See title

    • adroit balloon
      87·
      1 year ago

      that doesn’t really mean much with regard to the validity of the study, though

      • Mothra@mander.xyz
        61·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • jeffw@lemmy.world
        108·
        1 year ago

        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

          • jeffw@lemmy.world
            109·
            1 year ago

            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?

              • jeffw@lemmy.world
                116·
                1 year ago

                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

                  • jeffw@lemmy.world
                    106·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m sorry, as I’ve stated from the beginning, this work is most likely not accurate. However, I don’t think exploring odd theories makes someone a “kook,” no. He’s a scientist exploring and publishing a review of the research.

                    Again, your comment stated that the authors are kooks. I stated the lead author is quite respected and then provided evidence backing my comment. Again, if you have specific evidence or quotes as to why you think this man is crazy, I’m all ears.