What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How to Make Your PC as Fast as the Day You Bought It view!
howlifeworks.com - What's the fastest way to restore a computer to its original blazing glory
68 Comments
- JesseMaron, on 05/25/2009, -5/+61Ahh yes the genetics on how humans choose their mates.
Males : Hot or Not
Females: Does he make alot of money? - exterminator777, on 05/25/2009, -0/+13I believe in this opposites attract thing. That's why I'm looking for a supermodel who is searching for a really ugly guy.
- samk, on 05/25/2009, -0/+13Where's the MHC field on match.com?
- Rudegar, on 05/25/2009, -0/+10think most stay clear of very close relatives
- inactive, on 05/25/2009, -3/+13Speak for yourself....
- suinmind, on 05/25/2009, -1/+10You'd have to meet someone before you can choose.
Maybe spend less time on Digg(or science)? - ell0bo, on 05/25/2009, -1/+10i go with... is it willing to ***** me?
- suinmind, on 05/25/2009, -2/+11There is a big logical hole in their paper: they presumed that married couples "mate".
- Nickolassc, on 05/25/2009, -5/+1360 diggs and zero comments on the front page. Must be a slow day for digg. Also they may want to increase their sample size. Using 90 couples probably isn't enough for reliable results. 1000 couples should give better ones.
- inactive, on 05/25/2009, -0/+6Yes - yours. ;-)
- kolop1, on 05/25/2009, -2/+7Men will pretty much ***** any woman with a vagina.
- jamaph, on 05/25/2009, -0/+5Time & place
- derek20cali, on 05/25/2009, -3/+8You know how to conduct a scientific study better than a Professor at a major university? You must have a very high opinion of yourself.
- cplusplus, on 05/25/2009, -1/+6Men with no boobies prefer opposites.
- ozborn, on 05/25/2009, -0/+5Really, 90 couples isn't enough for "reliable" results? Let's see the statistics to show how much additional power a 1000 couple study has over a 90 couple study. Then, since that study is going to probably cost close to ten times as much as the original why don't you make the business case for that study while you are it? Perhaps a little more math to demonstrate that tracking 90 couples isn't enough "reliable" (whatever that means).
I suspect you are going to have a hard time. - MicFury, on 05/25/2009, -3/+7Wow. You must be totally sure that you know better than Nickolassc. You must have a very high opinion of yourself too.
- spriggig, on 05/25/2009, -0/+3I don't think it's a very big hole.
- rudern, on 05/25/2009, -0/+3Hey baby. Looks like we've got dissimilar major histocompatibility complexes.
- dhughes, on 05/25/2009, -0/+3 With a username like FinalSolution it's pretty obvious who you mean.
- untouchableLENS, on 05/25/2009, -0/+2Most "Latinos" are white in their own countries; same with Arabs. We humans have really inconsistent ideas about "race." Phenotypes are biology, but "race" between modern human beings is a social construct.
- untouchableLENS, on 05/25/2009, -0/+2That's why most girls avoid you.
- inactive, on 05/25/2009, -1/+3Is your sister hot?.
- jamaph, on 05/26/2009, -0/+2This journal is not conclusive in the slightest.
Every quote by the scientists who published the studies start with a "We think" or a "We believe"
People on Digg take these journals as scientific fact way to quickly. Hence why cancer, aids, or any other ailments have been cured here more then 5 times. - LordofShadows, on 05/25/2009, -0/+2I would argue that "love" isnt based on anything like values etc. Just some girls cause you to feel that sense of elation that comes along with dopamine rush you get when looking at them and some dont. (You can ***** them both though, the girls wont know the difference, just harder to do when you care about them.)
- gospe1337, on 05/25/2009, -0/+2I know that science is about peer review and redundancy, but this isn't exactly new news. It's just reinforcing old news.
- SemiSarcastic, on 05/25/2009, -1/+3So when these scientists are talking about mates trying to find someone of different MHC is it more on the lines of race (whites with latinos) or specific traits (someone of great physicality paired with someone of great intelligence) or a combination?
- mrogi, on 05/25/2009, -1/+3Genetics aint got ***** to do with how we choose a mate. Human relationships are based on the most basic immutable fundamental Law of Economics:
A man gets the most beautiful woman he can afford.
