Sign in with Facebook
Megan Walsh's Reviews > The Evolution Of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating
The Evolution Of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating
by
by
This book was awful. I chose to read this to complete a book review for my anthro seminar course for human reproduction. The ideas he presented were so old school, sexist, and idiotic. There was no modern interpretations of human reproduction and no assessment on mating choices/practices that are actually happening in the real world. His data collection method was flawed, the survey itself was biased. To think ANYONE can benefit from rape, or that rape can actually be justified is disgusting. The research was poorly done.
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
The Evolution Of Desire.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Finished Reading
November 30, 2013
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-2 of 2 (2 new)
date
newest »
newest »
Response to paragraph 1:To imply that this book is indicative of the incel trope “that all women want rich men� is a straw-man. This book makes claims of general tendencies on a robust empirical basis, not absolute rules, such is the nature of the soft sciences.
Response to paragraph 2:
When making a claim that there is a differential in the sexual tendencies, it does not logically follow that the sex who possesses a lower proclivity towards a specific trait in a sexual partner as a full absence of that proclivity.
Paragraph 3:
Once again that is called individual variation and it is discussed in the book, the book does not make claims of absolute laws, only robust statistical tendencies.
Paragraph 4:
First of all, sample size is less important than ensuring a random sample because with a random sample a relatively small sample size is extremely powerful. Additionally that is just one of the studies referenced, he makes reference to hundreds of others, one, for example, being a study of 200,000 individuals across 53 countries showing that males report a higher sex drive than women in ubiquity. Contrary to social constructionist ideas.
Paragraph 5:
Claiming this book lacks scientific objectivity is simply and plainly baseless. This book is nonnegotiable and quantitatively the single most cited book by peer reviewed scientific journals on the subject of human mating. It has been cited 5700 times by peer reviewed scientific journals, more than any other book on the subject. The author of this book is the chief editor of OXFORD UNIVERSITIES textbook “The Oxford Handbook of Human Mating�.
You’re going to need to explain how these studies were fueled by confirmation bias then.
Unfortunately for that theory, as almost any woman knows.... women also like hot, sexy men and do NOT like old, fat, bald guys. Even if they want their money, they do not feel attraction to old, fat, bald guys and if they marry, those women will cheat with the hot sexy guy on the side.
On top of that, I have seen in my life a lot of men who are VERY eager to "marry up" (hypergamy) and will go for a woman who has inherited money, a high paying job or a rich daddy.
I'd also like to say that a study with 10,000 participants that is meant to be world-wide and cross-cultural is a ridiculously low number.
The underling problem is lack of scientific objectivity -- the author is already an incel/MG-TOW -- resents and fears women -- wants only very young, good looking women (who then are expected to become passive housewives until they age out, at about 29, and then you dump them for the next 22 year old).
This is the hot fantasy of all incels/MG-TOW and this book plays to them, and obviously the author constructed his study to give him the exact results he wanted.