Is this the most pointless study ever?

[Elliot Kane]

Scientists have apparently proved that men show off in order to impress attractive women.

Coz we never knew THAT now, did we... ;D

[Dark Phoenix Rising]

Actually, no it isn't. If you work or do planning for a safety critical system/job or work in/manage a highly hazardous environment having this sort of study helps with the risk analysis that goes on. And in this sort of environment it's definitely useful to know when to "split the team" or even just not employ mixed genders for the same job.

[Elliot Kane]

Why would you need a study to tell you the obvious, though?

[Dark Phoenix Rising]

because you need to have stuff to back yourself up when you get taken to tribunals and such like.

[Elliot Kane]

Because common sense died a long time ago in the UK... Yes, you're right. Depressingly.

[Glance A'Lot]

Or, in law, obviously innocent is not the same as proven innocent...
(or guilty for that matter)

Didn't Newton also study the obvious, when seeing the apple fall?

[Elliot Kane]

No. Newton wanted to know why, not what. It was completely unknown at that point.

Before this study, we knew the what AND the why, therefore it's main use is in slapping down idiot lawyers, as DPR pointed out. It tells us nothing at all we didn't already know.

[Glance A'Lot]

Granted

...but is the lawyer the idiot or is the one paying him to process the claim not the greater idiot? I mean, lawyers do occasionally work in vain, but rarely for nothing...

[Elliot Kane]

Neither. It's the law MAKER who is the greater idiot, for not allowing common sense to trump bureaucratic literal mindedness.

[Dark Phoenix Rising]

I disagree that the law should allow common sense to trump anything - that's what the jury's for. As common sense is something is only gained through experiance. And in this situation someone that's always worked/lived in a mixed group probably wouldn't notice the increased risk taking that men do, and so it wouldn't be common sense to them (esp. if they were female, and are thus less likely to be able to observe a situation where men don't know that there's a woman about).

Another thing that's not "common sense" would be something like irons might be hot when they're turned off - it is once you've experianced it.

[Elliot Kane]

I think someone would have to have always avoided mixed groups not to notice that, DPR. Nor are women so blind or foolish as not to realise when men put on displays to gain their attention. Whether they acknowledge those displays is a whole other thing of course...

[Glance A'Lot]

And - on a fascetious note though - a 'common' sense in the literal sense is also what you would find in a lynch mob...

I also do not agree to put the blame on the law maker alone - not that stupid, overregulating or even biased laws aren't made, but since the inception of law insurance it is appalling to see what people try to claim before courts. I see no common sense there.

And since, at least in Germany, lawyers are paid irrespective of success potential, they get their dues in any case.

'Justice', as concept, not as institution, seems to me to be perceived more subjectively than by common sense.

Our Civil Code - which dates back from Bismarck's times - is one where one tried to regulate principles and intent of the law, not operational details.

I concede that this principle concept has partly been left in 20th century revisions. But still, where there is no claimant...

[Elliot Kane]

Britain used to run very much on the intent of the law rather than the letter of the law. It's only in recent years that the letter has seemingly become of greater importance than the intent. So common sense WAS a major factor - and British law was far better for it.

A lot of things that make it to court these days would never have gotten close in the past. I'll grant you the greed of lawyers is a major factor in all this, but the government(s) have allowed it, so where is the blame? The greedy at least stand to gain. The stupid, never.

[ss]

Mar 4, 2010 19:00:12 GMT Elliot Kane said:

Britain used to run very much on the intent of the law rather than the letter of the law. It's only in recent years that the letter has seemingly become of greater importance than the intent. So common sense WAS a major factor - and British law was far better for it.

A lot of things that make it to court these days would never have gotten close in the past. I'll grant you the greed of lawyers is a major factor in all this, but the government(s) have allowed it, so where is the blame? The greedy at least stand to gain. The stupid, never.

Isn't that what Jesus critized the Pharisees for..."straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel"..ie...obeying the letter of the law and completely missing the intent.??

@ Glance...on common....it has been said that the Lord must have loved the common people.....cause he made so many of them....

[Elliot Kane]

A problem as old as humanity it would seem, ss, yes...

[Dark Phoenix Rising]

Mar 4, 2010 18:34:53 GMT Elliot Kane said:

I think someone would have to have always avoided mixed groups not to notice that, DPR. Nor are women so blind or foolish as not to realise when men put on displays to gain their attention. Whether they acknowledge those displays is a whole other thing of course...

Erm, I said that the would have needed to be part of mixed groups to not notice - After all if you experience both environments you're then in the position of being able to contrast them, and if you've only been in a single gender environment then the difference will be especially marked.

Another use for this sort of study is for risk assessment with introducing women into environments such as oil rigging, commercial fishing, and logging.

[Elliot Kane]

I know what you said, DPR. I just think you have things the complete wrong way around.

You'd have to be blind to miss the difference between a guy talking to someone he's not interested in vrs someone he is. Human display patterns are not that subtle, especially in the male.

To miss it, you would have to have no experience of male-female interaction whatsoever.