<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Darwinian Psychology Goes Mainstream</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/06/02/darwinian-psychology-goes-mainstream/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/06/02/darwinian-psychology-goes-mainstream/</link>
	<description>The official blog of the Skeptologists</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:44:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: JEANNE</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/06/02/darwinian-psychology-goes-mainstream/#comment-50145</link>
		<dc:creator>JEANNE</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2010 18:47:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=2807#comment-50145</guid>
		<description>&quot;The Ancestor&#039;s Tale&quot; by Richard Dawkins should clear up any misunderstandings. A lovely read.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The Ancestor&#8217;s Tale&#8221; by Richard Dawkins should clear up any misunderstandings. A lovely read.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shayne O'Connor</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/06/02/darwinian-psychology-goes-mainstream/#comment-25057</link>
		<dc:creator>Shayne O'Connor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:44:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=2807#comment-25057</guid>
		<description>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/education/12harvard.html?_r=1&amp;ref=education ... probly not an uncommon problem in this field. sort of explains why &quot;skeptics&quot; like shermer should actually be a bit more skeptical of &quot;scientific&quot; fields like evolutionary psychology.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/education/12harvard.html?_r=1&#038;ref=education" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/education/12harvard.html?_r=1&#038;ref=education</a> &#8230; probly not an uncommon problem in this field. sort of explains why &#8220;skeptics&#8221; like shermer should actually be a bit more skeptical of &#8220;scientific&#8221; fields like evolutionary psychology.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cleve</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/06/02/darwinian-psychology-goes-mainstream/#comment-24353</link>
		<dc:creator>cleve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Aug 2010 18:17:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=2807#comment-24353</guid>
		<description>According to Alan Dixon, human penises are not that unique in the primate world.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to Alan Dixon, human penises are not that unique in the primate world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Devil's Advocate</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/06/02/darwinian-psychology-goes-mainstream/#comment-8537</link>
		<dc:creator>Devil's Advocate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:34:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=2807#comment-8537</guid>
		<description>I have kids, boatloads of &#039;em. When one of them calls me, it&#039;s because the child has made a judgment that I&#039;m the softer target for whatever request is coming. This ain&#039;t rocket science.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have kids, boatloads of &#8216;em. When one of them calls me, it&#8217;s because the child has made a judgment that I&#8217;m the softer target for whatever request is coming. This ain&#8217;t rocket science.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fuller</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/06/02/darwinian-psychology-goes-mainstream/#comment-8496</link>
		<dc:creator>Fuller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 06:27:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=2807#comment-8496</guid>
		<description>*shrug*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>*shrug*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sweet 16</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/06/02/darwinian-psychology-goes-mainstream/#comment-8460</link>
		<dc:creator>sweet 16</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jun 2009 04:41:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=2807#comment-8460</guid>
		<description>The sexual double standard is easy to explain. Boys release millions of sperms in one ejaculation. Girls produce only few hundred thousand eggs in their lifetime. Boys can impregnate a hundred girls in 9 months. Girls can accommodate only one sperm in 9 months. So boys are biologically designed to be more promiscuous. And this is reinforced socially. Girls like sexually active boys because they are not impotent. Other boys admire sexually active boys because they want to imitate them. On the other end, boys are intimidated with flirty girls because he’s afraid she’s carrying another boy’s sperm. Other girls badmouth flirty girls because they’re jealous that flirty girls get many boys and they get none. As Avril Lavigne’s song said “I don’t give a damn about bad reputation” and she had many boys before she became famous at 17.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The sexual double standard is easy to explain. Boys release millions of sperms in one ejaculation. Girls produce only few hundred thousand eggs in their lifetime. Boys can impregnate a hundred girls in 9 months. Girls can accommodate only one sperm in 9 months. So boys are biologically designed to be more promiscuous. And this is reinforced socially. Girls like sexually active boys because they are not impotent. Other boys admire sexually active boys because they want to imitate them. On the other end, boys are intimidated with flirty girls because he’s afraid she’s carrying another boy’s sperm. Other girls badmouth flirty girls because they’re jealous that flirty girls get many boys and they get none. As Avril Lavigne’s song said “I don’t give a damn about bad reputation” and she had many boys before she became famous at 17.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sweet 16</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/06/02/darwinian-psychology-goes-mainstream/#comment-8453</link>
		<dc:creator>sweet 16</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2009 01:40:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=2807#comment-8453</guid>
		<description>“dancing on tables…” that sounds fun! LOL

