- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 28,400
- Reaction score
- 0
Actually he is not just pulling this out of his ass. I don't claim to be an expert in this field myself, but I did read about a study a while ago about whether men actually prefer blondes and they hypothesized about the reasons why.
We are all a product of our genes, our hormones and our life experiences. And sometimes our genes influence us more than we realize. It is theorized that (at least amongst white people, I suppose) we are at least somewhat predisposed to be attracted to blondes.
Many people are born with blonde hair and it darkens as they age. Thus subconsciously we somewhat associate blonde hair with youth. Since deep down our sole goal on this planet is to reproduce, it is natural to be more attracted to the young as they are more likely to be able to produce viable offspring.
If I remember correctly, the opposite was true with female attractions towards men. Women are somewhat predisposed to be attracted to darker haired men as it is a sign that they have lived longer and been able to survive.
Now of course these baser instincts don't completely rule us. I for one am more attracted to redheads and black hair.
And while this may still be a theory, it is certainly a somewhat accepted one. A lot of research has been done on this. So no one is just pulling it out of their ass, just because you don't happen to agree with it.
He is pulling it out of his ass. It's a "just so story". Often used by people who think they understand evolution and genetics, but do not. Telling stories isn't science.
In science and philosophy, a just-so story, also called an ad hoc fallacy, is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals. The pejorative[1] nature of the expression is an implicit criticism that reminds the hearer of the essentially fictional and unprovable nature of such an explanation.
For example, this point:
Women are somewhat predisposed to be attracted to darker haired men as it is a sign that they have lived longer and been able to survive.
Two statements here:
A: women like darker haired men
B: They like darker haired men because they are genetically programmed to because it is a sign they live longer.
How could anyone possibly know B? How could that be proven? What testing could be done?
An evolutionary biologist makes a good point about nonsense stories like this:
"Unfortunately, evolutionary psychologists routinely confuse theory and speculation. Unlike bones, behavior does not fossilize, and understanding its evolution often involves concocting stories that sound plausible but are hard to test. Depression, for example, is seen as a trait favored by natural selection to enable us to solve our problems by withdrawing, reflecting, and hence enhancing our future reproduction. Plausible? Maybe. Scientifically testable? Absolutely not.
It's just evolutionary psych, which is a pseudoscience that tells stories without scientific backing.
hypotheses put forward to explain the adaptive nature of human behavioural traits are "just-so stories"; neat adaptive explanations for the evolution of given traits that do not rest on any evidence beyond their own internal logic. They allege that evolutionary psychology can predict many, or even all, behaviours for a given situation, including contradictory ones. Therefore many human behaviours will always fit some hypotheses. Noam Chomsky argued:
"You find that people cooperate, you say, ‘Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.’ You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that’s obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it.