That’s it. I’m no longer identifying as an evolutionary psychologist because I can’t stop the public from associating the field with stuff like this. I honestly can’t tell if he’s serious or trolling anymore.https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/992538975087747072 …
-
While I understand it’s more fun to pretend
@primalpoly posited the existence of a literal “shoe module” in the brain — but what happens to entertaining more simple hypotheses, e.g. “if he’s messy and can’t even take care of himself, he won’t take good care of my children”?
Exactly. The survey is interpreted using signaling theory, not evolutionary theory. It's just about what underlying traits women might be able to infer from visible aspects of the extended phenotype, such as shoes. Does anyone seriously think people don't make such inferences?
-
-
there is basically no hard evidence that the shoes you wear (as a man) causally affects fitness, right? Mate choice presumably multi-modal. Even if women *do* reject based on shoes (which is questionable) what happens if Mr ShitShoes turns up in a Maserati etc.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think it’s an empirical question as to whether this happens and how important it is.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.