Americans Are Losing Jobs Because We Are Fat
Your Special Friend
mostly slim. Americans and Europeans are fat. If you lose weight, you
will get your jobs back. See the research data below. Its not just
about skills, cost and efficieny. Its because we are fat that we are
losing our jobs.
***********************************
http://www.obesity.org/discrimination/employment.shtml
Evidence of discrimination is found at virtually every stage of the
employment cycle, including selection, placement, compensation,
promotion, discipline and discharge, according to a research review by
Mark Roehling, a professor in the Department of Management, Western
Michigan University. In addition, the bias extends to assessments of
overweight individuals in their various work-related roles both as
subordinates and co-workers. Of his findings, Roehling said, "Overall,
the evidence of consistent, significant discrimination against
overweight employees is sobering."
Roehling reviewed 29 research studies of employment discrimination
that included both laboratory and field studies. He found that:
Overweight persons were subject to discrimination in employment
decisions based on body weight.
Overweight persons were frequently stereotyped as emotionally
impaired, socially handicapped and as possessing negative personality
traits.
Wages of mildly obese white women were 5.9 percent lower than standard
weight counterparts; morbidly obese white women were 24.1 percent
lower, according to two studies. In contrast to females, the wages of
mildly obese white and black men were higher than their standard
weight counterparts. Men only experienced wage penalties at the very
highest weight levels.
"Studies assessing the effect of both employee weight and other
suspected bases for discrimination (sex, specific disabilities, etc.)
provide evidence of the relative level of weight-based bias; they
suggest that weight-related bias may be greater than that associated
with other characteristics.
For example, Pingitore et al's (1994) study manipulating applicant
weight, applicant sex and job type, found that applicant weight
explained 34.6% of the variance in hiring decisions. In contrast 10.6%
of the variance was explained by the sex of the applicant.
Brink (1988) examined the potential effect of applicant weight, age,
sex and race on ratings of candidate acceptability in a laboratory
setting. Overweight candidates were rated significantly lower, but
none of the other manipulations has a significant effect. A final
example is provided by Kennedy and Hormant's (1984) investigation of
the effect of social stigmas on decisions regarding employee
discharge. They found that participants displayed more negative
attitudes toward overweight employees than ex-felons or ex-mental
patients."
Michigan is the only state that prohibits employment discrimination on
the basis of weight.
In studies conducted in settings unrelated to employment, Roehling
found some evidence that overweight women were evaluated more
negatively than overweight men. Although the findings were not
consistent, Roehling stated, "Where an interaction is found,
overweight women are evaluated more negatively than overweight men."
He also found that overweight persons are denigrated by doctors,
nurses, peers, small children and their parent(s).
Wages and Benefits
Several studies have found that women with obesity earned less than
non-obese women.
In a study by Rothblum and colleagues, of persons who were 50 percent
or more above their ideal weight, 26 percent reported they were denied
benefits such as health insurance because of their weight and 17
percent reported being pressured to resign or fired because of their
weight.
Legal Issues
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, (Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000 et seq.)
established basic federal law on employment discrimination. It does
not identify weight as a protected characteristic, and as a result
does not provide direct protection for obese individuals who have been
discriminated against by their employer due to their weight.
The differential application of weight standards, formal or informal,
to members of protected classes may constitute disparate treatment
discrimination.
In Gerdom v. Continental Airlines Inc., 692 F2d. 602, 30 FEP 235 (9th
Cir. 1982; en banc), the court determined that the airline's weight
restriction program treated employees differently based on sex because
it was designed to apply only to females, and "it was not merely
slenderness, but slenderness of female employees which the employer
considered critical." The airline argued that it had a competitive
strategy featuring attractive flight attendants and that a slender
female was a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). The court
rejected this argument holding that customer preference unrelated to
the ability to do the job cannot justify discriminatory policies.
Disparate treatment may also be found if weight policies designed to
apply to all groups are enforced at a significantly higher rate
against a protected group. Union of Flight Attendants v. Pan American
World Airways, Inc., 50 FEP 1698 (N.D. Cal 1987)
An employer's use of formal or informal weight standards may involve
illegal discrimination if, though neutral on its face, the rule has a
significant disparate impact on a protected class. In other words, if
a claimant established that the weight rule was having an adverse
impact on African Americans, Title VII would require an employer to
justify its weight rules by showing that it is job-related and
consistent with business necessity.
Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The Rehabilitation Act and the ADA provide protection against
employment discrimination. Under both acts, a person must establish
that he or she is an individual with a disability within the meaning
of the acts. This includes anyone who has a physical or mental
disability that substantially limits one or more major life activities
of the individual, a record of such impairment or who is regarded as
having such impairment.
Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC)
EEOC regulations define "major life activities" as "functions such as
caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing,
speaking, breathing, learning and working. The regulations require
that the 'working" limitation requires evidence of being significantly
restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad
range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person
having comparable training, skills and abilities. The inability to
perform a specific job does not constitute a substantial limitation in
the major life activity of working. The EEOC regulations implementing
the ADA explicitly excludes height or weight within normal ranges and
are not the result of a physiological disorder. According to the
regulation, obesity will considered as a disability except in "rare
circumstances." (29 C.F.R. §1630.2)
(See Roehling M, Weight-Based Discrimination in Employment:
Psychological and Legal Aspects, Personnel Psychology, 1999, 52,
969-1016)
Patricia Heil
where they were paying the Americans $100000.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>Its because we are fat that we are
>losing our jobs.
Would you employ an alcoholic or heroin addict? Sugar is a powerfully
psychoactive substance, and almost all overweight people are sugar
addicts. It just doesn't make much business sense to employ addicts
and substance abusers. Not to mention that they break the office
furniture, increase the employer's health insurance costs, and are not
pleasant to look at.
-- Roy L
Shashay Doofray
"Your Special Friend" <y...@ziplip.com> wrote in message
news:1214fb08.0310...@posting.google.com...
> Why are jobs going to India and China? Because Chinese and Indians are
> mostly slim. Americans and Europeans are fat. If you lose weight, you
> will get your jobs back. See the research data below. Its not just
> about skills, cost and efficieny. Its because we are fat that we are
> losing our jobs.
It's an interesting theory. Apparently, American business owners, industry,
etc., is more concerned with their employees' appearance than their work
performance. Personally, I find that the younger and thinner someone is the
more stupid and incompetent they seem to be. The amount of make up worn by
any female is directly inversely proportionate to her IQ. Often they are
more interested in being "cute, perky and adorable" than they are actually
performing the duties of their job. Go figure. Big business is still
mostly run by men and men as you know - think with their penis, at least
where women employees are concerned.
SD
ro...@telus.net
<Sha...@email.com> wrote:
>The amount of make up worn by
>any female is directly inversely proportionate to her IQ.
I have found the overall quality of women shows a similar
relationship. I don't know why.
-- Roy L
David Fabian
It is because intelligent women are generally not as much into
exploiting their bodies to survive. And even when they are,
they are at least apprehensive about *appearing* less intelligent.
Anyway, while intelligence makes people rely less upon their
bodies, it also makes them more aware of the importance of
physical health. So I would guess that the most intelligence
women are generally not fat, and wear very little makeup (if
any).
> -- Roy L
Julianne
"David Fabian" <david.m...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bNNjb.417$ww5.34...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
So, if what you are saying is correct, intelligent women wouldn't pay
attention to their make-up or hair, etc. and when you find someone who wears
make-up and is thin, you can pretty much assume that they are somehow
flawed?
Oh, PuhLeeze.....
How is self exploitation if I choose to wear lip stick? Is there a law that
says women can't be pretty and smart at the same time?
j
>
>
Patricia Heil
Please. Go get an education. Better yet get a brain.
Patricia Heil
Sorry dear. You fell for a lying troll.
David Fabian
>
> "David Fabian" <david.m...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:bNNjb.417$ww5.34...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> > exploiting their bodies to survive. And even when they are,
> > they are at least apprehensive about *appearing* less intelligent.
> >
> > Anyway, while intelligence makes people rely less upon their
> > bodies, it also makes them more aware of the importance of
> > physical health. So I would guess that the most intelligence
> > women are generally not fat, and wear very little makeup (if
> > any).
> >
> >
> > > -- Roy L
>
> So, if what you are saying is correct, intelligent women wouldn't pay
> attention to their make-up or hair, etc. and when you find someone who
> wears make-up and is thin, you can pretty much assume that they are
> somehow flawed?
Julianne, I said, "I would guess that the most intelligence women are
generally *not* fat, and wear very little makeup." I did not mean to imply
that intelligent women rarely take care of themselves or rarely wear
makeup. On the contrary, I think intelligent women (generally) take good
care of themselves.
> Oh, PuhLeeze.....
>
> How is self exploitation if I choose to wear lip stick?
I used "exploiting" in the sense of "employing to the greatest possible
advantage" ... and I would say wearing lipstick makes your lips most
appealing. ;)
> Is there a law that says women can't be pretty and smart at the
> same time?
Of course not. Intelligence and good looks are highly correlated,
since they are both consequences of good health.
Dave
> j
Liz
> > Oh, PuhLeeze.....
> >
> > How is self exploitation if I choose to wear lip stick?
>
> I used "exploiting" in the sense of "employing to the greatest possible
> advantage" ... and I would say wearing lipstick makes your lips most
> appealing. ;)
>
>
> > Is there a law that says women can't be pretty and smart at the
> > same time?
>
> Of course not. Intelligence and good looks are highly correlated,
> since they are both consequences of good health.
Dave, you're full of crap ... give up the pseudo-science and find something
useful to do
David Fabian
> > since they are both consequences of good health.
>
> Dave, you're full of crap ... give up the pseudo-science and find
> something useful to do
Oh, hi Liz ... I was expecting you come by and squelch such sexist
chatter. Yes, I must get back to programming ... and try to avoid
watching Linda Fiorentino movies ...
Btw, I know something *very* useful to do, but I must find venture
capital. I want to start developing a new software product that would
requires very advanced programming skills and many years to devel-
op; but investors are all looking for a quick buck ... and I do not think
I could get one's attention anyway. Maybe I should move to India ...
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>Please. Go get an education. Better yet get a brain.
Sorry, but I am not afraid to identify facts, and I am not impressed
by your lack of same.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>"David Fabian" <david.m...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:bNNjb.417$ww5.34...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> <ro...@telus.net> wrote in message
>news:3f8f8086...@news.telus.net...
>> > On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 21:09:44 -0500, "Shashay Doofray"
>> > <Sha...@email.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >The amount of make up worn by
>> > >any female is directly inversely proportionate to her IQ.
>> >
>> > I have found the overall quality of women shows a similar
>> > relationship. I don't know why.
>>
>> It is because intelligent women are generally not as much into
>> exploiting their bodies to survive. And even when they are,
>> they are at least apprehensive about *appearing* less intelligent.
>>
>> Anyway, while intelligence makes people rely less upon their
>> bodies, it also makes them more aware of the importance of
>> physical health. So I would guess that the most intelligence
>> women are generally not fat, and wear very little makeup (if
>> any).
