Soyin Milka

Wow.
Creationism doesn't sound so bad suddenly.

Soy

Dr Rick

No worries, you may not be alone in this regard:

Wow. Up till now, I was completely unaware that older pair-bonded women prefer premature ejaculators.

....is that why women go positively "ga-ga" for beer-bellied, bald, premature ejaculators with cystic acne?

Daleth

That's a myth, doc. Don't go changin' to try and please her.

Dal

ps418

For what its worth, I don't think GFA meant to suggest that premature ejaculation was a trait preferred by women, only that it maximizes the chances of fertilization while minimizing the chances of the woman's partner discovering the infidelity.

Of course, I would think that that would apply to all males at all times, since the longer it takes to ejaculate, the greater the possibility of the process being disrupted, which makes me wonder why, if premature ejaculation in younger men is an adaptation, all men do not prematurely ejaculate all the time (as they do in other primates, where ejaculation takes only seconds).

Patrick

Dr Rick

I know that, Patrick, but isn't it just wonderful how seemingly every little behavioral trait can be explained by an EP hypothesis?

That women may have an inborn "preference" for premature ejaculators is no less silly than suggesting that it provides "access" for some males to them. But what's really great is that if the reverse was the case, and young, inexperienced males were prone to delayed ejaculation, an EP "scientist" would hypothesize how that is also a desirable trait that might provide "access to older-pair bonded women".

What a great gig, huh? No matter what we observe in humanity, there's a potential EP hypothesis for it that is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. What other science is there where no matter what you observe and hypothesize, you're never wrong?

Rick

Gurdur

Metaphysics
Ethics
Philosophy of language

Philosophy of male circumcision
Philosophy of diets

Or did you mean hard sciences ?

Dr Rick

Well, Tim, if it was "soft," would the philosophy change?

ps418

Sure, you can invent an unfalsifiable hypothesis to explain everything. Which is why unfalsifiable hypotheses should should be rejected outright as unscientific, whether you're considering behavior or biochemistry or psychology or whatever. I have little interest in EP hypotheses -- not that they are a priori impossible to test or implausible, but that in most cases there is no data or inadequate data to test hypothesis about behavioral adaptations in humans. In other animals, it is much easier to test hypotheses about behavioral adaptations -- if animals possessing the adaptation do not on average have increased fitness, the hypothesis is effectively falsified. Plus, nobody gets upset and starts name-calling over disagreements about the behavior of the blue-footed boobie. However, my point was simply about what GFA plausibly meant to suggest, not whether it was correct or falsifiable.

Patrick

Gurdur

In my own humble observational experience, much philosophy is fairly limp, sterile and dysfunctional in any case.

And often plagued with Brewer's Droop.

Pyrrho

The best idea for a woman is to not have any children. This was particularly true before modern medicine, as many have died in childbirth. But if you mean, if a woman is foolish enough to have children, what would a good father be like, then it would be a man who is sound in mind and body. (Whether the "mind" is purely brain activity or not is irrelevant; the mind is important in any case.)



Look for good health, both of mind and body. As for the resources, you look at whatever measure society has for such things, whether it be number of cows, or number of wives, or whatever. If you are speaking of a 'pre-societal' man (if there ever was one), then he will not have any appreciable resources at his disposal beyond his mind and body, so you have one less thing to worry about.



Why concern yourself with testosterone levels? Do you believe that higher testosterone levels make a man better than one with lower levels? If so, why would you believe that? And, would it always be the higher the better, or is it that there should be a particular level (or range of level) that would be best?



Uhmm, are YOU attracted to men with beer bellies? Do you know very many other women who are?



Yes, it is warped reasoning. If you want to know if a man has more than he needs, look to his possessions, not his body.