‘Higher levels’ as in ‘more appropriate levels’? Of course, not!
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I didn't say that 'social factors shape attraction'. In fact, that is so vague as to be virtually meaningless. It can't be science because the data categories are arbitrary (even patriarchal) judgments, with no basis in reality. That's not rocket science.
-
Thanks for the entertainment. You are a hoot.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That's not the data category in question. The data category in question is whether particular waist to hip ratios can be described or measured as 'attractive' in any meaningful 'scientific' sense. Seriously - you didn't understand that?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Well then hopefully the authors will consider not submitting it. Perpetuating crass pseudoscientific valorisations of patriarchal ideology is not really what the world needs right now.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A sharp example of the bewitchment of perception by means of rhetoric. Your article reinforces the idea that 'attractiveness' is a measurable scientific cateogry. As others do for 'disagreeability' and so on. The point is to challenge those abuses of science, not reinforce them.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
'More attractive' and 'sexier curves' are socially constructed, artificial judgments. Evenwithin a particular era, they are the judgments of individuals, not actual cultural ideas. They are not scientific categories, and this is not science.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.