Edit: not saying I buy the premise of the article though
Edit 2: every reply from the above commenter gets 5 upvotes in 2 minutes, while all my comments get 5 downvotes in 2 minutes… nice job being subtle lol
I can’t open the link, it’s not loading for me for reasons unknown. So I’ll take the title at face value, and say that as a theory or hypothesis it sounds plausible. Penile adaptations to outcompete other males isn’t unheard of, the most well known example is canine knots.
how does opining on one of the author’s reputability have to do with the integrity of the study or its findings? that’s like saying Teslas are good cars because you happen to like Elon Musk.
A quick google search gives look as: “a crazy or eccentric person.” He probably is quite eccentric, but I’d say “crazy” is a bit much. Merrimack Webster uses “one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane.” Feel free to share why you specifically think his writing demonstrates insanity
Edit: 5 downvotes in 2 minutes again, to nobody’s surprise
so you just found some crazy study online by some academic kooks and, rather than apply an ounce of critical thought, you just believed it.
smh
Interestingly, the main author is respected
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_G._Gallup
Edit: not saying I buy the premise of the article though
Edit 2: every reply from the above commenter gets 5 upvotes in 2 minutes, while all my comments get 5 downvotes in 2 minutes… nice job being subtle lol
that doesn’t really mean much with regard to the validity of the study, though
I can’t open the link, it’s not loading for me for reasons unknown. So I’ll take the title at face value, and say that as a theory or hypothesis it sounds plausible. Penile adaptations to outcompete other males isn’t unheard of, the most well known example is canine knots.
Again, that’s not what my point is. I’m just disputing the characterization you made
Edit: every reply from the above commenter gets 5 upvotes in 2 minutes, while all my comments get 5 downvotes in 2 minutes… nice job being subtle
how does opining on one of the author’s reputability have to do with the integrity of the study or its findings? that’s like saying Teslas are good cars because you happen to like Elon Musk.
The comment called the authors “kooks.” I am disputing that characterization. As you say, this has nothing to do with the study.
Edit: 5 downvotes in 2 minutes… wow, is this breaking any rules that the person has so many accounts and manipulates votes?
you haven’t disputed anything. all you’ve done is to disagree and link to a Wikipedia article that does nothing to contradict my assessment.
I apologize if my comment was not clear. You’re correct, just posting a link is not sufficient. However, the lead author, Gordon Gallup Jr, created the mirror test (see https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/mirror-test#:~:text=A concept of self has,differentiate themselves from other individuals.)
His work is pretty vital in our understanding or primate cognition. See his recent paper for an update: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-57425-001
A quick google search gives look as: “a crazy or eccentric person.” He probably is quite eccentric, but I’d say “crazy” is a bit much. Merrimack Webster uses “one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane.” Feel free to share why you specifically think his writing demonstrates insanity
Edit: 5 downvotes in 2 minutes again, to nobody’s surprise
so, after citing other works which have no bearing whatsoever on this one, you agree that he’s kooky.
are you trolling for any particular reason or just because you’re bored?