That is too shallow. Why does it show interest?
It's directed attention. Generally speaking, men aren't particulary "deep" in that regard.
I posted a well known method used by the female dog to gain the male dogs interest. We know it is smell. What is the reason for the interest of the male in a head tilting female?
Because it shows the female is interested in them. Again generally speaking, that's reason enough.
Saying because it is human interaction is not an answer.
Obviously you're incorrect. It IS an answer. You're obviously deliberately jackassificating. Good for you then. If it's not deliberate, you're really missing something about you.
Otherwise we could say the dogs like each other because of dog interaction and stop there. Scientists didn't stop there. They went further and found out smell was the real reason.
Fine but irrelevant to the conversation. That there is a valid alternate explanation to the pose in the picture renders you pointless. Can you see that?
further. What is the real reason a head tilt is attractive to the male of he human animal.
For the point at hand, the "real reason" is irrelevant. There is another explanation for the poses in the pictures, so your explanation isn't relevant. Game over. Please insert coin.
Why? We are talking, and some say intelligent, apes.
For me thinking of us as "complicated apes" is much more applicable. Regarldless, 'why', has nothing to do with the point that you don't have a point.
See. You honestly have no idea. But you refuse to accept my idea.
LOL. You're squirrely. I like that.
What if I told you that I don't know exactly why an electron spins the way it does, though I might be able to bullshit my way thru it. Would you hire me as a chemistry instructor?
For my amusement, please explain why you think this is relevant.
Sure I have. You are refusing to admit it because it might affect you.
LOL. Right. Okay man, I apologize. I can't handle your wicked, reality squashing, massive, and entirely endowed truth. It's too much for my fragile ego. LOL. Do you always apply generalizations to individuals?
Anyone know anything about anthropology? I know just a smidge. I think it is a common thing to agree that science about human beings is very difficult because human beings will hide from the results if they are unpleasing.
I agree that it's common. However, I disagree that it's the case at hand. People also have a tendency to disagree with people deliberately jackassificating and drawing retarded conclusions from pictures without considering context. If you were correct, a simple scientific study would support your claims regardless of how you reached your conclusion. Since you can produce no such corroberation, I deduce you're simply trolling here for personal reasons, or you're a total whack job. Also, I suspect you're a sock puppet of one of sciforum's more prolific posters.
If people really did find out masturbation affected them, what would all the people who read that propaganda story about masturbation being good for the prostrate, and started masturbating every day, think? They would realize they had been hurting themselves for who knows how long.
Explaining the reality of this is simply too much effort for me at the moment, so fine, whatever you say.
Humans would rather lie than face the truth in that situation
.
Failure to qualify that statement as a generalization is a failing oversight on your part.
That is why it interferes with the science. I think that is why I get so much resistance from people. Everybody masturbates. When they hear me say they are making themselves sick, their first instinct is to say no, then they slam the door on me so they can't here me say it anymore.
No, it's because you're a jackass. You demonstrate nothing compelling whatsoever, draw retarded conclusions from squat for evidence and moan about being shunned. I think you're an experiment in character for someone, you aren't a person, but a character in a person's mind who's intersted in seeing how people react to this character, mostly for kicks.
It is just like drugs or any other problem. Hide from it and continue, or face up to it and try to repair things.
But people don't want to know that cigarettes make them sick, and studies support the conclusions. Why don't studies support your conclusions? You put forth weak reasoning to support your claims when the reasoning is irrelevant. It either is or isn't and you can't show that it is. Boing.
