Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Face-touching may reflect unconscious hand-smelling [pdf]

royalsocietypublishing.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–36 of 36 posts

Re: Face-touching may reflect unconscious hand-smelling [pdf]

#31

Post by lowdose »

qubex wrote: post #15
lowdose wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's for simplicity apply Occam's razor: When we didn't have modern birth control solutions cultural rituals were an effective measure against women giving birth to seven children from different men. We removed that natural health taxing consequence of having sex. Could you elaborate on your fence a bit because I'm always curious about unknown unknowns to me.

I haven’t stated an opinion on the matter, I’m just cautioning against these offhanded remarks about massive societal re-engineering. Though your example is telling, actually. Humans are fairly unusual insofar as females do not have significant observable markers of being fertile or not (in the animal example, “in heat”). So you’d really have to go back and look at why evolution selected for this particular character…

Fair enough. My point was coming more from the view that we still treat women like second class people.

600 million women were married before they reached 18. 200 million women have experience genital mutilation so I think it fair to say in most cultures the accepted behavior of women is severely restricted in every possible way.

The women I met have all surprised me with a daily desire for sex activity. Many of them have had slut shaming experiences while growing up.

Re: Face-touching may reflect unconscious hand-smelling [pdf]

#33

Post by murtio »

Very interesting topic. I've noticed that whenever I wear my favorite perfume on my beard, I'll spend the following 4 hours touching my hands to remember good memories attached to that smell.

For people looking into the effect of self-face-touching with virus spreading,

"We note that this behaviour offace-touching may be responsible for transferring nearly 25%of respiratory illness."

Re: Face-touching may reflect unconscious hand-smelling [pdf]

#34

Post by throwanem »

quaquaqua1 wrote: post #27
throwanem wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm another native speaker who graduated high school more by dint of luck and pity than for any other reason, and then went to work instead of college. Between the context and the similarity with the adjective "subservient", "subserves" proved trivial to parse, and I haven't yet been able to come up with another expression of the same concept that is also as concise. In any case, it seems unlikely that educational at…

"A hypothesis that if one touches their face, they are more likely to smell themselves as well" is an infinitely clearer title, in my opinion. If your goal is for only 5 people to understand you and think you are cool, then it's no surprise why we have academic titles like "Embodied intersectionality and the intersectional management of hotel labour: the everyday experiences of social differentiation in customer‐orie…

The purpose of academic publication is to communicate with others in the same field, where the terminology of art is shared among all. Not having acquainted yourself with a given field's specific lexicon, why would you expect to understand without effort the meaning of titles that make heavy use of it?

For that matter, not being a participant in the work of which these publications constitute a part, why insist that those who do participate in it to talk with one another in the same language they'd use to make their work understandable to a lay audience such as yourself?

None of this seems very reasonable to me. You've done a splendid job of making clear that you value your own opinion in such matters quite highly, but you've left much to be desired in explaining why anyone else should do the same.

Re: Face-touching may reflect unconscious hand-smelling [pdf]

#35

Post by qubex »

lowdose wrote: post #31
qubex wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven’t stated an opinion on the matter, I’m just cautioning against these offhanded remarks about massive societal re-engineering. Though your example is telling, actually. Humans are fairly unusual insofar as females do not have significant observable markers of being fertile or not (in the animal example, “in heat”). So you’d really have to go back and look at why evolution selected for this particular character…

Fair enough. My point was coming more from the view that we still treat women like second class people. 600 million women were married before they reached 18. 200 million women have experience genital mutilation so I think it fair to say in most cultures the accepted behavior of women is severely restricted in every possible way. The women I met have all surprised me with a daily desire for sex activity. Many of them…

Again, a bit of a sweeping (and false) perception informed by our local historical and cultural context. There is strong anthropological evidence that for dozens of millennia matriarchal societies were the norm. This survived well into the pre-colonial era in Africa. It just appears that way because patriarchal structures have dominated for most of the recent past (~4000-5000 years), and because this period coincides with the historical record... again, is this a quirk or a consequence, and in the latter case, which way does causation flow?

Re: Face-touching may reflect unconscious hand-smelling [pdf]

#36

Post by lowdose »

qubex wrote: post #35
lowdose wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. My point was coming more from the view that we still treat women like second class people. 600 million women were married before they reached 18. 200 million women have experience genital mutilation so I think it fair to say in most cultures the accepted behavior of women is severely restricted in every possible way. The women I met have all surprised me with a daily desire for sex activity. Many of them…

Again, a bit of a sweeping (and false) perception informed by our local historical and cultural context. There is strong anthropological evidence that for dozens of millennia matriarchal societies were the norm. This survived well into the pre-colonial era in Africa. It just appears that way because patriarchal structures have dominated for most of the recent past (~4000-5000 years), and because this period coincides…

We have no written records about the period you mention so I cannot imagine how strong this evidence is. Africa's population is for the majority practicing the Islam since a millennium before the colonial era, and that's a religion with a classical patriarchal society structure.

While I have been very charitable in my interpretation of your arguments. You keep using straw man arguments in our discussion again and again.

You literally shift the goal post with every comment you make, I think this is an inferior way of discourse.

I have seen comments in the past that were a lot more impressive, expressing thoughts of deep thinking. This has not been your best work and decide not to engage anymore with you on this topic.

Post reply on HN