Bhassler wrote:Wrong. The study was about lumbar curvature. The article was about booties. Butt =/= lumbar spine. What the article was about is not what the study was about. That was my point. The comments about various conclusions and hypotheses as to why were ancillary (but relevant) and they are separate arguments.
Bhassler you started by complaining that the new piece did not reflect the content of the journal article:
Bhassler wrote:Gee, what a shock-- what the article is reporting bears only a passing resemblance to the actual study.
Then your next sentence is about how the article itself is drivel:
Bhassler wrote:It's also worth noting that all the bullshit about why men prefer that is pure speculation, most likely driven by the study authors' desires to get in the news and secure their next round of grant money. This sort of drivel is why Americans (I can't speak for the rest of the world) get continually stupider and more and more "knowledge" is nothing but cash driven nonsense.
And then you offer alternative hypotheses:
Bhassler wrote:An equally valid hypothesis would be that women with a significant lumbar curve run slower and are therefore easier to chase down and rape. Or maybe they were smaller and ate less. Or maybe they also had big bones so were genetically stronger and able to kill their rivals. Or maybe it's a statistical anomaly. Or maybe the preference is purely cultural and there happens to be a correlation of morphology. Science, my ass...
You have now said that
Bhassler wrote:What the article was about is not what the study was about. That was my point.
So you are saying that the main point of your comment was the one sentence:
Bhassler wrote: Gee, what a shock-- what the article is reporting bears only a passing resemblance to the actual study.
. Which makes up less than 20% of your post, yet the other 80+%, including your invalid alternative hypotheses, are ancillary comments? Um OK...
Now to address your hypotheses. This is the method section from the paper in question:
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants
One hundred two men(Mean age =19.00 years, SD =2.41,age range: 17 – 34 years) were recruited from the psychology subject pool at The University of Texas at Austin. Participants received course credit for participation.
2.1.2. Photographic stimuli and attractive ratings
Fifteen images were generated in AdobePhotoshop by manipulating the angle of lumbar curvature of female targets. For each target,we generated five morphs of varying angles of lumbar curvature (see Fig. 2).
These stimuli captured the naturally occurring range of lumbar curvature in the population (stimuli range: 14 – 69 degree; see Fernand & Fox, 1985). The targets' lumbar curvature was the sole variable that we manipulated.
All morphs were presented in random order to participants, who rated the attractiveness of each morph on a 10-point scale (1 = extremely unattractive, 10 = extremely attractive).
I'll say this again: your two hypotheses that actually made sort sort of sense (1 and 3 I believe) would be valid if there was an increased proportion of females with greater lumbar curvature in the current population AND if this is what the study was measuring. BUT, they were not measuring this, they measured how attractive a group of men found a set of images.
Bhassler wrote: most likely driven by the study authors' desires to get in the news and secure their next round of grant money..... more and more "knowledge" is nothing but cash driven nonsense.
Yeah, fuck those people that want to try and add something to the sum total of human knowledge AND put food and their families plates, what pricks!