Mild clarification....

[bathroom_ninja]

I feel like clarifying my last post. I didn't bother explaining things fully because I didn't think anyone on my FL would read it or have any interest in sociobiology.

Instead of just randomly talking about big boobs... I should had said that sociobiologists are trying to figure out why men like big breasts. Most everything in sociobiology is

Comments

[ms_adelaide]

I like the idea of science and sex being related like that. Maybe because I enjoy them both lol. I found your journal through a community we are in, and I find your entries to be interesting. Add me?

[bathroom_ninja]

Yeah it's very interesting! I've heard The Red Queen is a good book on sociobiology, but I haven't read it yet.

Added~

soup

[anonymous]

It's Bryan. Usually I defend sociobiology to the death, but I can't be fucked to think about stuff like that lately. Rather than defend some insubstantial position, I'll ask you: what logical leaps did you find, and what do you consider better explanations?
(I've read all those books)

Re: soup

[bathroom_ninja]

[I’m assuming you meant illogical?]
I defend sociobiology a lot too…which is sort of awkward considering most of my focus is on cultural differences with my major, but I think sociobiology is absolutely necessary to understanding human nature. Unfortunately it is frequently abused as well…but that’s a topic for another day >_>;

Anyhoo, you’ve read Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters? What did you think? For the most part I liked it because it introduced me to a lot of new concepts, but there were a few things I didn’t agree with. As far as the anthropology part goes he mentions how Margaret Mead’s and Napoleon Chagnon’s tribes were hoaxes [Samoa and Tasaday], yet decides to omit other cultures with real differences [Arapesh, Mundugumor, Tchambuli