>
>So, if what you are saying is correct, intelligent women wouldn't pay
>attention to their make-up or hair, etc.
No, more likely they pay attention to it enough to know that over-use
of make-up is not attractive.
>and when you find someone who wears
>make-up and is thin, you can pretty much assume that they are somehow
>flawed?
No, it's just a relationship I've observed.
>How is self exploitation if I choose to wear lip stick?
IMO it shows a lack of understanding of what is attractive to the
higher-quality male.
>Is there a law that
>says women can't be pretty and smart at the same time?
The smart ones know they are even more pretty _without_ so much
make-up.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<david.m...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I would say wearing lipstick makes your lips most
>appealing. ;)
I would disagree. Lipstick gets attention, but it makes kissing a
sticky mess.
-- Roy L
Liz
> "Liz" <l...@tiredofspam.com> wrote in message
news:0yTjb.6233059$mA4.8...@news.easynews.com...
> >
> > "David Fabian" <david.m...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:9oSjb.432$%%
> >
> > > Of course not. Intelligence and good looks are highly correlated,
> > > since they are both consequences of good health.
> >
> > Dave, you're full of crap ... give up the pseudo-science and find
> > something useful to do
>
> Oh, hi Liz ... I was expecting you come by and squelch such sexist
> chatter. Yes, I must get back to programming ... and try to avoid
> watching Linda Fiorentino movies ...
glad I did not disappoint
> Btw, I know something *very* useful to do, but I must find venture
> capital. I want to start developing a new software product that would
> requires very advanced programming skills and many years to devel-
> op; but investors are all looking for a quick buck ... and I do not think
> I could get one's attention anyway. Maybe I should move to India ...
yeah, perhaps ... I don't think lipstick is much of an issue over there ...
Carey Gregory
>Sugar is a powerfully psychoactive substance,
Got a citation for that? Glucose - a sugar - literally fuels the brain;
unlike other organs, it's the only form of energy the brain can use, and
without a constant supply you will quickly lose consciousness and die.
Therefore, if sugar is a psychoactive substance, then we are all under its
influence every single second of our lives from conception to death.
Or perhaps you had some other sugar in mind? If so, which one? A citation
supporting your claim would be appropriate.
>and almost all overweight people are sugar addicts.
I'd like to see another citation supporting your claim that "almost all
overweight people are sugar addicts." Better yet, if you know what causes
obesity in "almost all" cases, then you should publish immediately and claim
your Nobel prize.
>It just doesn't make much business sense to employ addicts
>and substance abusers. Not to mention that they break the office
>furniture, increase the employer's health insurance costs, and are not
>pleasant to look at.
Diabetics, many of whom are 'addicted' to insulin, have health costs
approaching or even exceeding those of overweight individuals. Should
employers avoid hiring them too? How about smokers and those who drink more
than 1-2 drinks per day? And don't forget the people who engage in dangerous
sports and hobbies, who drive too fast, who practice unsafe sex, etc, etc.
When you get right down to it, the list includes almost everyone.
BoomerangThree
MANUFACTURERS ARE ADDING thicker aluminum frames, bulkier connectors and
extra spine supports to create stretchers with a capacity of 650 pounds,
instead of the standard 350 to 500. Ambulance crews are switching to the
heavy-duty models to avoid injuries to rescue workers and patients alike.
"If the stretchers aren't big enough, a person may fall off. It's a
disaster. Or if the stretcher collapses, it can lead to injury for them or
the attendant," said Dr. Richard Atkinson, president of the American Obesity
Association.
No doctors or paramedics interviewed for this story could actually
recall any cases of overweight people breaking a stretcher or falling off
one. But they know of paramedics who have gotten hurt lifting heavy
patients.
Josh Weiss, a spokesman for Southwest Ambulance, which serves the
Phoenix and Tucson, Ariz., areas, said the company's paramedics used to
employ a tarp to carry patients too big for a standard stretcher.
"You'd have to have five to 10 different firefighters lift it up. It
was unsafe for our units. There would be many physical problems for our
crews," he said. "Back injuries would often occur."
"Carey Gregory" <tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:63m0pvg9c1ea5m216...@4ax.com...
Carey Gregory
>Intelligence and good looks are highly correlated,
>since they are both consequences of good health.
Please provide a citation for your outlandish assertion that good looks and
intelligence are highly correlated.
And another for your merely exaggerated claim that they are consequences of
good health.
At the risk of belaboring the obvious....
Open any history book and take a look at the beautiful women of 200 years
ago. They are fat by today's standards and would have a hard time getting
dates. Likewise, today's "beautiful people" of Hollywood are anything but
beautiful to the average African tribesman. He would find them skinny and
sickly looking, with thin lips, small eyes, sharp noses, and scrawny butts.
Do you suppose this was caused by good health in Hollywood... or Africa?
Carey Gregory
> MANUFACTURERS ARE ADDING thicker aluminum frames, bulkier connectors and
>extra spine supports to create stretchers with a capacity of 650 pounds,
>instead of the standard 350 to 500. Ambulance crews are switching to the
>heavy-duty models to avoid injuries to rescue workers and patients alike.
True. Actually, it's not even news. That started happening several years
ago. 500 lb capacity became standard in the mid 1990's, up from the
previous 400 lb. standard. Though rarely used, there are even stretchers
made with electric lifts.
MH
>
> Of course not. Intelligence and good looks are highly correlated,
> since they are both consequences of good health.
>
> Dave
So, with this rather false and inane assumption, you probably think Jessica
Simpson is intelligent. Yeah, sure, right...
Martha
David Fabian
> "David Fabian" <david.m...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >Intelligence and good looks are highly correlated,
> >since they are both consequences of good health.
>
> Please provide a citation for your outlandish assertion that good
> looks and intelligence are highly correlated.
See: http://www.unm.edu/~psych/faculty/aesthetic_fitness.htm
Here is the beginning of the abstract:
"Aesthetic ornamentation in other species almost always results
from sexual selection through mate choice, and sexually-selected
ornaments usually function as indicators of fitness - good health,
good brains, and good genes."
But my statement was based on both personal experience (which I
cannot convey) and reason (which I can convey). People generally
choose mates based on traits that have the best chances of surviv-
ing. So, in the long run, people with high levels of all the desirable
survival traits (such as physical health, intelligence, pleasant dis-
position) will mate with each other. Furthermore, they will gen-
erally have more offspring who, in turn, are more likely to do the
same. So as evolution progresses, the survival traits will coincide
within the best survivors.
> And another for your merely exaggerated claim that they are con-
> sequences of good health.
Both brains and bodies do not develop well without good nutrition
and health. And, through natural selection, we have inbred into our-
selves a natural attraction to traits that are correlated with health.
(That is, people died off if they *did not* develop an attraction to
others who were healthy and survived well.)
So we can now sense when another person is not healthy, and we,
by our own inbred definitions, consider that person not good
looking, or dumb-looking.
Anyway, if you must have references, see works by Desmond
Morris, such as "The Naked Ape".
> At the risk of belaboring the obvious....
>
> Open any history book and take a look at the beautiful women
> of 200 years ago. They are fat by today's standards
The definition of "fat" has been corrupted by the fashion world ...
which favors anorexia in women ... possibly due to gay fashion
designers wanting women to look more like men.
> and would have a hard time getting dates.
Only if they are around men who have been brainwashed into
thinking women should be anorexic.
> Likewise, today's "beautiful people" of Hollywood are anything
> but beautiful to the average African tribesman.
... and to the average man anywhere else in the world. Hollywood
actresses are victims of media hype. And plastic surgery ruins their
looks more than anorexia does.
> He would find them skinny and sickly looking, with thin lips,
> small eyes, sharp noses, and scrawny butts.
>
> Do you suppose this was caused by good health in Hollywood
> ... or Africa?
In societies where starvation is likely, thinness is naturally con-
sidered unhealthy, because thin people did not survive hash con-
ditions as well (and being attracted to them did not help get your
genes passed on to the next generation).
But people throughout the world are attracted to healthy people,
regardless of weight. And the biggest indicator of health is one's
waistline. Men are most attracted to women whose waist-to-hip
ration is 0.7; while women are most attracted to men whose
waist-to-chest ratio is 0.9.
Dave
David Fabian
Of course, there are exceptions to generalities ... but maybe Jessica
Simpson is faking. Many so-called "dumb blondes" use the stereo-
type to get ahead. Example: Judy Holliday.
Speaking of dumb blondes ... (Note: I has blonde/brown hair when
I was young, so I can tell this joke, okay?):
A blind man and his guide dog enter a bar and find their way to a
bar stool. After ordering a drink, and sitting there for a while, the
blind guy yells to the bartender "Hey, you wanna hear a blonde
joke?"
The bar immediately becomes absolutely quiet. In a husky, deep
voice, the woman sitting to his left says, "Before you tell that joke,
you should know something. The bartender is blonde, the bouncer
is blonde and I'm a 6' tall, 200 lb. blonde with a black belt in karate.
What's more, the woman sitting next to me is blonde and she's a
weight lifter. The lady to your right is a blonde, and she's a pro
wrestler."
"Think about it seriously, Mister. You still wanna tell that joke?"
The blind guy says, "Nah, not if I'm gonna have to explain it five
times."
ro...@telus.net
<tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"David Fabian" <david.m...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Intelligence and good looks are highly correlated,
>>since they are both consequences of good health.
>
>Please provide a citation for your outlandish assertion that good looks and
>intelligence are highly correlated.
I don't know about men, but it was very clear in my high school that
the best-looking girls were also the smartest. A friend of mine was
privy to the academic aptitude scores of the whole school, and
surprised me with his discovery that even among the girls who weren't
doing that well academically, the most attractive of them nevertheless
had the aptitude scores to do so if they wanted to.
>And another for your merely exaggerated claim that they are consequences of
>good health.
That should be obvious.
>Open any history book and take a look at the beautiful women of 200 years
>ago. They are fat by today's standards and would have a hard time getting
>dates.
Not true, except by the standards of the fashion industry, which is
dominated by women and _homosexual_ men who both think emaciation is
attractive on women because it is more masculine than rounded
contours.
>Likewise, today's "beautiful people" of Hollywood are anything but
>beautiful to the average African tribesman.
False.
>He would find them skinny and
>sickly looking, with thin lips, small eyes, sharp noses, and scrawny butts.
Only a few of the more extreme examples.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>>Sugar is a powerfully psychoactive substance,
>
>Got a citation for that?
?? You must be kidding. Either that, or you have no kids.
>Glucose - a sugar - literally fuels the brain;
>unlike other organs, it's the only form of energy the brain can use, and
>without a constant supply you will quickly lose consciousness and die.
>Therefore, if sugar is a psychoactive substance, then we are all under its
>influence every single second of our lives from conception to death.
True. Hello?
>>and almost all overweight people are sugar addicts.
>
>I'd like to see another citation supporting your claim that "almost all
>overweight people are sugar addicts."
Go to your local supermarket and look in the baskets of the fat people
and the thin people.
>Better yet, if you know what causes
>obesity in "almost all" cases, then you should publish immediately and claim
>your Nobel prize.
