Geoffrey MillerVerified account

He thinks men are violent because they don’t get laid.

*a part of the reason men are violent. He's not using univariant analyses. And if you think this is controversial in the least, and not mainstream science after Davis Buss began researching, I'd be curious how you can discredit an entire science strand. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56cf3dd4b6aa60904403973f/t/5717dff0d51cd41e914e2fde/1461182448587/sex-begets-violence.pdf …

Or, can all of evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, and multiple other fields just be excused away as "not proving anything" and "not showing causation but correlation?"

I could even concede that men do get violent when they don’t get laid, I could agree with that. But the suggestion that enforced monogamy is the answer to that deserves to be mocked frequently and with extreme vigor

It's also the -why- that matters, as far as I can tell. [1] Less male-male aggression. [2] It enables pair bonding conducive to children in a given society. [3] Stops severe resource distribution imbalances and [4] Enhances life quality for children in the society.

I actually don't think it's that. @primalpoly had a thread on who knew what pair bonding was, and many were honest about not knowing the definition. It's to a small degree semantics, but a large part is syntax. What are the applications of the rule?Huge issue for all stakeholders