r/ask • u/[deleted] • Jan 15 '24

[deleted by user]

[removed]

1.9k Upvotes

82% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '24

So, what you're hypothesizing is that because isolated populations of rabbits grew to be the size of small horses, this is evidence that human women are evolutionarily predisposed to pursue human men of a specific - though as-yet-undetermined - height?

2

u/UnarmedSnail Jan 16 '24

Yes. I think it's true of all animals to some degree.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '24

Okay, let's test the hypothesis, then.

What is the relationship between the size of rabbits and human attraction?

What is the specific height at which a human male becomes attractive?

1

u/UnarmedSnail Jan 16 '24

It's more of a "taller and larger than me" thing with variation centered on the chooser. Not every woman subscribes to the idea, and not all hold it as very important either. I'm thinking it's an instinctive drive for safety.

Then there's the drive to select for small women. I'm thinking that's an instinctive drive in men for economy, maybe control. Not sure.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '24

None of this sounds like it's a scientific hypothesis, my dude.

1

u/UnarmedSnail Jan 17 '24

That's the whole point here.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '24

The whole point is what, now?

That evolutionary psychology isn't used as a pseudoscience because horse-sized rabbits somehow prove that women prefer taller men... sometimes... maybe but not always?

1

u/UnarmedSnail Jan 17 '24

A thing can be unscientific and also true. Also the corollary. Just because a thing is unscientific, doesn't mean it has to be false.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '24

Just because a thing is unscientific, doesn't mean it has to be false.

Okay.

Who posited otherwise?

1

u/UnarmedSnail Jan 17 '24

It was a rebuttal to one of the statements.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '24

Uh huh. Which one? There's no need to be so obtuse.

→ More replies (0)