?? It's too obvious.
>>It just doesn't make much business sense to employ addicts
>>and substance abusers. Not to mention that they break the office
>>furniture, increase the employer's health insurance costs, and are not
>>pleasant to look at.
>
>Diabetics, many of whom are 'addicted' to insulin, have health costs
>approaching or even exceeding those of overweight individuals.
Almost all diabetics are also overweight, and obesity is the #1 risk
factor for diabetes.
>Should
>employers avoid hiring them too? How about smokers and those who drink more
>than 1-2 drinks per day? And don't forget the people who engage in dangerous
>sports and hobbies, who drive too fast, who practice unsafe sex, etc, etc.
>When you get right down to it, the list includes almost everyone.
Well, you have to decide on some basis. All other things equal, I'd
pick the slim, non-smoking, teetotaling, slow-driving, healthy one.
-- Roy L
Carol Frilegh
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:43:04 GMT, Carey Gregory
> <tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >ro...@telus.net wrote:
> >
> >>Sugar is a powerfully psychoactive substance,
> >
> >Got a citation for that?
>
> ?? You must be kidding. Either that, or you have no kids.
>
> >Glucose - a sugar - literally fuels the brain;
> >unlike other organs, it's the only form of energy the brain can use, and
> >without a constant supply you will quickly lose consciousness and die.
> >Therefore, if sugar is a psychoactive substance, then we are all under its
> >influence every single second of our lives from conception to death.
>
> True. Hello?
>
> >>and almost all overweight people are sugar addicts.
> >
> >I'd like to see another citation supporting your claim that "almost all
> >overweight people are sugar addicts."
>
> Go to your local supermarket and look in the baskets of the fat people
> and the thin people.
>
I tried it and got arrested.The men were really annoyed, especially
those wearing boxer shorts instead of jocjeys ;-)
Carey Gregory
>On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:43:04 GMT, Carey Gregory
><tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>
>>>Sugar is a powerfully psychoactive substance,
>>
>>Got a citation for that?
>
>?? You must be kidding. Either that, or you have no kids.
Not kidding at all. I take it you have no citations to support the claim?
>>Glucose - a sugar - literally fuels the brain;
>>unlike other organs, it's the only form of energy the brain can use, and
>>without a constant supply you will quickly lose consciousness and die.
>>Therefore, if sugar is a psychoactive substance, then we are all under its
>>influence every single second of our lives from conception to death.
>
>True. Hello?
Yeah, true. Hello?
>Go to your local supermarket and look in the baskets of the fat people
>and the thin people.
Do your study and publish it in a peer reviewed journal and then - maybe -
you'll begin to have some credibility.
>>Better yet, if you know what causes
>>obesity in "almost all" cases, then you should publish immediately and claim
>>your Nobel prize.
>
>?? It's too obvious.
Right. I guess that explains why the people who study these things don't
know the answer.
>Almost all diabetics are also overweight, and obesity is the #1 risk
>factor for diabetes.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
>>Should
>>employers avoid hiring them too? How about smokers and those who drink more
>>than 1-2 drinks per day? And don't forget the people who engage in dangerous
>>sports and hobbies, who drive too fast, who practice unsafe sex, etc, etc.
>>When you get right down to it, the list includes almost everyone.
>
>Well, you have to decide on some basis. All other things equal, I'd
>pick the slim, non-smoking, teetotaling, slow-driving, healthy one.
I would pick the most competent one. I wonder whose company will do
better....
Carey Gregory
>"Carey Gregory" <tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:joo0pvsqfs4fsh755...@4ax.com...
>> Please provide a citation for your outlandish assertion that good
>> looks and intelligence are highly correlated.
>
>See: http://www.unm.edu/~psych/faculty/aesthetic_fitness.htm
Recommend you avoid the science newsgroups, David. There isn't a shred of
empirical evidence to support your assertion in that paper. It's a
theoretical piece.
>But my statement was based on both personal experience
Translation: purely anecdotal, colored by personal history, biases, and
perceptions.
>People generally
>choose mates based on traits that have the best chances of surviv-
>ing. So, in the long run, people with high levels of all the desirable
>survival traits (such as physical health, intelligence, pleasant dis-
>position) will mate with each other. Furthermore, they will gen-
>erally have more offspring who, in turn, are more likely to do the
>same. So as evolution progresses, the survival traits will coincide
>within the best survivors.
Thanks for the regurgitation of basic Darwinian theory. Find a way to fit
that in with modern human life in a compelling manner and you will be able
to claim your PhD.
>> And another for your merely exaggerated claim that they are con-
>> sequences of good health.
>
>Both brains and bodies do not develop well without good nutrition
>and health.
Lack of citation noted. Yes, I acknowledged that, but it's only true in the
extremes. Many people with crappy nutrition and crappy health are
considered beautiful. Many more people with excellent nutrition and health
are considered ugly. Go figure. Life is more complicated than freshman
textbooks would indicate.
>And, through natural selection, we have inbred into our-
>selves a natural attraction to traits that are correlated with health.
>(That is, people died off if they *did not* develop an attraction to
>others who were healthy and survived well.)
Enough of the basic Darwinism, okay?
>So we can now sense when another person is not healthy, and we,
>by our own inbred definitions, consider that person not good
>looking, or dumb-looking.
Fine, sick people aren't attractive. I agree. But we aren't talking about
sick people.
>Anyway, if you must have references, see works by Desmond
>Morris, such as "The Naked Ape".
Puhleeze.....
>> At the risk of belaboring the obvious....
>>
>> Open any history book and take a look at the beautiful women
>> of 200 years ago. They are fat by today's standards
>
>The definition of "fat" has been corrupted by the fashion world ...
>which favors anorexia in women ... possibly due to gay fashion
>designers wanting women to look more like men.
So what? It's still true, isn't it? (I guess maybe belaboring the obvious
wasn't so obvious after all.)
Carey Gregory
>I don't know about men, but it was very clear in my high school that
>the best-looking girls were also the smartest.
Sorry, that's not a cite.
And my experience was very much the opposite. So much for personal
anecdotes.....
>>And another for your merely exaggerated claim that they are consequences of
>>good health.
>
>That should be obvious.
The history of science is littered with discarded theories that were
"obvious."
>>Open any history book and take a look at the beautiful women of 200 years
>>ago. They are fat by today's standards and would have a hard time getting
>>dates.
>
>Not true, except by the standards of the fashion industry, which is
>dominated by women and _homosexual_ men who both think emaciation is
>attractive on women because it is more masculine than rounded
>contours.
99% of the men I've ever known would consider the typical beauty of 1800 to
be overweight. Culture's funny that way -- you just can't get away from the
milieu you were raise in.
>>Likewise, today's "beautiful people" of Hollywood are anything but
>>beautiful to the average African tribesman.
>
>False.
Check out the wives chosen by the most wealthy and powerful members of such
tribes and get back to me on that.
David Fabian
> "David Fabian" <david.m...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >But my statement was based on both personal experience
>
> Translation: purely anecdotal, colored by personal history,
> biases, and perceptions.
Translation: Carey believes she should always defer to what
the (so-called) authorities say, and disregard any wisdom
drawn from her own personal experiences ... for it may be
tainted with her own personal *biases* (which were formed
from yet other worthless personal experiences of hers).
Carey, try not to rely on citations so much. The world is full
of so-called authorities who are actually ... umm ... not as
reliable as you may think (complete fuck-ups). For example,
NASA's H.R. "authorities" hire management, engineering, and
software "authorities", who then turn around and crash two
landers into Mars, blow up two space shuttles, and forever
lose communication with a $75 million space probe (by over-
writing its communication software with a flawed upgrade).
(But in all fairness, it was probably the political "authorities"
who were most at fault.)
> Thanks for the regurgitation of basic Darwinian theory.
Sorry, but you gave me the impression you had never heard of it.
> Find a way to fit that in with modern human life in a compelling
> manner and you will be able to claim your PhD.
You apparently disagree with Darwin ... and I get tired just think-
ing about the time and energy I have spent trying to explain his
compelling work to creationists.
Btw, I have no interest in a PhD. If a software manager cannot
recognize a good programmer when he meets one (or sees his
work or resume), I would not be able to tolerate the idiot for
long anyway. Besides, Academic America (from what I have
heard) is almost as corrupt as Corporate America (from what
I have experienced).
> >Both brains and bodies do not develop well without good
> >nutrition and health.
>
> Lack of citation noted.
Do you really need one?
> Yes, I acknowledged that, but it's only true in the extremes.
Citations please. (Just kidding.)
> Many people with crappy nutrition and crappy health are
> considered beautiful. Many more people with excellent
> nutrition and health are considered ugly. Go figure.
There are often exceptions to generalities.
> Life is more complicated than freshman textbooks would
> indicate.
Yes, you should take a peek at some sophomore textbooks.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
> > > Open any history book and take a look at the beautiful women
> > > of 200 years ago. They are fat by today's standards
> >
> >The definition of "fat" has been corrupted by the fashion world ...
> >which favors anorexia in women ... possibly due to gay fashion
> >designers wanting women to look more like men.
>
> So what? It's still true, isn't it?
Only to the few people (mostly women) brainwashed by the fashion
industry ... certainly not to me.
Carey Gregory
>Translation: Carey believes she should always defer to what
>the (so-called) authorities say, and disregard any wisdom
>drawn from her own personal experiences ... for it may be
>tainted with her own personal *biases* (which were formed
>from yet other worthless personal experiences of hers).
No, Carey believes that assertions of scientific fact require supporting
evidence.
>Carey, try not to rely on citations so much. The world is full
>of so-called authorities who are actually ... umm ... not as
>reliable as you may think (complete fuck-ups).
I didn't ask for "authorities." I asked for citations. If you're not sure
what the difference is, visit the sci.* groups and ask.
>> Find a way to fit that in with modern human life in a compelling
>> manner and you will be able to claim your PhD.
>
>You apparently disagree with Darwin ...
Quite the contrary.
>> >Both brains and bodies do not develop well without good
>> >nutrition and health.
>>
>> Lack of citation noted.
>
>Do you really need one?
Assuming you don't mean outright illness or malnutrition, then yes, I'm
extremely skeptical that normal variations in nutrition and health make a
measurable difference in appearance or intelligence.
>> Many people with crappy nutrition and crappy health are
>> considered beautiful. Many more people with excellent
>> nutrition and health are considered ugly. Go figure.
>
>There are often exceptions to generalities.
But without empirical evidence, we don't know what is generality and what is
exception, do we?
>> >The definition of "fat" has been corrupted by the fashion world ...
>> >which favors anorexia in women ... possibly due to gay fashion
>> >designers wanting women to look more like men.
>>
>> So what? It's still true, isn't it?
>
>Only to the few people (mostly women) brainwashed by the fashion
>industry ... certainly not to me.
Oh, c'mon. I certainly agree that the fashion industry has twisted notions
of what the female form should look like, but you're kidding yourself if you
think most men would prefer the standards of beauty of the Victorian era.
