Curvy women are smarter, have smarter babies

[naughty]

Evolution needs people like you, and it needs "deficient" people. Because they perform all kinds of crucial social and cultural roles. Which are essential to the survival of mankind - mankind being inherently a highly social species.

Women like you, with lots of time on their hands to do creative things because they don't have to bring up kids, no doubt have interesting lives and contribute greatly to culture.

I'm sure some of the female researchers that conducted this study are child-less as well. To conduct a study of this kind, you need to be a person of academic excellence; for women this often means focusing all energy on an academic career and postponing kids or getting no kids at all. :wink:

What field are you in?

I work at one of the world's largest cultural think tanks! BINGO!

 

[TheManTheLegend]

theres always some survey or study proving some crap. and gullable ppl thatll believe anything. point is to be smart and make ur own conclusions on ur own beliefs but never believe all that u read

 

[B_johnschlong]

Regardless, where in this study does is say women with lower waist-to-hip ratios are themselves smarter, which you keep repeating?

Huh? I never said that. Being small has nothing to do with this research.

 

[B_johnschlong]

I work at one of the world's largest cultural think tanks! BINGO!

I knew it.

A snitch, studying contemporary youth's obsession with size. :biggrin1:

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

My Welsh Nanna was big and fat, she had a waist the size of a baby elephant, she had 14 kids, I based my own study on this and concluded that women with waist sizes over 50 inches are the most fertile.

 

[B_johnschlong]

I'll believe it.. since im curvy.

but since im never having kids.. i don't give a shit

Common, you should have kids. It's your duty.

 

[B_spiker067]

Wrong again.

According to the scientific method, a hypothesis cannot be proven, it can only be verified to be dependable by, you guessed it, further studies. It is never proven. Nothing in science is written in stone, even things that seem to have been proven to what seems like beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You left out the part that it has to be falsifiable.

 

[snoozan]

The fact that you don't have a clue about what a waiste-to-hip ratio is, proves the point of the article: you're fat and dumb.

Actually, my waist-to-hip ratio is just fine and I tend to do well on standardized tests.

You were the one who was incorrect about the waist-to-hip ratio, not me. You said a waist to hip ratio was lower if you're obese, which is not the case at all. Here:

Sorry, but obese and fat women have a lower waist-to-hip ratio, not a higher one.

Huh? I never said that. Being small has nothing to do with this research.

I said "smart."

 

[B_johnschlong]

You left out the part that it has to be falsifiable.

Indeed, the hypothesis ("curvy women and their offspring are smarter than flat women and their offspring") is falsifiable. It thus meets one of the basic criteria that make for scientifically sound hypotheses.


I really can't imagine the scientists who conducted this study to sidestep all these basics. If they had, their study wouldn't have been published in a top peer reviewed journal.



But let's leave it at this, shall we: a large scientific study published in a peer reviewed top journal found that women with a low waist-to-hip ratio are smarter and produce smarter offspring than women with a higher waist-to-hip ratio.

 

[Ethyl]

I really can't imagine the scientists who conducted this study to sidestep all these basics. If they had, their study wouldn't have been published in a top peer reviewed journal.

Which isn't available to the public yet. Does this mean we're supposed to blindly believe everything you say?

 

[B_johnschlong]

Which isn't available to the public yet. Does this mean we're supposed to blindly believe everything you say?

Waist-hip ratio and cognitive ability: is gluteofemoral fat a privileged store of neurodevelopmental resources? Corrected Proof, 4 October 2007
William D. Lassek, Steven J.C. Gaulin, Evolution & Human Behavior; DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.07.005 Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (312 KB)

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

It's a medical site which requires registration.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Common, you should have kids. It's your duty.

troll

 

[B_spiker067]

I work at one of the world's largest cultural think tanks! BINGO!

What is a cultural think tank?

 

[B_Veronica_Divine]

does this mean I have to reproduce after all?

 

[B_johnschlong]

does this mean I have to reproduce after all?

Women should reproduce, yes. It's their duty, mankind needs women who make babies. What else are we here for?

Men are irrelevant (you can store enough sperm in a bucket to keep humanity going for millennia). But women are not. They must keep generating life on the planet.

Later, when we have developed artificial wombs (we're almost there), you can, if you want to, decide not to do all the work yourself.

But we're not there yet.

 

[B_superlarge]

Women should reproduce, yes. It's their duty, mankind needs women who make babies. What else are we here for?

Men are irrelevant (you can store enough sperm in a bucket to keep humanity going for millennia). But women are not. They must keep generating life on the planet.

Later, when we have developed artificial wombs (we're almost there), you can, if you want to, decide not to do all the work yourself.

But we're not there yet.

In this day and age that is illogical. The planet is no longer underpopulated, it has more than enough. Plenty of women will continue to follow their survival of the species instincts and therefore if a woman decides to overwrite that instinct she is not out of place for doing so. Your words are out of step with the times.

 

[Ethyl]

In this day and age that is illogical. The planet is no longer underpopulated, it has more than enough. Enough women still follow their survival of the species instincts and therefore if a woman decides to overwrite that instinct she is not out of place for doing so. Your words are out of step with time.

Not to mention how absurd it is that someone who claims to be irrelevant to the human race is informing women of their duty to procreate..

 

[B_johnschlong]

In this day and age that is illogical. The planet is no longer underpopulated, it has more than enough. Enough women still follow their survival of the species instincts and therefore if a woman decides to overwrite that instinct she is not out of place for doing so. Your words are out of step with time.

Mmm, is this why Russia is actually paying women to have more babies? Is this why the EU is reforming all its social policies with the sole purpose of stimulating fertility and the production of more babies? Is this why Japan is paying young couples to make more children?

You're right when it comes to developing countries that haven't yet made the demographic transition. There, women make more than enough babies (in some countries the fertility rate even stands at 7 kids per woman).

But in modern countries the depopulation and greying of society is the biggest threat to their existence. The demographic decline is catastrophic. Hence everything is being done to boost fertility and the production of kids.


I think Veronica_Divine lives in such a modern country, not in a developing country.

 

[B_johnschlong]

By the way, here's a reference to the link between hourglass figure and fertility:

BBC NEWS | Health | Hourglass figure fertility link

Men have long held up women such as Marilyn Monroe as icons of female attractiveness.

But researchers now say this isn't just a superficial judgement - women with hourglass figures are more likely to become pregnant.

Writing in a Royal Society journal, they say this is because women with large breasts and narrow waists have higher hormone levels.

They say this offers a biological reason for Western views of beauty.

But:

Dr Martin Tovee of the University of Newcastle, who has carried out research into what makes people attractive to others, told BBC News Online the Royal Society paper was not conclusive.

"What the results of this paper suggest is that the ratio of bust-to-waist may predict hormone levels.

"This is in turn may predict fertility, and this might be a reason why the bust-waist ratio might predict attractiveness."

He added other studies of female attractiveness showed that when images of real women are examined, whether their figure is in proportion was considered the most important feature.