Re: A New Form of Lit. Analysis

Well, yeah, I agree with what's quoted below. It was actually part of
my initial complaint. I didn't mean to attack evolutionary theory in
general -- that's a whole 'nother conversation -- just the way it was
being appropriated and mythologized in humanities study, esp. the one
offered up as an example. In that example, evolution theory has quit
being science and started being mythology...mythology couched in the
language of science, that is.

The caveats you mention are, I think, further indication that the
particular study in question lacks rigor. If I were going to guess, the
preferences cited probably reflected preference that arise during
prolonged periods of war then persist long afterwards. The men that go
off to war are attractive for a number of reasons, but it'd be stupid to
count on them to be a lifetime partner (since they're most likely going
to wind up dead). The men who aren't going off are more preferred as
long term partners as they're more likely to be a stable presence. The
attractiveness of the warrior-male allows their genes to stay in the
pool, though. So what you'd have to do is see if the same preferences
exist in societies that aren't martial -- that have enjoyed a long time
peace.

Furthermore, I doubt that the category of "bad boy" exists -everywhere-.

Unfortunately, I think they've all been wiped out by colonization.

Jim

"L. Manning Vines" wrote:

> And in any case, I was writing primarily to note that the article is not
> indicative of the scientific rigor of this sort of study, and I'm no less
> happy if that's the only point you're willing to buy.
>
> -Robbie
> -
> * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Sun Dec 14 09:34:57 2003