GreekChat.com Forums  

Go Back   GreekChat.com Forums > General Chat Topics > Dating & Relationships
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

» GC Stats
Members: 332,682
Threads: 115,735
Posts: 2,208,294
Welcome to our newest member, amadisonhulze11
» Online Users: 11,867
2 members and 11,865 guests
Cookiez17
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #22  
Old 05-06-2008, 05:40 PM
cheerfulgreek cheerfulgreek is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 16,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC View Post
I really don't think you read anything I wrote - it's almost as if you simply regurgitated some notes from a class you took last semester, and I'm not sure why . . . perhaps I was unclear (I've been known to have that problem), so I'll reiterate, and hopefully not come off as a jerk or anything:

Mice do not, in fact, make great models for studying humans. Mice make acceptable models when conditions dictate a certain kind of assay or a certain "scale" is all that is available.

This is easy to prove, by counting the number of FDA approvals that have happened because of mouse studies (or, in a rather less snarky fashion, the number of failed attempts that were deemed a potential success after animal trials), but that's neither here nor there.

Running out the "mice use pheromones and ultrasound signals" line, similar to using peacock feathers or gay gorillas, has a strong chance of confirmation bias - Occam's Razor here. It's a fun thought experiment, but I think you're carrying it too far - it may be that I'm more skeptical, but I also may simply have more experience or a more realistic view.

I think you're too trusting of scientific findings that are of low real-world utility, and far too trusting of theoretical connections between animal sociology/mating behavior and human behavior, and I think this is connected to a misunderstanding of how to use research such as mouse studies. See: the mouse tar-painting studies for a great example of how to use mouse research - it even has epidemiological connections, so the complexity is much higher than usual.
KSig RC, I did read what you said. I know humans are far more complex than other mammals, but this is all we have to go on right now. My points aren't all the way accurate. I think you're making great points, but yours aren't all together accurate either. As far as failed attempts, that's true. What I said isn't a line. It may be true. You don't have the facts and neither do I, which is why I asked is there science to sexual attraction. I just wanted other opinions. If you think you're being skeptical, that's o.k. I never said you had to agree with me.

Thanks for the insight.

ETA: So what if I took notes in lab and followed them.
__________________
Phi Sigma
Biological Sciences Honor Society
“Daisies that bring you joy are better than roses that bring you sorrow. If I had my life to live over, I'd pick more Daisies!”

Last edited by cheerfulgreek; 05-06-2008 at 05:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.