Go ahead, tell me how many men would choose this
http://www.women.tas.gov.au/awake/fickle.html#wax over this
http://wickedweasel.com/oz/galleries/main/index.html
And make sure you read the text of the ad from the 1800s on the first URL
while you're deciding.
David Fabian
> I didn't ask for "authorities." I asked for citations. If you're not sure
> what the difference is, visit the sci.* groups and ask.
Citation: "A quoting of an authoritative source for substantiation."
-- American Heritage Dictionary
> Oh, c'mon. I certainly agree that the fashion industry has twisted
> notions of what the female form should look like, but you're
> kidding yourself if you think most men would prefer the standards
> of beauty of the Victorian era.
> Go ahead, tell me how many men would choose this
> http://www.women.tas.gov.au/awake/fickle.html#wax over this
> http://wickedweasel.com/oz/galleries/main/index.html
Maybe social and commercial pressures have swayed many men
into seeking thinner women, but research indicates that proportion,
not weight, is what counts.
Here is my earlier assertion (which is backed by hard research,
in addition to personal opinion):
"[...] people throughout the world are attracted to healthy people,
regardless of weight. And the biggest indicator of health is one's
waistline. Men are most attracted to women whose waist-to-hip
ration is 0.7; while women are most attracted to men whose
waist-to-chest ratio is 0.9."
By the way, I knew this was true before I ever read of any research.
I simply used my own experiences and observations.
Fred Elbel
wrote:
> > Why are jobs going to India and China? Because Chinese and Indians are
> > mostly slim. Americans and Europeans are fat. If you lose weight, you
> > will get your jobs back.
Oh, am I in trouble. I lost my job and gained 15 pounds watching the
soaps. Will I ever be able to find another job?
<g>
Carey Gregory
>"Carey Gregory" <tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:hg08pvsso07kiuohu...@4ax.com...
>
>> I didn't ask for "authorities." I asked for citations. If you're not sure
>> what the difference is, visit the sci.* groups and ask.
>
>Citation: "A quoting of an authoritative source for substantiation."
>-- American Heritage Dictionary
Oh, geez.... Look, in scientific parlance the term "citation" is used more
specifically like it is in law. In law, it's a reference to a previous
court decision. In science, it's a reference to a published article in a
peer reviewed journal; ie, empirical research that supports the claim being
made. It's not NASA, industry experts, or even the opinions of an
"authoritative source" (unless that source cites its own empirical support).
So when you make an assertion of scientific fact and someone asks you for a
citation, they're not asking for authorities. They're asking for empirical
evidence published in a peer reviewed journal.
>"[...] people throughout the world are attracted to healthy people,
>regardless of weight. And the biggest indicator of health is one's
>waistline. Men are most attracted to women whose waist-to-hip
>ration is 0.7; while women are most attracted to men whose
>waist-to-chest ratio is 0.9."
A mathematical statement of the obvious. (And I'll ignore the fact that you
haven't cited the source of these numbers either.)
A woman with 63-inch hips and a 44-inch waist meets that criteria. Seen any
women like that lately? No, probably not. Run the numbers and what you'll
find is that achieving a 0.7 ratio on a woman is almost impossible as she
gets larger. Her waist has to be impossibly small (the Barbie thing). In
the real world, all this ratio says is that boyish, narrow hips aren't
desirable on a woman, nor is a huge butt. Go read that URL I gave you.
This is why Victorian women wore corsets.
And with men, all it says is that a big belly isn't desirable. Again, as a
man gets fat, it's virtually impossible for him to meet this criteria.
ro...@telus.net
<tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>>I don't know about men, but it was very clear in my high school that
>>the best-looking girls were also the smartest.
>
>Sorry, that's not a cite.
<yawn> Terman was surprised to find that his subjects, selected for
high IQ, were also unusually attractive.
>And my experience was very much the opposite.
You're either a liar, or you don't know the difference between beauty
and packaging. I'd suspect the latter.
>>>And another for your merely exaggerated claim that they are consequences of
>>>good health.
>>
>>That should be obvious.
>
>The history of science is littered with discarded theories that were
>"obvious."
In this case, it is well supported by, e.g., Terman, and the
self-evident fact of evolutionary success: the explosively rapid
increase in human brain size over the last few million years _proves_
brainy people tend to be more attractive than stupid ones.
>>>Open any history book and take a look at the beautiful women of 200 years
>>>ago. They are fat by today's standards and would have a hard time getting
>>>dates.
>>
>>Not true, except by the standards of the fashion industry, which is
>>dominated by women and _homosexual_ men who both think emaciation is
>>attractive on women because it is more masculine than rounded
>>contours.
>
>99% of the men I've ever known would consider the typical beauty of 1800 to
>be overweight.
You're either a liar, or you have no idea what you are talking about.
Tell me, do you even know what a "corset" is?
>Culture's funny that way -- you just can't get away from the
>milieu you were raise in.
In fact, standards of feminine pulchritude are remarkably stable and
universal.
>>>Likewise, today's "beautiful people" of Hollywood are anything but
>>>beautiful to the average African tribesman.
>>
>>False.
>
>Check out the wives chosen by the most wealthy and powerful members of such
>tribes and get back to me on that.
?? A large fraction of the 99% of men whom you claim think the
beauties of 1800 were overweight are themselves married to women who
are _more_ overweight.
You're just wrong.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:43:04 GMT, Carey Gregory
>><tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sugar is a powerfully psychoactive substance,
>>>
>>>Got a citation for that?
>>
>>?? You must be kidding. Either that, or you have no kids.
>
>Not kidding at all. I take it you have no citations to support the claim?
Well, you'd be wrong, as always:
http://panicdisorder.about.com/library/weekly/aa980211.htm
"For some people, the problem with consuming sugar is that it can
cause an initial increase of insulin (resulting in a lift in mood, the
"sugar high") followed by a rapid decrease a short while later. The
rapid decrease in insulin results in the production of excess
adrenalin and cortisol, two body chemicals that can cause anxiety."
>>Go to your local supermarket and look in the baskets of the fat people
>>and the thin people.
>
>Do your study and publish it in a peer reviewed journal and then - maybe -
>you'll begin to have some credibility.
Why should I reinvent the wheel just to satisfy a Usenet moron?
>>>Better yet, if you know what causes
>>>obesity in "almost all" cases, then you should publish immediately and claim
>>>your Nobel prize.
>>
>>?? It's too obvious.
>
>Right. I guess that explains why the people who study these things don't
>know the answer.
They know very well. It's just you who refuses to know.
>>Almost all diabetics are also overweight, and obesity is the #1 risk
>>factor for diabetes.
>
>You have no idea what you're talking about.
<yawn>
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/ccdpc-cpcmc/diabetes-diabete/english/risk/
>>>Should
>>>employers avoid hiring them too? How about smokers and those who drink more
>>>than 1-2 drinks per day? And don't forget the people who engage in dangerous
>>>sports and hobbies, who drive too fast, who practice unsafe sex, etc, etc.
>>>When you get right down to it, the list includes almost everyone.
>>
>>Well, you have to decide on some basis. All other things equal, I'd
>>pick the slim, non-smoking, teetotaling, slow-driving, healthy one.
>
>I would pick the most competent one. I wonder whose company will do
>better....
Mine.
-- Roy L
FREDDY
I CAN EMAIL YOU THE GAMES OR MAIL YOU THE CD FREE.
FREDDY
ro...@telus.net
<tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"David Fabian" <david.m...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>"Carey Gregory" <tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:joo0pvsqfs4fsh755...@4ax.com...
>
>>> Please provide a citation for your outlandish assertion that good
>>> looks and intelligence are highly correlated.
>>
>>See: http://www.unm.edu/~psych/faculty/aesthetic_fitness.htm
>
>Recommend you avoid the science newsgroups, David. There isn't a shred of
>empirical evidence to support your assertion in that paper.
ROTFL!! The explosive increase in human brain size over the last few
million years is not only evidence but virtually empirical _proof_
that good looks and intelligence are highly correlated. It's not
enough to be smart. You also have to get laid. And that paper is
_packed_ with citations. You know: those things your brain is
apparently unable to function without.
>Thanks for the regurgitation of basic Darwinian theory. Find a way to fit
>that in with modern human life in a compelling manner and you will be able
>to claim your PhD.
?? Did you have an unfortunate experience in grad school or
something, Carey?
>>> And another for your merely exaggerated claim that they are con-
>>> sequences of good health.
>>
>>Both brains and bodies do not develop well without good nutrition
>>and health.
>
>Lack of citation noted.
This is Usenet, not grad school. Grow up.
And _I_ notice that _you_ have never provided a citation for any of
_your_ claims, either.
Hypocrite.
>Yes, I acknowledged that, but it's only true in the
>extremes.
Citation? Thought not.
>Many people with crappy nutrition and crappy health are
>considered beautiful.
Citation? Thought not.
Anyway, that only works when they're teenagers, and can look healthy
without _being_ healthy.
>>And, through natural selection, we have inbred into our-
>>selves a natural attraction to traits that are correlated with health.
>>(That is, people died off if they *did not* develop an attraction to
>>others who were healthy and survived well.)
>
>Enough of the basic Darwinism, okay?
You don't understand how evolution works. That's obvious.
>>So we can now sense when another person is not healthy, and we,
>>by our own inbred definitions, consider that person not good
>>looking, or dumb-looking.
>
>Fine, sick people aren't attractive. I agree. But we aren't talking about
>sick people.
We are talking about unfit people, people who are poor reproductive
gambles, _for_whatever_reason_. You don't seem to comprehend that
beauty standards have _also_ evolved in response to selection
pressure: we find intelligent people beautiful because they have
rewarded those who found them beautiful with reproductive success.
>>> At the risk of belaboring the obvious....
>>>
>>> Open any history book and take a look at the beautiful women
>>> of 200 years ago. They are fat by today's standards
>>
>>The definition of "fat" has been corrupted by the fashion world ...
>>which favors anorexia in women ... possibly due to gay fashion
>>designers wanting women to look more like men.
>
>So what? It's still true, isn't it?
No, it most certainly is not. Do you, like, have a _citation_ for
your claim...?
The fact is, what is current in artisitic circles is not the same as a
cultural standard. Not then, and not now. Back then, one great
artist who happened to prefer his women Rubenesque could change
artistic standards, just as now the women and gay men who rule the
fashion industry can shift the look to boyish figures -- if not stick
figures. But 90% of men still prefer the voluptuous curves of
lingerie models to the bony, anorexic look of fashion magazines and
runway mannequins. Just as 90% of men in previous centuries liked
small waists enough to support a corset fashion.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"David Fabian" <david.m...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Translation: Carey believes she should always defer to what
>>the (so-called) authorities say, and disregard any wisdom
>>drawn from her own personal experiences ... for it may be
>>tainted with her own personal *biases* (which were formed
>>from yet other worthless personal experiences of hers).
>
>No, Carey believes that assertions of scientific fact require supporting
>evidence.
But oddly, never provides any for her _own_ assertions...
>>> Find a way to fit that in with modern human life in a compelling
>>> manner and you will be able to claim your PhD.
