted as fact without any rigorous testing. That does not rule out the use of deception in their attraction, though. The studies do not address the method of mate attraction at all. This means that you cannot rule out the use of deception, nor definitively conclude it is in play. Given that this is a black box, you cannot assume that either of us is right, and therefore cannot assume that these data accurately reflect female preferences, due to the *possibility* of deception. False equivalence - not *all* men with high testosterone are psychopaths, and furthermore, the traits associated with testosterone aren't even the primary symptoms of psychopathy or narcissism, both of which are primarily characterized by a disregard for others and/or an elevation of the self so far above others that they are disregarded. Find me a reference that psychopaths/narcisists have higher levels of circulating testosterone. Enough that Ivy League faculty listen to my opinions on the subject. I've read it. I've spoken with him personally. I also think you're extrapolating *way* beyond the data and theories of that or any other book on evo psych. A fever is the characteristic of both the flu and bacterial meningitis. You cannot just look at one symptom and conclude the cause. Which has nothing to do with psychopaths. Your argument, so far, is this: "Women like strong, muscular, hairy men when fertile, therefore all women secretly wish to have sex with a gorilla." You cannot equate run-of-the-mill socially dominant males with psychopaths, and the preference for one does NOT indicate preference for the other. Your core assumption seems to be that preference is linear and unimodal - if women prefer men with above average trait A, then the more extreme the trait, the more extreme the preference. This assumption has no basis, and can be seen as incorrect in other cases. Consider that most men prefer a woman who is shorter than them. By your logic, the most popular girl at the bar should always be the one with achondroplasic dwarfism who's only 3 feet tall. But that's not true - male preference peaks at the height below theirs, but then declines as the height does. Or consider thinness - males prefer females with below-average size, so by your logic, Ethiopia should be the choice destination of Spring Break. So far, you have failed to: 1) Find a direct study of female preferences which looks at the females themselves, rather than inferring behavior by proxy. 2) Demonstrate that the known preference for masculine and socially dominant males equates to preference for psychopaths 3) Demonstrate that psychopaths do not need to rely on deception in order to acquire mates. Unless you can come up with the above data, then your hypothesis has not garnered any substantial support for its validity. Step back and think about it. You have a hypothesis (Women prefer men with Dark Triad traits). Think of all the predictions that come from that, and find the one which is different from the alternative hypothesis (females prefer mildly socially dominant males but avoid extremes). Then test that prediction (or find a study that already has). Mokele P.S. - Don't cite books. They're not peer reviewed, lack actual data, and and generally unreliable compared to the scientific literature. Any yahoo can write anything they want in a book.

Could it just be translation, since the original was written in Latin?

I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the studies above. Jonason et al. 2008, Schmitt 2003, and Harris et al. 2007 all only indicate that this type of male has higher mating success in the short term, without addressing female preferences. It is entirely possible that women do NOT want these men as they really are, but rather as they present themselves to the world, and the short duration of their relationships is due to either their failure to 'keep up the act' or the female realizing who he is inside. Given that duplicity is a halmark of these individuals, we cannot use their success as a measure of female desires. Penton-Voak and Perrett 2000 only indicates a menstrual cycle based preference for males with high testosterone. It has nothing to do with this topic, as such features are *not* necessarily indicative or even correlated with the behaviors you describe. Gangestad et al. 2003 is close, but no cigar - it only addresses "social presence and direct intrasexual competitiveness", which are NOT psychopathy, but rather simply high social status and status drive. This may explain why women like rock stars and sports icons, but not psychopaths. So far, none of your citations actually support the assertion that women like individuals who are psychopaths or nearly so. Remember, social dominance, status seeking, etc are not pscyhopathic traits. These can be expressed by simply being ambitious and having a good job, or being the informal 'alpha' of a group of friends. I'd argue that most males, and probably most females too, seek social status and social dominance, given the benefits such positions confer.

Also, in the US, most science programs require you to take "Intro to ____" in each of the Big Three (so "Intro to Bio", "Intro to Chem", and "Intro to Physics"). None of those will really get deep into the subject, but there's also further overlap - people in chem and physics often take courses relating quantum to molecular stuff, while people in bio always take organic chemistry. Double and even triple majors are possible, but can add time to graduation. Usually, you'll figure out what's most interesting by the end of your second year.

