I read that. It didn't mention intelligence. It was not really "science". It was an interview and typical of story-telling "science". As proof that intelligence and my theory are false it didn't get past the first hurdle. The bit about the study said: <In the new study, researchers asked women who were at different points in their menstrual cycles (and who were not on the pill) to rate their own attractiveness. Then researchers presented them with image pairs representing "feminized" and "masculinized" versions of the same male body. The women were asked to choose the body they thought was most attractive for a short-term relationship and then again for a long-term relationship.Some of the women performed the experiment again at the opposite point in their cycle.
Fertile women chose the masculine version of each image 15 percent more often, on average, than women who were not fertile, said lead researcher Anthony Little, a psychologist at the University of Stirling in Scotland. The effect was strongest if they were looking for a short-term partner rather than a long-term one, and if they considered themselves attractive.
These findings, to be detailed in an upcoming issue of the journal Hormones and Behavior, reveal that "preferences are not absolute," Little said. >
It was a test of verbal behaviour. Verbal behaviour doesn't make babies.
It would be interesting to read the actual study rather than that story-telling version.
Pop culture long ago figured out such "studies". The old song, "If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife and from a personal point of view, get an ugly girl to marry you." Was that Harry Belafonte? Perhaps women sing the same song. Another... "If you're in love with a beautiful woman, you watch her eyes .... then somebody hangs up when you answer the phone...".
Stirling university in Scotland eh? Not far from Edinburgh. Here's the guy who was interested in doing intelligence versus genes research with us: en.wikipedia.org
Among other things, he found that smoking [tobacco] increases intelligence briefly. Maybe that's why smoking was considered sexy for a long time [just kidding]. Maybe people feel smarter when they smoke [one of the benefits of smoking].
He [and his group] found that women are smart enough to spot a bright bloke [a crucial job requirement of being female] but not smart enough to invent the theory of relativity: <Working with Ian Deary, Paul Irwing, and Geoff Derr, he reported evidence for substantial gender differences in intelligence in the form of much larger variance amongst males than amongst females, with more boys and men scoring in both the extreme high range, and in the extreme low range > Women miss out on three years of brain development time which explains a lot though that fact is ignored nearly always [I have never seen it mentioned].
Mqurice |