>>
>>You apparently disagree with Darwin ...
>
>Quite the contrary.
Then you just don't understand him.
>>> >Both brains and bodies do not develop well without good
>>> >nutrition and health.
>>>
>>> Lack of citation noted.
>>
>>Do you really need one?
>
>Assuming you don't mean outright illness or malnutrition, then yes, I'm
>extremely skeptical that normal variations in nutrition and health make a
>measurable difference in appearance or intelligence.
With intelligence it's more a question of genetics, but general
health, especially chronic parasite infestations, definitely affects
appearance.
>>> Many people with crappy nutrition and crappy health are
>>> considered beautiful. Many more people with excellent
>>> nutrition and health are considered ugly. Go figure.
>>
>>There are often exceptions to generalities.
>
>But without empirical evidence, we don't know what is generality and what is
>exception, do we?
You clearly don't know even _with_ empirical evidence....
>>> >The definition of "fat" has been corrupted by the fashion world ...
>>> >which favors anorexia in women ... possibly due to gay fashion
>>> >designers wanting women to look more like men.
>>>
>>> So what? It's still true, isn't it?
>>
>>Only to the few people (mostly women) brainwashed by the fashion
>>industry ... certainly not to me.
>
>Oh, c'mon. I certainly agree that the fashion industry has twisted notions
>of what the female form should look like, but you're kidding yourself if you
>think most men would prefer the standards of beauty of the Victorian era.
>Go ahead, tell me how many men would choose this
>http://www.women.tas.gov.au/awake/fickle.html#wax
You have simply cherry-picked some extreme examples from a particular
school of art (I notice the site is grinding some kind of
fat-is-a-feminist-issue axe). Where is your citation showing that
those paintings represent the standard of beauty, rather than what a
few artists found it expedient to paint?
I'm waiting....
The males of the time probably would _not_ have preferred the women
depicted over the modern man's ideal. The best research indicates
that men in virtually all cultures prefer women with slender body
proportions and other physical characteristics that are more typical
of pubescent girls than adult women.
In any case, a major reason art from those times tended to depict
heavier women is that they are _much_ easier to draw accurately and
convincingly than slim ones: you don't have to get the underlying
anatomy right.
>over this
>http://wickedweasel.com/oz/galleries/main/index.html
Come off it. Modern photography, lighting, make-up, etc. makes those
women more attractive than paintings just because the painted women
are unavoidably blotchy, lumpy, etc. while the photographed ones have
flawless complexions, smooth curves, etc.
OTOH, I have seen old "French postcard"-type photos of women who were
fat by the standards of modern fashion magazines, but looked quite
fine to me. Marilyn Monroe, one of the great beauties and sex
symbols, was fat by the standards of modern fashion magazines. So?
Fashion magazines do not sell to heterosexual men.
>And make sure you read the text of the ad from the 1800s on the first URL
>while you're deciding.
The text is ludicrous. But then, most ad copy back then was.
-- Roy L
David Fabian
> So when you make an assertion of scientific fact and someone asks
> you for a citation, they're not asking for authorities. They're asking
> for empirical evidence published in a peer reviewed journal.
Oh, okay. So why do you trust only published peer-reviewed journals,
and discard anything someone tells you they have experienced, ob-
served, or surmised? I have 50 years of experience you could benefit
from; but instead, you choose to discard it all, simply because none
of it is published ... You must have driven your parents and teachers
crazy.
> >"[...] people throughout the world are attracted to healthy people,
> >regardless of weight. And the biggest indicator of health is one's
> >waistline. Men are most attracted to women whose waist-to-hip
> >ration is 0.7; while women are most attracted to men whose
> >waist-to-chest ratio is 0.9."
>
> A mathematical statement of the obvious.
Good. So you (finally) agree that good looks and health are highly
correlated.
> (And I'll ignore the fact that you haven't cited the source of these
> numbers either.)
(Then why did you say that?) I know you want sources, so here are
a few:
http://evolution.massey.ac.nz/assign2/NM/selectio.htm
http://www.nel.edu/23_s4/NEL231002R08_Singh.htm (an abstract)
http://www.archaeoworld.com/journals/humanNature/articleDetail.cfm?articleNumber=76
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2294/n3-4_v39/21227871/print.jhtml
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~bioanth/Acrobatfiles/preferred%20waist.pdf
David Fabian
> [...] But 90% of men still prefer the voluptuous curves of
> lingerie models
You will have to trust us on this one Carey. How many men
do you think would choose this
http://wickedweasel.com/oz/galleries/main/index.html over this
http://timwellman.com/bettie/bettie-strip1.html ?
Carey Gregory
>Well, you'd be wrong, as always:
>
>http://panicdisorder.about.com/library/weekly/aa980211.htm
>
>"For some people, the problem with consuming sugar is that it can
>cause an initial increase of insulin (resulting in a lift in mood, the
>"sugar high") followed by a rapid decrease a short while later. The
>rapid decrease in insulin results in the production of excess
>adrenalin and cortisol, two body chemicals that can cause anxiety."
Sorry, but that doesn't make sugar psychoactive. Sugar is *not*
psychoactive. Perhaps you don't understand what the term means?
>Why should I reinvent the wheel just to satisfy a Usenet moron?
Are you capable of debating a subject without the crutch of ad hominem?
>>Right. I guess that explains why the people who study these things don't
>>know the answer.
>
>They know very well. It's just you who refuses to know.
No, the causes of obesity are not fully understood, and the skyrocketing
rates of obesity are definitely not. If you believe I'm wrong ("as
always"), then feel free to point me to enlightenment.
>>>Almost all diabetics are also overweight, and obesity is the #1 risk
>>>factor for diabetes.
>>
>>You have no idea what you're talking about.
>
><yawn>
>
>http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/ccdpc-cpcmc/diabetes-diabete/english/risk/
Yawn, indeed. Perhaps you should learn more about diabetes before you yawn
so much. Yes, obesity is a risk factor for type-2, but you're ignoring the
entire type-1 population. You declared that "almost all" diabetics are
overweight. That statement is not true, nor is your statement that obesity
is the #1 risk factor for diabetes. Doing google searches on subjects you
don't really understand can be misleading, you know.
Julianne
The entire population of type I diabetics comprises only 5 -10 percent of
all diabetics. It is thought to be an auto-immune disease that trashes the
pancreas. Most are diagnosed before they are adults and thus, it was
formerly called juvenile diabetes.
j
>
Carey Gregory
>Oh, okay. So why do you trust only published peer-reviewed journals,
>and discard anything someone tells you they have experienced, ob-
>served, or surmised?
Because when statements of scientific fact are made, the only way to know if
they're true is to demand evidence. Published, peer-reviewed research has
proven to be the only reliable source of truth while personal experience has
proven notoriously unreliable. Hang out in the sci.* groups for a while and
you'll get used to being asked for citations. It cuts through the bullshit
in a hurry.
>I have 50 years of experience you could benefit
>from; but instead, you choose to discard it all, simply because none
>of it is published ... You must have driven your parents and teachers
>crazy.
You have a whopping 3 years on me, David. I doubt if I drove my parents and
teachers any crazier than you did. And I didn't discard what you said. I
simply demanded evidence to support it.
>Good. So you (finally) agree that good looks and health are highly
>correlated.
I agree that sickness/malnutrition are highly correlated with bad
appearance. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that health and
*intelligence* correlate strongly, as you stated.
>> (And I'll ignore the fact that you haven't cited the source of these
>> numbers either.)
>
>(Then why did you say that?) I know you want sources, so here are
>a few:
>http://evolution.massey.ac.nz/assign2/NM/selectio.htm
>http://www.nel.edu/23_s4/NEL231002R08_Singh.htm (an abstract)
>http://www.archaeoworld.com/journals/humanNature/articleDetail.cfm?articleNumber=76
>http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2294/n3-4_v39/21227871/print.jhtml
>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~bioanth/Acrobatfiles/preferred%20waist.pdf
>
All well and good.... Basic Darwinism applied to human behavior, an endeavor
almost impossible to study empirically and rife with theoretical
speculation. Most of the basic tenets no doubt hold some truth, but the
problem is that modern society renders most Darwinian selection mechanisms
null and void. Extrapolating forces that applied to ancient hunter-gatherer
societies to London, Paris, and New York in 2003 is doomed to small snippets
of truth, at best.
Carey Gregory
>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:23:15 GMT, Carey Gregory
><tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>No, Carey believes that assertions of scientific fact require supporting
>>evidence.
>
>But oddly, never provides any for her _own_ assertions...
Her?
Amusing assumption, and not surprising considering the source.
>>>You apparently disagree with Darwin ...
>>
>>Quite the contrary.
>
>Then you just don't understand him.
Feel free to explain what I don't understand, professor.
>With intelligence it's more a question of genetics, but general
>health, especially chronic parasite infestations, definitely affects
>appearance.
Chronic parasite infections?! Gee, no kidding? Did you read that on a web
site?
I've already stated the obvious -- illness and chronic malnutrition
definitely make for poor appearance. Move on please.
>>But without empirical evidence, we don't know what is generality and what is
>>exception, do we?
>
>You clearly don't know even _with_ empirical evidence....
Offer some and we'll find out.
>You have simply cherry-picked some extreme examples from a particular
>school of art (I notice the site is grinding some kind of
>fat-is-a-feminist-issue axe). Where is your citation showing that
>those paintings represent the standard of beauty, rather than what a
>few artists found it expedient to paint?
Do your own homework. If you don't know that painting was a representative
example of Victorian female beauty, then you need to bow out of this
discussion.
>The males of the time probably would _not_ have preferred the women
>depicted over the modern man's ideal.
See above. You're making a fool of yourself now.
>The best research indicates
>that men in virtually all cultures prefer women with slender body
>proportions and other physical characteristics that are more typical
>of pubescent girls than adult women.
What "best research" would that be?
>In any case, a major reason art from those times tended to depict
>heavier women is that they are _much_ easier to draw accurately and
>convincingly than slim ones: you don't have to get the underlying
>anatomy right.
Ah, you've become an art history professor. Congratulations.
>Come off it. Modern photography, lighting, make-up, etc. makes those
>women more attractive than paintings just because the painted women
>are unavoidably blotchy, lumpy, etc. while the photographed ones have
>flawless complexions, smooth curves, etc.
Photography can eliminate blotches and lumps that artists just can't stop
themselves from adding? Hmmm... now there's an interesting theory....
"Someone stop me before I paint another fat, blotchy woman!"
Carey Gregory
>ROTFL!! The explosive increase in human brain size over the last few
>million years is not only evidence but virtually empirical _proof_
>that good looks and intelligence are highly correlated. It's not
>enough to be smart. You also have to get laid. And that paper is
>_packed_ with citations. You know: those things your brain is
>apparently unable to function without.
Read the article again, for comprehension this time.
Carey Gregory
>You will have to trust us on this one Carey. How many men
>do you think would choose this
>http://wickedweasel.com/oz/galleries/main/index.html over this
>http://timwellman.com/bettie/bettie-strip1.html ?
Off the top of my head, I would predict about 75-80%.