Yeah I agree it’s social not biological. It’s silly that fathers think of incest. Ask your daughter. They might laugh so hard they’ll puke. Don’t worry about your daughter staying in the dorm. We might become roommates. We’ll be best friends. We’ll have a lot of fun. We’ll watch football players then eat big juicy hotdogs. Hmm yummy. LOL</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“dancing on tables…” that sounds fun! LOL</p>
<p>Yeah I agree it’s social not biological. It’s silly that fathers think of incest. Ask your daughter. They might laugh so hard they’ll puke. Don’t worry about your daughter staying in the dorm. We might become roommates. We’ll be best friends. We’ll have a lot of fun. We’ll watch football players then eat big juicy hotdogs. Hmm yummy. LOL</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Drew</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/06/02/darwinian-psychology-goes-mainstream/#comment-8444</link>
		<dc:creator>Drew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:21:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=2807#comment-8444</guid>
		<description>&quot;I guess girls don’t call their fathers when they’re in heat because they’re busy flirting with their boyfriends.&quot;

This occurred to me as a good alternative explanation that would have nothing to do with incest, but if you go back and read what the study actually looked at, you&#039;ll it was not how often college-aged women phoned their dads in absolute terms, but how often they phoned their dads versus their moms.  If they just didn&#039;t have time to call because they were too busy dancing on tables (or whatever) then they presumably would maintain the same proportion of mom to dad calls.

The only confound I can think of is that perhaps women are more active in relationships during these periods and feel more comfortable talking about those things to their mothers about this than their fathers.  This could explain the phenomenon in social, rather than biological, terms.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I guess girls don’t call their fathers when they’re in heat because they’re busy flirting with their boyfriends.&#8221;</p>
<p>This occurred to me as a good alternative explanation that would have nothing to do with incest, but if you go back and read what the study actually looked at, you&#8217;ll it was not how often college-aged women phoned their dads in absolute terms, but how often they phoned their dads versus their moms.  If they just didn&#8217;t have time to call because they were too busy dancing on tables (or whatever) then they presumably would maintain the same proportion of mom to dad calls.</p>
<p>The only confound I can think of is that perhaps women are more active in relationships during these periods and feel more comfortable talking about those things to their mothers about this than their fathers.  This could explain the phenomenon in social, rather than biological, terms.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sweet 16</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/06/02/darwinian-psychology-goes-mainstream/#comment-8436</link>
		<dc:creator>sweet 16</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 02:57:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=2807#comment-8436</guid>
		<description>If only scientific literature were written like this, they&#039;d be very popular. But Mr. Shermer&#039;s researches are dull. Between dating Leonardo DiCarpio (sexy) and Michael Shermer (smart) it&#039;s a no brainer, I go with Leo. I mean Leo is hot but Mr. Shermer? That&#039;s perverse. His daughter might puke. LOL

I guess girls don&#039;t call their fathers when they&#039;re in heat because they&#039;re busy flirting with their boyfriends. To confirm this, you could do scientific research or you could listen to Avril Lavigne&#039;s hit songs: &quot;I hate it when a guy doesn&#039;t understand why a certain time of the month I wanna hold his hand&quot; (I bet that&#039;s not all she wanna do) &quot;If I could only say what I wanna say I wanna blow you...&quot; (no wonder she won the Teen&#039;s Choice Award)

Mr. Shermer, if you love your daughter, don&#039;t disturb her intimate moments with your phone calls. LOL</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If only scientific literature were written like this, they&#8217;d be very popular. But Mr. Shermer&#8217;s researches are dull. Between dating Leonardo DiCarpio (sexy) and Michael Shermer (smart) it&#8217;s a no brainer, I go with Leo. I mean Leo is hot but Mr. Shermer? That&#8217;s perverse. His daughter might puke. LOL</p>
<p>I guess girls don&#8217;t call their fathers when they&#8217;re in heat because they&#8217;re busy flirting with their boyfriends. To confirm this, you could do scientific research or you could listen to Avril Lavigne&#8217;s hit songs: &#8220;I hate it when a guy doesn&#8217;t understand why a certain time of the month I wanna hold his hand&#8221; (I bet that&#8217;s not all she wanna do) &#8220;If I could only say what I wanna say I wanna blow you&#8230;&#8221; (no wonder she won the Teen&#8217;s Choice Award)</p>
<p>Mr. Shermer, if you love your daughter, don&#8217;t disturb her intimate moments with your phone calls. LOL</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: oldebabe</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/06/02/darwinian-psychology-goes-mainstream/#comment-8408</link>
		<dc:creator>oldebabe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:42:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=2807#comment-8408</guid>
		<description>Entertaining. Made me smile, in some instances laugh. Shades of `The Ultimate Erector Set&#039; (by psychiatrist Hugh Drummond, M. D., pages 8-9 of the Feb/March 1987 issue of Mother Jones) - the same item but with a different slant...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Entertaining. Made me smile, in some instances laugh. Shades of `The Ultimate Erector Set&#8217; (by psychiatrist Hugh Drummond, M. D., pages 8-9 of the Feb/March 1987 issue of Mother Jones) &#8211; the same item but with a different slant&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

