only a fool would suffer this rubbish unscientific experiment.
How is it unscientific? Social psychologists run these kind of experiments all the time, many of them following rigorous methodologies. You may think the conclusions are suspect but there's nothing to indicate that the actual experiment with a substandard scientific process.
There's nothing to indicate that the process was particularly scientific either. Do we know what the sample size is? What the margin of error is? Where the sample population came from?
All good questions but my point was that the initial dismissal of this study seemed more premised on the analysis of it (which, to be fair, seemed to be Rock's analysis, not the researchers) vs. the methodology. Assuming the Discovery Channel's producers have some basic standard for vetting the studies they quote from, I'm assuming they didn't just poll a bunch of folks at the office.
See, I wouldn't assume anything with the Discovery Channel. If they don't come up with controversial or at least interesting results, they don't have a show. It's entirely possible that they only polled 10 or so people, which would not supply a very accurate result, or even selected only data which supported the desired result. These days, when ratings rule above all else, I don't automatically trust anything I see on TV.
What I find awkward is the conclusion that this is what "women" want. As in, all women during all times of human history just want a record executive. Which doesn't really make sense because those forms of social relations didn't exist in the past and may not exist in the future.
So, at the end of the day you have the conclusion that women in this society, with its own inherent inbred fucked up values may be more attracted to men that are financially stable. And then I ask myself, so what?
What I find awkward is the conclusion that this is what "women" want. As in, all women during all times of human history just want a record executive. Which doesn't really make sense because those forms of social relations didn't exist in the past and may not exist in the future.
So, at the end of the day you have the conclusion that women in this society, with its own inherent inbred fucked up values may be more attracted to men that are financially stable. And then I ask myself, so what?
Way before the industrial revolution working was regarded as just something you had to do, while family and especially religion was regarded as the most important thing in life. In certain societies (the chinese for example) wealth and trading goods was even look down on, almost like the poor and the criminals today.
In our society you fulfill yourself through your job, and our system "forces" everyone to work if they want to survive. Its not a lot of room for alternative lifestyles. Status equals your job and how much money you make. We're all products of the time we live in. Sadly our society worships money and material objects a bit too much...
Way before the industrial revolution working was regarded as just something you had to do, while family and especially religion was regarded as the most important thing in life. In certain societies (the chinese for example) wealth and trading goods was even look down on, almost like the poor and the criminals today.
The picture of the guy identified as being very outwardly devout and having a very large family would have been rated higher in those societies. Same shallow tendency, different values.
Comments
yeah dude thats me....
jokes dude jokes
everyone is so goddamn sensitive
All good questions but my point was that the initial dismissal of this study seemed more premised on the analysis of it (which, to be fair, seemed to be Rock's analysis, not the researchers) vs. the methodology. Assuming the Discovery Channel's producers have some basic standard for vetting the studies they quote from, I'm assuming they didn't just poll a bunch of folks at the office.
So, at the end of the day you have the conclusion that women in this society, with its own inherent inbred fucked up values may be more attracted to men that are financially stable. And then I ask myself, so what?
Way before the industrial revolution working was regarded as just something you had to do, while family and especially religion was regarded as the most important thing in life. In certain societies (the chinese for example) wealth and trading goods was even look down on, almost like the poor and the criminals today.
In our society you fulfill yourself through your job, and our system "forces" everyone to work if they want to survive. Its not a lot of room for alternative lifestyles. Status equals your job and how much money you make. We're all products of the time we live in. Sadly our society worships money and material objects a bit too much...