But thanks for the cool URL. I hadn't encountered Bettie before and spent a
good long while browsing around the various sites.
Carey Gregory
Carey Gregory
>The entire population of type I diabetics comprises only 5 -10 percent of
>all diabetics. It is thought to be an auto-immune disease that trashes the
>pancreas. Most are diagnosed before they are adults and thus, it was
>formerly called juvenile diabetes.
Very good. With a little more factual material we might get somewhere in
this thread.
My simple point: Check the numbers for type-2, add them to type-1, and
we're far short of "almost all" diabetics being obese.
David Fabian
> "David Fabian" <david.m...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >Oh, okay. So why do you trust only published peer-reviewed journals,
> >and discard anything someone tells you they have experienced, ob-
> >served, or surmised?
>
> Because when statements of scientific fact are made, the only way to
> know if they're true is to demand evidence.
You are being too demanding, young lady ... expecting us to not open
our mouths unless we can cite a formal research paper to support any-
thing we say.
> Published, peer-reviewed research has proven to be the only reliable
> source of truth while personal experience has proven notoriously
> unreliable. Hang out in the sci.* groups for a while and you'll get
> used to being asked for citations. It cuts through the bullshit in a
> hurry.
Well, sorry, but I am a programmer, and am used to:
(A) Informal Chatting (as we are doing), in which case I am not
so demanding, and
(B) Software Development, in which case I do not rely upon
*anyone's* citations. I believe a program works only after I have:
(1) reviewed its source code (and cleaned it up, as needed),
(2) alpha tested it myself, and
(3) beta tested it in the real world.
> >I have 50 years of experience you could benefit
> >from; but instead, you choose to discard it all, simply because none
> >of it is published ... You must have driven your parents and teachers
> >crazy.
>
> You have a whopping 3 years on me, David. I doubt if I drove my
> parents and teachers any crazier than you did.
I have only been kicked out of one class in my entire life (religion).
How many have *you* been kicked out of?
> And I didn't discard what you said.
Thank you.
> I simply demanded evidence to support it.
But you demand evidence for *everything* anyone says, regardless
of how obvious or logical it is.
> >Good. So you (finally) agree that good looks and health are
> >highly correlated.
>
> I agree that sickness/malnutrition are highly correlated with bad
> appearance. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that health and
> *intelligence* correlate strongly, as you stated.
There are many truths in life that you may discover by simply using
you own powers of observation and logic. My statement was based
on my own powers, which have proven to be very reliable.
Btw, I stated that all three of these were correlated: health, good
looks, and intelligence.
It would be fun to do a formal study on the subject, but it would be
difficult to find funding for something so politically incorrect ...
especially when academia, government, and Corporate America do
not recognize intelligence. It is fine that they promote scholars and
good-looking women, but it is criminal and self-destructive to pre-
fer cronies, phonies, vampires, and butt-kissers, over intelligent
people.
> Extrapolating forces that applied to ancient hunter-gatherer
> societies to London, Paris, and New York in 2003 is doomed
> to small snippets of truth, at best.
I disagree. Modern societies appear to be quite different, but
people still choose their mates based on their instincts, which
were developed during the hunter-gatherer days.
David Fabian
>
> ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
> >Go to your local supermarket and look in the baskets of the fat
> >people and the thin people.
>
> Do your study and publish it in a peer reviewed journal and then -
> maybe - you'll begin to have some credibility.
Carey, I have done the supermarket survey many times, and have
concluded that nearly ALL fat people are sugar addicts. I have also
experimented on myself: When I eat too much sugar and do not
exercise, I gain fat; when I do the opposite, I lose fat.
> >>Better yet, if you know what causes obesity in "almost all" cases,
> >>then you should publish immediately and claim your Nobel prize.
> >
> >?? It's too obvious.
Yes. It is at least obvious enough that no one would publish it:
CaloriesConsumed - CaloriesBurned = FatGained
(Just do not burn calories too fast, or you will burn muscle tissue,
instead of just sugar, carbs, and fat.)
> Right. I guess that explains why the people who study these
> things don't know the answer.
Who is still studying obesity? And whose tax dollars are they
wasting?! ... unless you are talking about *why* people over
eat: Sexual frustration.
> >Almost all diabetics are also overweight, and obesity is the #1
> >risk factor for diabetes.
>
> You have no idea what you're talking about.
Do you suppose a doctor of internal medicine might know what he
is talking about? He explained to me that your pancreas produces
insulin to counter sugar overload, and once your pancreas is worn
out and can no longer produce enough insulin, you become a dia-
betic.
So just put 2 plus 2 together: obesity leads to diabetes.
Carey Gregory
>Carey, I have done the supermarket survey many times, and have
>concluded that nearly ALL fat people are sugar addicts.
You're welcome to draw any conclusions you like, but surely you'll admit
that one person's anecdotal experience can often be wrong - and often *is*
wrong. History is littered with hundreds and hundreds of examples.
>I have also
>experimented on myself: When I eat too much sugar and do not
>exercise, I gain fat; when I do the opposite, I lose fat.
Of course you gain weight if you eat more calories and exercise less. Same
thing would happen if you ate enough of *anything* to match the calories.
>> >>Better yet, if you know what causes obesity in "almost all" cases,
>> >>then you should publish immediately and claim your Nobel prize.
>> >
>> >?? It's too obvious.
>
>Yes. It is at least obvious enough that no one would publish it:
Hmmm.... A Medline search on the word "obesity" produced 68,000 articles,
6000 of which were published in the last 12 months.
>CaloriesConsumed - CaloriesBurned = FatGained
Yes, it's obvious that CC - CB = FG, but if you think it's obvious why, for
example, some people become obese eating fewer calories and exercising as
much as non-obese people, then you should peruse Medline a little. I happen
to be one of those lucky people who can eat damn near as much as I want and
never gain weight regardless of my exercise level. Most people can't do
that. Why? I also have extremely low cholesterol levels yet I eat meat,
eggs, and dairy products daily. A friend of mine has high cholesterol
levels and he's a strict vegetarian. Is this really all so obvious?
>Who is still studying obesity? And whose tax dollars are they
>wasting?! ... unless you are talking about *why* people over
>eat: Sexual frustration.
They're still studying many things you might think are obvious, David, and
quite often they discover non-obvious answers. Can you explain why there
was a distinct, sharp rise in childhood obesity rates beginning around 1980?
What was so special about 1980? And why has the rate continued to climb for
over 20 years now?
>Do you suppose a doctor of internal medicine might know what he
>is talking about? He explained to me that your pancreas produces
>insulin to counter sugar overload, and once your pancreas is worn
>out and can no longer produce enough insulin, you become a dia-
>betic.
Hopefully that was a simplistic explanation for a layman, because as stated
it is incorrect. The pancreas doesn't "wear out" and it's not accurate to
say that insulin is produced to counter sugar overload. I'm not going to
try and write a primer on insulin and sugar metabolism. Just suffice it to
say that many type-2 diabetics produce as much insulin as a normal person,
but they are diabetic nonetheless.
>So just put 2 plus 2 together: obesity leads to diabetes.
Yep, obesity is a major factor in type-2 diabetes. I never said it wasn't.
Carey Gregory
>You are being too demanding, young lady ...
Since I've already stated my age and my gender in this thread, is it safe to
assume that's a little tweak? Or is it another example of your power of
observation and logic?
>expecting us to not open
>our mouths unless we can cite a formal research paper to support any-
>thing we say.
I see you're having a little trouble with accuracy and gross exaggeration
this morning.
>Well, sorry, but I am a programmer, and am used to:
>
>(A) Informal Chatting (as we are doing), in which case I am not
> so demanding, and
>(B) Software Development, in which case I do not rely upon
> *anyone's* citations. I believe a program works only after I have:
> (1) reviewed its source code (and cleaned it up, as needed),
> (2) alpha tested it myself, and
> (3) beta tested it in the real world.
Then go back to programming and quit making assertions of scientific fact
until you're prepared to support your assertions.
>I have only been kicked out of one class in my entire life (religion).
>How many have *you* been kicked out of?
Zero.
>But you demand evidence for *everything* anyone says, regardless
>of how obvious or logical it is.
Obviously false. I've only asked for evidence to support assertions of
scientific fact. If that bothers you, then you really need to stay away
from science.
>There are many truths in life that you may discover by simply using
>you own powers of observation and logic. My statement was based
>on my own powers, which have proven to be very reliable.
You're not magical, David. We all do that. The difference is that some of
us accept the reality that our personal observations don't constitute
scientific fact and try to refrain from stating them as such. All it takes
is adding a few words like "it seems to me" or "in my opinion."
>Btw, I stated that all three of these were correlated: health, good
>looks, and intelligence.
And you still haven't established any of these correlations beyond the
simplistic case of sick and malnourished people not looking so great.
>It would be fun to do a formal study on the subject, but it would be
>difficult to find funding for something so politically incorrect ...
>especially when academia, government, and Corporate America do
>not recognize intelligence. It is fine that they promote scholars and
>good-looking women, but it is criminal and self-destructive to pre-
>fer cronies, phonies, vampires, and butt-kissers, over intelligent
>people.
If you would bother doing a little homework, you'd find that the genetic
basis of intelligence and appearance has already been studied thoroughly.
>I disagree. Modern societies appear to be quite different, but
>people still choose their mates based on their instincts, which
>were developed during the hunter-gatherer days.
You have an amazing ability to speak for all of mankind. People choose
mates based on *many* things, many of which have absolutely nothing to do
with instincts and genetics. How many examples would you like?
ro...@telus.net
<tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>>Well, you'd be wrong, as always:
>>
>>http://panicdisorder.about.com/library/weekly/aa980211.htm
>>
>>"For some people, the problem with consuming sugar is that it can
>>cause an initial increase of insulin (resulting in a lift in mood, the
>>"sugar high") followed by a rapid decrease a short while later. The
>>rapid decrease in insulin results in the production of excess
>>adrenalin and cortisol, two body chemicals that can cause anxiety."
>
>Sorry, but that doesn't make sugar psychoactive.
Yes, actually, it does, as Hyperdictionary will inform you:
"psychoactive [adj] affecting the mind or mood or other mental
processes"
>Sugar is *not*
>psychoactive.
Yes, it is, as proved above.
>Perhaps you don't understand what the term means?
I do. You don't.
>>Why should I reinvent the wheel just to satisfy a Usenet moron?
>
>Are you capable of debating a subject without the crutch of ad hominem?
Are you capable of debating a subject without the crutch of incessant
and idiotic demands for citations, peer review, and PhDs (none of
which you supply in support of your own claims)?
>>>Right. I guess that explains why the people who study these things don't
>>>know the answer.
>>
>>They know very well. It's just you who refuses to know.
>
>No, the causes of obesity are not fully understood, and the skyrocketing
>rates of obesity are definitely not.
Not by _you_, perhaps....
>If you believe I'm wrong ("as
>always"), then feel free to point me to enlightenment.
I've already tried to enlighten you. You declined to be enlightened.
>>>>Almost all diabetics are also overweight, and obesity is the #1 risk
>>>>factor for diabetes.