First off, take your time. I like all areas of science too, but biology has always been my major focus. Think about science news stories of the past few months that you've read, and consider which ones were more interesting to you. Black holes or deep ocean trenches? Second, don't worry about narrowing down before college. Just figure out whether you want to major in biology, chemistry, physics, etc, and then see how the actual coursework appeals to you in the various sub-fields. Finally, don't fret about making the 'wrong' choice - you can always change. I started out majoring in aerospace engineering, and didn't decide to follow my true passion for biology until after I'd gotten my degree and started my MS. Yes, it meant more school and more money, but it also meant I have a unique skillset and a high degree of skill at my chosen specialty (biomechanics of animal locomotion). Don't focus too early or too narrowly. In this age of cross-discipline collaboration, the scientists who do best often are those with the broadest knowledge. Hell, I know two people who are successful scientists who started out in professional baseball and Olympic figure skating.

Entirely possible, yes. The problem is that pouches and nipples don't fossilize - the closest thing we have are the epipubic bones, but that's confounded by the fact that they also serve a locomotor function.

You've comitted a primary logical error here, namely "what's in the other 3 cells"? All the above asserts is the unsurprising notion that psychopaths are more likely to be abusive. But what you really have is a 4 cell plot: psychopaths who abuse, psychopaths who don't, non-psychopaths who abuse, and non-psychopaths who don't. All the above study notes is that the majority of the psychopaths also abuse. However, psychopaths are a very small percentage of the population, while spousal abuse is a huge problem, leading to the inevitable conclusion that the vast majority of abusers are *not* psychopaths, and another explanation for their behavior must be found. I'd also like to see a serious, very high N study which shows a true general trend of women being attracted to 'bad boys', because I suspect it doesn't exist, and is instead a product of observer bias - you don't think to notice when a woman chooses another guy over you for a perfectly rational reason (he's brilliant, funny, hung, etc.), but *do* notice when you think it's irrational. You remember those cases and forget the less remarkable ones. Hollywood and media have committed the same error and reinforced it to the point that it's accepted cultural wisdom, like alligators in the sewers. Does this phenomenon even actually exist? Do "bad boys" truly enjoy greater success, or is it just observer bias that disappears upon rigorous statistical analysis? Mokele

Oh I followed it. It was just mostly garbage.

If you're postulating the origins of traits, it's generally accepted that, without evidence to the contrary, you should prefer a hypothesized pattern which minimizes the number of changes. See Maximum parsimony.

IIRC, both miniaturization and gigantism in dogs are the product of hormonal abnormalities (deficiencies and excesses, respectively). A breeding of either of these unusually sized dogs with something outside of their size range (and therefore possessing the genes for normal hormones) should result in something a lot closer to a normal dog size.

It would be, if that were actually true. Is there any evidence at all to support that assertion?

I know, but I see no reason to assume that nipples evolved after pouches. If nipples evolved before the split between marsupials and placentals and before pouches, but after the split with modern monotremes, then there would be no need to posit more than one origin of either.

Knifefish already do this, as do elephantfish (electric eels aren't actually eels, just very long and hefty knifefish).

Could, but where's the evidence? In the absence of the evidence to the contrary, it's most likely the pouch evolved only once.

Well, there's a lot of good resources online. It seems a bit counterproductive for me to repeat every detail that can be found easily in many textbooks.

Basically, all mammals evolved from a group of reptiles called the synapsids. Over time, the synapsids changed form, and most of the old forms died out. At some point after milk evolved, but before live birth, the ancestors of the modern monotremes split off from the ancestors of all other mammals, and it's worth noting that modern monotremes are actually very different from their ancestors (which resembled small shrews or rats). At some point after the ancestor of other mammals split from monotremes, that ancestor split into the ancestors of marsupials and placentals, both of which have changed greatly. It should be noted that there is no support, fossil or molecular, for multiple origins of any of these modern groups. The present distribution of marsupials is due to continental drift - when they evolved, Australia, Antarctica, and South America were all joined, and separate from other continents. Over time, they split, Antarctica became cold, and the Americas joined, at which point some marsupials moved north. Mokele

Pretty much.