At the bottom line, it means the "good genes" hypothesis is dead, as proclaimed in this great book:https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/863454791283994627 …
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
At the bottom line, it means the "good genes" hypothesis is dead, as proclaimed in this great book:https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/863454791283994627 …
The whole ovulatory shift hypothesis a mess, poisoned by bad science. Don't know about the the dress thing, but there is no good evidence for greater interest in casual sex. Just two of many new studies: https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/944095379594858496 …https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/879582934096916480 …
Follow the link, it is a free pd in English. (Download Preprint Button)
actually they DID find a shift in attractiveness of men across the cycle, just no difference between short-term and long-term attraction (and the specific behaviors they expected to drive it didn't). clearly NOT that cycles do nothing. or that hormones aren't mediating at allpic.twitter.com/dJj55KNS8x
The original clippings say so. Rank orders are stable.
indeed. but weird seeing many media/science-promoters jumping w/joy saying "ovulation doesn't matter! evo psy is silly!" when really findings are really important, indicate "ovulation matters! but not in certain ways that meta-analyses have previously found questionable anyway"
Are there any studies that tested it experimentally with hormone administration (i.e. to imitate the concentrations around ovulation) as opposed to looking for correlations?
Not that I know of, but there is a placebo controlled RCT of pill effects on sexual desire which has cycle phase info, and in my work I use HC users as a quasi control group.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.