>>>
>>>You have no idea what you're talking about.
>>
>><yawn>
>>
>>http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/ccdpc-cpcmc/diabetes-diabete/english/risk/
>
>Yawn, indeed. Perhaps you should learn more about diabetes before you yawn
>so much. Yes, obesity is a risk factor for type-2, but you're ignoring the
>entire type-1 population.
Which accounts for about 5% of the total diabetic population....
>You declared that "almost all" diabetics are
>overweight. That statement is not true,
Would you prefer, "the great majority"?
>nor is your statement that obesity
>is the #1 risk factor for diabetes.
Yes, it is.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
I understood it the first time. You didn't. Simple.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"David Fabian" <david.m...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>You will have to trust us on this one Carey. How many men
>>do you think would choose this
>>http://wickedweasel.com/oz/galleries/main/index.html over this
>>http://timwellman.com/bettie/bettie-strip1.html ?
>
>Off the top of my head, I would predict about 75-80%.
>
>But thanks for the cool URL. I hadn't encountered Bettie before
What a sheltered life you must have led....
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
Nope. Type 1 are so few, and obesity prevalent enough among them,
that my statement holds quite nicely, thank you very much.
-- Roy L
Banty
That isn't obvious. But to me that's not the main point.
I need to eat less than you to maintain my weight, let's say, even with the same
activity expenditure.
OK given that - what REALLY is the problem??
Needing to eat less, if you look at it unemotionally, is a GOOD thing. Less
money layout, less work in meal preparation, less disruption of non-eating
activities. Better survival in lean times should they ever come.
The problem is eating being viewed as pleasure, reward, and recreation. OK -
our bodies are built to view eating as pleasurable - survival activities tend to
be that way for obvious reasons. It still doesn't mean that this pleasure has
to be maximized, or even that one is entitled to a certain amount of it. There
are other pleasures.
The complaint from the fat is often how 'unfair' it is that they can't eat as
much as that skinny guy over there. Why can't they eat '3 square meals like
everybody else'? Well, that's the wrong way to look at it. It's like someone
making $30,000 a year saying "why can't I have two cars and a $300,000 house
like a lot of people I know".
Someone, like myself for instance, who needs less caloric intake, has to, if not
instinctually - intellectually - learn to eat according to needs. Work within
the caloric budget. Grousing about what the next lady can eat and be rail-thin,
or complaining about how 'all I eat is.. 3 square meals, dessert, and snacks',
and it's unfair that that makes me fat, is folly.
It's an attitude of entitlement to consumption, plus over-availability that's
the problem.
If one needs less, one should eat less. Period. And that may be less than the
next guy. So what.
THe essential issue isn't variation in base metabolism.
Banty
ro...@telus.net
<tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"David Fabian" <david.m...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Oh, okay. So why do you trust only published peer-reviewed journals,
>>and discard anything someone tells you they have experienced, ob-
>>served, or surmised?
>
>Because when statements of scientific fact are made, the only way to know if
>they're true is to demand evidence.
No. You can also verify them for yourself.
>Published, peer-reviewed research has
>proven to be the only reliable source of truth
Garbage. In the social sciences at least, a great deal of the
published, peer-reviewed research flatly contradicts other published,
peer-reviewed research.
>while personal experience has
>proven notoriously unreliable.
OTC, personal experience is ultimately all we have to go on.
>Hang out in the sci.* groups for a while and
>you'll get used to being asked for citations.
The only sci group this thread propagates to is sci.econ, where I have
been hanging out for quite a while, and you haven't. Most of the
regulars here are quite capable of discussing issues intelligently
without constantly demanding citations.
>It cuts through the bullshit
>in a hurry.
ROTFL!! Incessant and inappropriate demands for citations are just
another form of bullshit.
>>Good. So you (finally) agree that good looks and health are highly
>>correlated.
>
>I agree that sickness/malnutrition are highly correlated with bad
>appearance. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that health and
>*intelligence* correlate strongly, as you stated.
You have not seen it because you refuse to look at it. Terman's
gifted group was above average in health, and intelligence is known to
correlate with longevity independently of socioeconomic status.
>Most of the basic tenets no doubt hold some truth, but the
>problem is that modern society renders most Darwinian selection mechanisms
>null and void.
An outrageous falsehood.
Do you know what the Darwin Awards are?
>Extrapolating forces that applied to ancient hunter-gatherer
>societies to London, Paris, and New York in 2003 is doomed to small snippets
>of truth, at best.
Garbage. The major difference today is that people can choose not to
have kids when they have sex, instead of waiting until after they're
born.
-- Roy L
Carey Gregory
>You are being too demanding, young lady ...
Since I've already stated my age and my gender in this thread, is it safe to
assume that's a little tweak? Or is it another example of your power of
observation and logic?
>expecting us to not open
>our mouths unless we can cite a formal research paper to support any-
>thing we say.
I see you're having a little trouble with accuracy and gross exaggeration
this morning.
>Well, sorry, but I am a programmer, and am used to:
>
>(A) Informal Chatting (as we are doing), in which case I am not
> so demanding, and
>(B) Software Development, in which case I do not rely upon
> *anyone's* citations. I believe a program works only after I have:
> (1) reviewed its source code (and cleaned it up, as needed),
> (2) alpha tested it myself, and
> (3) beta tested it in the real world.
Then go back to programming and quit making assertions of scientific fact
until you're prepared to support your assertions.
>I have only been kicked out of one class in my entire life (religion).
>How many have *you* been kicked out of?
Zero.
>But you demand evidence for *everything* anyone says, regardless
>of how obvious or logical it is.
Obviously false. I've only asked for evidence to support assertions of
scientific fact. If that bothers you, then you really need to stay away
from science.
>There are many truths in life that you may discover by simply using
>you own powers of observation and logic. My statement was based
>on my own powers, which have proven to be very reliable.
You're not magical, David. We all do that. The difference is that some of
us accept the reality that our personal observations don't constitute
scientific fact and try to refrain from stating them as such. All it takes
is adding a few words like "it seems to me" or "in my opinion."
>Btw, I stated that all three of these were correlated: health, good
>looks, and intelligence.
And you still haven't established any of these correlations beyond the
simplistic case of sick and malnourished people not looking so great.
>It would be fun to do a formal study on the subject, but it would be
>difficult to find funding for something so politically incorrect ...
>especially when academia, government, and Corporate America do
>not recognize intelligence. It is fine that they promote scholars and
>good-looking women, but it is criminal and self-destructive to pre-
>fer cronies, phonies, vampires, and butt-kissers, over intelligent
>people.
If you would bother doing a little homework, you'd find that the genetic
basis of intelligence and appearance has already been studied thoroughly.
>I disagree. Modern societies appear to be quite different, but
>people still choose their mates based on their instincts, which
>were developed during the hunter-gatherer days.
You have an amazing ability to speak for all of mankind. People choose
ro...@telus.net
<tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"David Fabian" <david.m...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>You are being too demanding, young lady ...
>
>Since I've already stated my age and my gender in this thread,
I missed that. I had assumed that no man could be as ignorant of male
sexual preferences as you so obviously are.
>quit making assertions of scientific fact
>until you're prepared to support your assertions.
Back atcha, hypocrite.
>>But you demand evidence for *everything* anyone says, regardless
>>of how obvious or logical it is.
>
>Obviously false. I've only asked for evidence to support assertions of
>scientific fact.
But have yet to offer any for your own assertions of scientific
fact...
>>Btw, I stated that all three of these were correlated: health, good
>>looks, and intelligence.
>
>And you still haven't established any of these correlations beyond the
>simplistic case of sick and malnourished people not looking so great.
The correlations are well known, not particularly controversial, and
have even been reported in popular treatments of the subject like The
Bell Curve.
>If you would bother doing a little homework, you'd find that the genetic
>basis of intelligence and appearance has already been studied thoroughly.
Citations?
Thought not.
>>I disagree. Modern societies appear to be quite different, but
>>people still choose their mates based on their instincts, which
>>were developed during the hunter-gatherer days.
>
>You have an amazing ability to speak for all of mankind. People choose
>mates based on *many* things, many of which have absolutely nothing to do
>with instincts and genetics. How many examples would you like?
How about a citation, for once?
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:23:15 GMT, Carey Gregory
>><tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>No, Carey believes that assertions of scientific fact require supporting
>>>evidence.
>>
>>But oddly, never provides any for her _own_ assertions...
>
>Her?
>
>Amusing assumption, and not surprising considering the source.
It's not surpising considering how ignorant you are of male sexual
preferences.
>>>>You apparently disagree with Darwin ...
>>>
>>>Quite the contrary.
>>
>>Then you just don't understand him.
>
>Feel free to explain what I don't understand, professor.
You don't understand evolutionary mechanisms more subtle than
first-order selection pressure. The rapid increase in human brain
size over the last few million years shows that intelligence was being
intensively selected -- more intensively than is reasonably explained
by first-order survival-of-the-fittest mechanisms. IOW, intelligent
people are not just better survivors. They are also more attractive
to the opposite sex, i.e., better-looking. And this only makes sense,
because being attracted to intelligent people is almost as good a
reproductive strategy as actually _being_ intelligent.
>>>But without empirical evidence, we don't know what is generality and what is
>>>exception, do we?
>>
>>You clearly don't know even _with_ empirical evidence....
>
>Offer some and we'll find out.
I have. You ignored it.
>>You have simply cherry-picked some extreme examples from a particular
>>school of art (I notice the site is grinding some kind of
>>fat-is-a-feminist-issue axe). Where is your citation showing that
>>those paintings represent the standard of beauty, rather than what a
>>few artists found it expedient to paint?
>
>Do your own homework.
ROTFL!!!!!!! Is that your "citation"? I thought as much.
Is your face getting red, Carey? It should be, right about now.
>If you don't know that painting was a representative
>example of Victorian female beauty, then you need to bow out of this
>discussion.
Oh, no I don't. I'm not letting you off the hook that easy. OTC,
_you_ need to present a citation that it was.
I'm waiting.
>>The males of the time probably would _not_ have preferred the women
>>depicted over the modern man's ideal.
>
>See above. You're making a fool of yourself now.
Oh, no I ain't, fool. Unlike you, I happen actually to know something
about the subject.
>>The best research indicates
>>that men in virtually all cultures prefer women with slender body
>>proportions and other physical characteristics that are more typical
>>of pubescent girls than adult women.
>
>What "best research" would that be?
"Do your own homework."
>>In any case, a major reason art from those times tended to depict
>>heavier women is that they are _much_ easier to draw accurately and
>>convincingly than slim ones: you don't have to get the underlying
>>anatomy right.
>
>Ah, you've become an art history professor. Congratulations.
At least I know something about the subject. Unlike you.
>>Come off it. Modern photography, lighting, make-up, etc. makes those
>>women more attractive than paintings just because the painted women
>>are unavoidably blotchy, lumpy, etc. while the photographed ones have
>>flawless complexions, smooth curves, etc.
>
>Photography can eliminate blotches and lumps that artists just can't stop
>themselves from adding?
