red locker: Depends.

1: Is she no more self-aware than Brandon?
2: Is she as persitant in the face of steady response?
3: Will we be as willing to respond to her as we were to Brandon.

Brandon, for all his faults, managed to find new ways to present his solipsism. Ruby seems to pretty much a Johnny One-Note, riding on her one-trick pony.

If I’m resorting to writing limericks, as well as lengthy replies, she’s wearing out my patience. Sooner or later it will be nothing but risible rhyming, and derisive doggeral. Apart from the random person who wanders in, it’s not as if the rest of the readership needs me to keep repeating the same points.

So she will either get her act together, or move to the level of inspirational irrelevance of an NWO, or Antz, or Preggo Punchout.

*uses phoenix down* *is brought back to life*

Oy not sure whats wrong with any of the stuff you lists :P

An abstract, with no way to read the paper (I’m not paying 31.50USD to read it), is not much in the way of refutation to four papers one can actually see the data, and the conclusions from.

But Ruby now has someone one on her side. Perhaps not the ally she might want, but one makes do.

I will point out this sentiment from Steven Pinker: The argument, as presented in the summaries, fail two basic tests of scientific credibility: a control group

This idea, from one of the big names in EvPsych, cannot be stressed highly enough. Quite apart from the facile claims in the abstract

This result cannot be explained by possible confounds such as women’s age, health, happiness, educational attainment, relationship duration, wealth difference between the partners, difference between the partners in educational attainment, and regional location. It appears consistent with the view that female orgasm has an evolved adaptive function.

the conclusions they seem to be presenting are circular.

1: We must assume an adaptive aspect of female orgasm (which isn’t possible. A far better, being parsimonious, explanation can be found in the principle of homology).

2: We have to assume that the self-reported increase in orgasms is bound only to the “wealth” of the partner.

3: No, apparent, control for social differences in the “wealthier” men seems to be present. Is this consistent for new wealth vs. old? By what manner is wealth being determined? How large was the sample size (they claim to be controlling for region. China is large, both in terms of population, and region).

4: How is wealth defined?

5: It appears this is a study derived from data mining a survey done by the Chinese Gov’t. What methodological controls were conducted to deal with biases which may exist in the questions.

5a: By whom, and to what purpose, was the translation of the survey conducted?

5b: What fluency, and how attained, do the writers of the study have of Mandarin?

5d: How were the various confounding factors eliminated in a study based on a survey the authors of the study had no control over the design of?

6: What did the controlling for the wealth of women consist of?

7: How do the authors of the study manage to make equivalent the modern concept of “wealth” in China, to the the evolutionary pressures of 5,000 years ago, and the transition to agriculture.

7a: How to they make it equivalent to the evolutionary pressures of the ice age semi-nomadic lifestyles of Europe, 10,000 years ago?

7b: How to they equate it to the nomadic lifestyles of nomadic hunter-gatherers of the N. African savannahs of 10,000 years ago?

7c: How to they equate it to the unknown lifestyles of more than 20,000 years ago?

8: What is the supposed adaptive value of orgasm, as related to wealth?

8a: How can they test this hypothesis against the situations present in the questions which are present in 7-7c?

9: What of these questions did the peer-reviewers for EHB ask? How were they answered? What, if any changes did those questions require?\

Conclusion: the abstract raises more questions than it answers. As such the abstract is not a good support to the contention Ruby puts forth.

And Kirby found an answer to some of my questions, futher calling the study into question.

Science, it’s so simple anyone can do it.

ahhhhhhh you summoned him!!

Now we have to go on a continents-spanning scavenger hunt to assemble the tools and knowledge we need to banish him!

*sigh*

No, it’s all right. I wasn’t doing anything with my weekend, anyway.

When did I join NOW?

Then again, how did I get into the Army with Tourette’s?

How does my Tourrette’s manage to manifest since I had the lobotomy?

Why does anyone find conversing with a lobotomised person who has Tourette’s?

FInd the answer to these questions, and more, on tonights episode of, Soap.

And the house of cards comes tumbling down.

I don’t fault them for the problem the default option caused (though the width of the error bars would seem problematic to me).

I do fault EHB’s review process for letting a paper with so weak a correlation to the data into the journal.

I also wonder if Pollet and Nettle have published anything explaining that the conclusions they came to are more suspect now, in light of this finding.

My views DO NOT come from hatred. Dr. Helen Fisher, PhD is a Biological Anthropologist, a Research Professor and member of the Center for Human Evolution Studies in the Department of Anthropology at Rutgers University. Is she a misogynist for claiming women like men with resources?

BTW, I don’t like either extreme in the gender wars.

BTW: I don’t care for the extremes in the gender wars.

I’ve never said you were such.

But… the extreme that says women are evil… they agree with you about women liking rich men.

So, while you may not, “agree” with their ends, you are agreeing with their arguments.

Which means you might want to better examine the beliefs you have, to make sure they are sound.

That would mean reading studies, not news articles, nor television programs.

BTW, I don’t like either extreme in the gender wars.

You believe in the “gender wars”? ahahahhahahahahahahah

dicpres: Tulgey is a referee. We all are. Some of us are better at it than others. You’d be better off if you were trying to get this into a peer reviewed journal; at the very least the criticisms of the greatest flaws would be in private.

But you made it public. Anyone can comment. You may incorporate the crtiiques, or not, but the merit of your work is what will convince the objective observer. You may not think people here are objective (your little rant above strongly implies this to be the case), but that means you have to either accept an audience of the already converted, or work to convince those who disagree.

I know what a genuine activist would choose.

I need to have a title then…I am Supreme High Princess Commander Professor of All Things.

And I say that the only women who want to marry men with tons of money are Playboy Playmates named Anna Nicole.