12-19-2013, 07:21 AM
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Originally Posted by Spock
You're missing my point, maybe because you are too invested in your POV?
A scientist lives and dies by his publications. A paper that isn't published essentially translates to doing no work.
That requirement then self selects on several criteria;
1) Select work that interests them
2) Select work that interests them and interests their supporters
3) Select work that interests them and their supporters and can get funding via grants and a properly worded proposal
4) Select work that interests them and their supporters and can get funding and which will generate output that is interesting enough to get published
So even if their ultimate #1 goal is to promote polyamory, they have to couch in a way to appeal to the mainstream political environment to get approval, funding, and publication. This doesn't make their research invalid, nor a crock, and this study in no way 'proves' monogamy is the right/best thing, and doesn't enforce monogamy.
I said it in my first post: this study confirms that men's brains can be fidelitous under oxytocin. This applies equally to monogamy as well as polyamory, unless you want to believe that men are incapable of being committed, dedicated, faithful, and trustworthy.
The mechanism of the study is constrained by current cultural mores, but doesn't make the research worthless. Oxytocin is also being researched as a treatment for autism and is already used to accelerate labor (under the name Pitocin), as well as lactation.
What this research shows us ultimately is that oxytocin has affects on the behavior of men, and can actually demonstrate the measured effects in terms of social distance and sexual monogamy.
Don't bring in your own hangups. You can criticize the cultural values all you want, but it isn't under dispute that modern human culture largely celebrates monogamy and it isn't really understood how that is possible given how promiscuous we can be.
If the culture celebrated polygamy then the paper would have said:
I made two changes to the summary (in italics), and it is still valid without having changed the research.
Analysing the aim of a study is part of literature critique.
Please forward any comments, complaints or suggestions about my various thoughts and opinions here