Comments on: Lipstick http://kerryhowley.com/2008/08/27/onlipstick/ Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:28:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: joel hanes http://kerryhowley.com/2008/08/27/onlipstick/comment-page-1/#comment-857 joel hanes Thu, 04 Sep 2008 06:57:13 +0000 http://kerryhowley.com/?p=136#comment-857 Surprised to find this here. Most humans seem hardwired to find neoteny adorable: the "awwww..." kitten/puppy/cute reaction. IIRC, in archaeology, when humans domesticate animals, the domesticates' skeletons change over the succeeding generations in these ways: shorter muzzles, reduced jaws and teeth, bigger eyes and ears relative to a more rounded cranium, without brow ridges-- in short, the facial feature geometry of an infant. "Idealized" mass-media images of women often exaggerate all of these, and of course emphasize very young women in general. Surprised to find this here.

Most humans seem hardwired to find neoteny adorable: the “awwww…” kitten/puppy/cute reaction. IIRC, in archaeology, when humans domesticate animals, the domesticates’ skeletons change over the succeeding generations in these ways: shorter muzzles, reduced jaws and teeth, bigger eyes and ears relative to a more rounded cranium, without brow ridges– in short, the facial feature geometry of an infant.

“Idealized” mass-media images of women often exaggerate all of these, and of course emphasize very young women in general.

]]> By: Brian Sorgatz http://kerryhowley.com/2008/08/27/onlipstick/comment-page-1/#comment-842 Brian Sorgatz Tue, 02 Sep 2008 02:37:05 +0000 http://kerryhowley.com/?p=136#comment-842 To be sure, some hypotheses in evolutionary psychology are better thought out than others. But do you really think you can deny the epistemological basis of evolutionary psychology <i>at its best</i> without denying the epistemological basis of evolution itself? I don't think that you can. To be sure, some hypotheses in evolutionary psychology are better thought out than others. But do you really think you can deny the epistemological basis of evolutionary psychology at its best without denying the epistemological basis of evolution itself? I don’t think that you can.

]]> By: Chuck http://kerryhowley.com/2008/08/27/onlipstick/comment-page-1/#comment-837 Chuck Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:41:23 +0000 http://kerryhowley.com/?p=136#comment-837 I've always wondered how evolutionary psychology could be testable. And how it could be falsifiable. It's great for generating hypotheses, though. Then again, so is Marxism. Bonus link: Jerry Fodor's "The Trouble with Psychological Darwinism" http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n02/fodo01_.html I’ve always wondered how evolutionary psychology could be testable. And how it could be falsifiable.

It’s great for generating hypotheses, though. Then again, so is Marxism.

Bonus link:

Jerry Fodor’s “The Trouble with Psychological Darwinism”

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n02/fodo01_.html

]]>