That's right. Sit yourself down and draw the most beautiful nude
woman you can. See if you can make her more attractive than the ones
in the photos. Bet you can't. In fact, very, very few artists can.
>"Someone stop me before I paint another fat, blotchy woman!"
Try to do better than the photos, fool, and learn something.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"David Fabian" <david.m...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>I have also
>>experimented on myself: When I eat too much sugar and do not
>>exercise, I gain fat; when I do the opposite, I lose fat.
>
>Of course you gain weight if you eat more calories and exercise less. Same
>thing would happen if you ate enough of *anything* to match the calories.
Nope. As the recent research on the Atkins diet shows.
>>> >>Better yet, if you know what causes obesity in "almost all" cases,
>>> >>then you should publish immediately and claim your Nobel prize.
>>> >
>>> >?? It's too obvious.
>>
>>Yes. It is at least obvious enough that no one would publish it:
>
>Hmmm.... A Medline search on the word "obesity" produced 68,000 articles,
>6000 of which were published in the last 12 months.
Almost all of which were about conditions related to obesity (like
_diabetes_), not the causes of obesity.
>>CaloriesConsumed - CaloriesBurned = FatGained
>
>Yes, it's obvious that CC - CB = FG,
Obvious, but false. You both forgot calories excreted.
>I also have extremely low cholesterol levels yet I eat meat,
>eggs, and dairy products daily. A friend of mine has high cholesterol
>levels and he's a strict vegetarian.
Does he eat a lot of sugar and/or hydrogenated or saturated fats?
>Can you explain why there
>was a distinct, sharp rise in childhood obesity rates beginning around 1980?
A number of factors were involved, mainly associated with more new
mothers working outside the home: less breast feeding, more kids being
driven to school when mommy drove to work, more kids in sedentary
indoor daycare situations rather than playing actively in the back
yard, more sweets and sugary sodas to atone for less of mommy's time,
etc.
>What was so special about 1980? And why has the rate continued to climb for
>over 20 years now?
See above. And add Nintendo, and kids being driven to and from school
for safety reasons.
>>Do you suppose a doctor of internal medicine might know what he
>>is talking about? He explained to me that your pancreas produces
>>insulin to counter sugar overload, and once your pancreas is worn
>>out and can no longer produce enough insulin, you become a dia-
>>betic.
>
>Hopefully that was a simplistic explanation for a layman, because as stated
>it is incorrect.
It's correct. That's strike one.
>The pancreas doesn't "wear out"
Yes, it does, in the sense that it loses its ability to respond
accurately to variations in blood sugar levels. Strike two.
>and it's not accurate to
>say that insulin is produced to counter sugar overload.
Yes, it is. That's three strikes, Carey. You're out.
>>So just put 2 plus 2 together: obesity leads to diabetes.
>
>Yep, obesity is a major factor in type-2 diabetes. I never said it wasn't.
You falsely claimed it was not the #1 factor.
-- Roy L
David Fabian
> "David Fabian" <david.m...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >There are many truths in life that you may discover by simply using
> >you own powers of observation and logic. My statement was based
> >on my own powers, which have proven to be very reliable.
>
> You're not magical, David.
Yes, I am magical.
> We all do that.
No, you all do *not* do that. When I say, "very reliable," I really
mean, "much more reliable than average." (However, I tend to be
somewhat modest.)
> The difference is that some of us accept the reality that our
> personal observations don't constitute scientific fact [...]
And you are right -- many of your observations are far from
scientific.
> >I disagree. Modern societies appear to be quite different, but
> >people still choose their mates based on their instincts, which
> >were developed during the hunter-gatherer days.
>
> You have an amazing ability to speak for all of mankind.
Thank you.
> People choose mates based on *many* things, many of which
> have absolutely nothing to do with instincts and genetics.
> How many examples would you like?
Do you think that citing exceptions to a rule really proves
anything?
David Fabian
>
> The complaint from the fat is often how 'unfair' it is that they can't
> eat as much as that skinny guy over there.
I have an obese female relative who complained that it was "not fair"
that it is "twice as hard for females to lose weight." I explained to her
that life was not fair, but she would have to deal with it. She seem-
ed to think of eating as a reward ... and continues to reward herself to
this day.
David Fabian
> "Julianne" <juli88...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >The entire population of type I diabetics comprises only 5 -10 percent of
> >all diabetics. It is thought to be an auto-immune disease that trashes the
> >pancreas. Most are diagnosed before they are adults and thus, it was
> >formerly called juvenile diabetes.
>
> Very good. With a little more factual material we might get somewhere in
> this thread.
Carey, you are being hypocritical again. You fuss over everyone
else not giving citations when presenting something as factual,
but here you call Julianne's statement, "factual".
David Fabian
>
> People choose mates based on *many* things, many of which
> have absolutely nothing to do with instincts and genetics.
What is it deep inside you that tells you not to mate with a dog?
It is a basic instinct we *all* have; therefore, our choice of mates
*always* has at least *something* to do with instincts ... but I
say our attractions have *everything* to do with instincts.
> How many examples would you like?
I am sure you can cite some mate selections that are surprising
(Christy Brinkley/Billy Joel); but you will be hard-pressed to
name an attractive feature that has no genetic advantage and is
not associated with a genetic advantage (for a hunter-gatherer).
Banty
says...
Also, she's in a position to give herself some of that male advantage - muscle
mass - by doing some lifting.
But, yes, you have my main point - it's this concept of entitlement to
food-satisfaction, disjointed from any concept of real caloric need, that's the
main underlying cause of obesity.
Banty
Carey Gregory
>Carey, you are being hypocritical again. You fuss over everyone
>else not giving citations when presenting something as factual,
>but here you call Julianne's statement, "factual".
It was well established information that I already knew. Demanding cites
for things I already know to be true really would be assinine.
Carey Gregory
>>Photography can eliminate blotches and lumps that artists just can't stop
>>themselves from adding?
>
>That's right. Sit yourself down and draw the most beautiful nude
>woman you can. See if you can make her more attractive than the ones
>in the photos. Bet you can't. In fact, very, very few artists can.
Of course I can't; I'm not a painter. The web is full of works by the
masters demonstrating the changing views of beauty over the ages. You know,
real artists who know how not to paint blotches? Feel free to go look at a
few.
Since you're incapable of rational debate without ad hominem, petty
argumentation, and nitpicking of every ridiculous point, find someone with
more patience than I have. It's become obvious that you just like to argue
and you've exceeded my tolerance for tedium and absurdity.
Carey Gregory
>What is it deep inside you that tells you not to mate with a dog?
>It is a basic instinct we *all* have; therefore, our choice of mates
>*always* has at least *something* to do with instincts ...
Agreed.
>but I
>say our attractions have *everything* to do with instincts.
It sounds like you're saying cultural upbringing and personal experience
play no role. If that's what you're saying, I disagree completely. If
that's not what you're saying, then I agree.
>> How many examples would you like?
>
>I am sure you can cite some mate selections that are surprising
How about mate selections based on money, family name, obsessions, misguided
attempts to reform the partner, addictions, personality disorders... the
list is endless.
>but you will be hard-pressed to
>name an attractive feature that has no genetic advantage and is
>not associated with a genetic advantage (for a hunter-gatherer).
No doubt true for the most part, but it leaves the obvious question of
features found attractive in one culture but not another. In any nature vs.
nurture debate, taking the view that a human behavioral characteristic is
purely one or the other is almost always wrong. Virtually all aspects of
human behavior, personality, intelligence, etc. are the product of both.
joebusiness
Revolution. Anyway I lost 100 pds without a diet. I just ate less. I'm using
atkins for the last 30 pds.
Now as for losing jobs over weight, in most white collar jobs, not a
problem. In blue-collar jobs it's a problem. Of course you could argue it's
a problem in any job. Poorer health equals more sick days equals lower
productivity. Then again, more money and time goes into health care
offsetting the lost productivity. Where am I going with this? I don't know
that my attention span can keep up as it has just run oout...
lata
joe quasar
David Fabian
> "David Fabian" <david.m...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >What is it deep inside you that tells you not to mate with a dog?
> >It is a basic instinct we *all* have; therefore, our choice of mates
> >*always* has at least *something* to do with instincts ...
>
> Agreed.
>
> >but I say our attractions have *everything* to do with instincts.
>
> It sounds like you're saying cultural upbringing and personal
> experience play no role. If that's what you're saying, I disagree
> completely. If that's not what you're saying, then I agree.
Yes, they do play a role in mate selection; but in the long run,
only attractive features count.
For example, women will never naturally develop a physical
attraction to men named, "Chin She Huang Di", regardless of
how many mothers tell their daughters he would be a good
catch. He may sire 100s of offspring, but in the long run,
through natural selection, his offspring will die off, if their
genes are not associated with attractive features. (Disclaimer:
This is only an example of a greedy man, which all cultures
have. This is not a racial slur against the Chinese. See
http://www.terracottawarriors.co.uk/).
> >I am sure you can cite some mate selections that are surprising
>
> How about mate selections based on money, family name,
> obsessions, misguided attempts to reform the partner, addictions,
> personality disorders... the list is endless.
(See above explanation for why some reasons, such as money
and family name, play no role in the long run.)
Many other reasons (such as the other ones you named) may be
due to attractive features (genetic advantages).
For example, a woman might be attracted to a man because he
appears to be a challenge to reform; but the man's attractive
feature is his independence, which would be a genetic advantage.
Another example: A man might be attracted to a woman with
anisometropic amblyopia (lazy eye), which might be a sym-
tom of a highly advanced right brain and great artistic ability.
> >but you will be hard-pressed to name an attractive feature that
> >has no genetic advantage and is not associated with a genetic
> >advantage (for a hunter-gatherer).
>
> No doubt true for the most part, but it leaves the obvious quest-
> ion of features found attractive in one culture but not another.
A specific feature's genetic advantage varies with culture. For
example, a little extra fat might be attractive to an Eskimo.
> In any nature vs. nurture debate, taking the view that a human
> behavioral characteristic is purely one or the other is almost
> always wrong. Virtually all aspects of human behavior, per-
> sonality, intelligence, etc. are the product of both.
Agreed.
ro...@telus.net
<tiredof...@comcast.net> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>>>Photography can eliminate blotches and lumps that artists just can't stop
>>>themselves from adding?
>>
>>That's right. Sit yourself down and draw the most beautiful nude
>>woman you can. See if you can make her more attractive than the ones
>>in the photos. Bet you can't. In fact, very, very few artists can.
>
>Of course I can't; I'm not a painter.
Very few of them can, either.
>The web is full of works by the
>masters demonstrating the changing views of beauty over the ages.
Very, _very_ few of them look better than an actual beautiful woman,
and very few that are intended to be realistic portray women
significantly fatter than a modern beautiful woman.
>You know,
>real artists who know how not to paint blotches? Feel free to go look at a
>few.
Feel free to post a URL of one that looks better than modern photos of
beautiful women. Just one.
Thought not. Really convincing paintings of unrealistically beautiful
women had to await the airbrush.
-- Roy L