A woman gets the richest man she can attract. - eatinshramps, on 05/25/2009, -0/+2Genetics cause me to get a boner and then I choose a mate...or my right hand..which ever is easiest.
- NickPetropolis, on 05/25/2009, -0/+2Opposites attract.
..in other news the sky is blue. - ImOnYourTeam, on 05/25/2009, -0/+1People choose their mating partners based on genetics...I don't need a 1000 couple study to ***** know that.
- jamaph, on 05/25/2009, -1/+2I feel like this study has as much credibility as a perfume salesman who goes, "this particular scent releases pheromones subconsciously driving women/men to you."
I just don't buy into the subconsciousness attractions between male and female are dominant in the choice for a "mate". People are very complex, this is evident in the study of psychology, and the human experience. - RobotBuddha, on 05/25/2009, -1/+2I suspect you've been getting too much of your science from pop sci reporters instead of journals.
- dhughes, on 05/25/2009, -1/+2 Men with no boobies prefer men with boobies?
- DNAexpert, on 05/25/2009, -0/+1I wonder how much did they spend on that study giving at the end of it an answer that every living human being can give. This is a prove of how genetics studies are use in the wrong way.
- SemiSarcastic, on 05/25/2009, -0/+1Yes, thank you, I never thought of it that way. Now for a less retarded comment...
- untouchableLENS, on 05/25/2009, -0/+1Maybe that's countered by idiots trying to marry homogeneously, as in marry "your own kind" and other "let's ***** people that we look related too."
See: miscegenation laws. - Nickolassc, on 05/25/2009, -1/+2The study was carried out in Brasil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest ...
- inactive, on 05/25/2009, -1/+25-4-3-2-1 Stand by for the bnp crew to say something wise. One has already promoted genocide - ' finalsoloution' - tsktsk.
- ell0bo, on 05/25/2009, -1/+2you must not hang out around many married men...
- inactive, on 05/25/2009, -1/+2Good job understanding science, Jamaph. I'm sure well-respected journals publish things similar to snake-oil sales pitches all the time.
/s - jamaph, on 05/27/2009, -0/+1"no where in the article, nor in the study, does it state that there is a singular factor controlling all of human emotion"
Umm, yeah... Read my post? I never discussed human "emotion" in the slightest. But you can continue to infer what I am talking about...
"until you or someone else can refute the study or provide a better answer, I will side with the authors"
Congratulations, that's what I suspected you would say. Instead of researching differing scientific opinions on your own, you decide to just believe this study out right, and accuse me of not "understanding science"... Hahaha
Way to demonstrate you level of intelligence, let alone you ability to debate.
Adios. - inactive, on 05/27/2009, -0/+1I didn't believe this study out right, I read it, ruminated on the topic with my related background in immunohistochemistry and genetical genomics, poked around a bit on Pubmed, and realised that it's a good answer to a puzzling question.
- OhGigi, on 05/25/2009, -0/+1I remember learning about this theory of opposites decades ago from Dr. Paula Abdul's research. I guess with science it's sometimes one step forward and two steps back.
- inactive, on 05/25/2009, -0/+1MHC is not related to intelligence, race, or physique. It's a highly variable immunological marker. The thought is that if this marker varies between the two mates, then there is a greater chance of other variabilities.
- jamaph, on 05/26/2009, -0/+1Could he possibly be referring to genes that trigger disease?
*devils advocate* - shininia, on 05/26/2009, -0/+1Mines like a purplish orange, is it broken?
- jamaph, on 05/26/2009, -0/+1Could he possibly be referring to genes that trigger disease?
*devils advocate* - cyberdork, on 05/25/2009, -1/+2But you know what is actually interesting about that whole story?
That for generations people have NOT been choosing their mating partners based on genetics. But instead their partners were chosen by their parents for other reasons than genetics.
Arranged marriages are still very real in most non-western countries (India for example).
The conclusion would be that evolution by sexual selection has been basically bypassed by humans for centuries in many parts of the world. - jamaph, on 05/26/2009, -1/+1Sort of right...
There are three true races, based on bone structures in the face.
Caucasian
African
Asian - groo68, on 05/25/2009, -1/+1Yes, because with today's dwindling population finding a mate is the most important thing a human can do to save this world.
-
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is