Imagine if phrenology caught on as the latest pop-culture dipshit trend.
“My bumpy skull means I’m preternaturally predisposed to be polygamous and misogynist, and I’m just looking for a girl who has a compatible set of head bumps.”
“If you can’t handle me at my alimentivenest, you don’t deserve me at my inhabitivenest.”
Well, I’ve got news for you: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/far-right-phrenology-physiognomy-spread-hate-1234808413/
Clearly you’ve stayed away from 4chan and I commend you for it.
Isn’t that just sparkling racism?
so I was in the UK’s largest chain bookstore (Waterstones) on Saturday and I found a phrenology cat
That’s the cutest pseudoscience I’ve ever seen.
Between RFK, Leon, and Trump the odds are pretty good of it coming back b
Peter Gibson, the guy who discovered non-celiac gluten sensitivity, retracted his own study a few years later, but it had already become a fad diet, so it just stuck. That being said, there have been some studies that seem to confirm its existence, but the evidence is pretty thin. (To be clear, celiac disease and wheat allergies are 100% proven and can be reliably tested for).
A lot of people’s gluten sensitivity is actually a sensitivity to glysophates.
the study is so stupid for anyone who takes it seriously. I however enjoy the tag it birthed on Ao3
Carrots improve eyesight…nah, just military misinformation that is now a staple for parents to get their kids to eat their carrots
If you were a (regressive, anti-science) female that believed this, wouldn’t you have to be a “beta” wolf in this fictional world?
Thats the funniest part about this belief. The pop version is not even accurate to the original research, just a gross misinterpretation. The original bogus hierarchy started with the alpha couple, who are supposed to be the only reproductive couple of the pack. The rest of the population was simply defined by feeding hierarchy, who ate first. This might sound plausible but it only makes sense when you live in a fenced enclosure and there’s only like 8 of you, no den space for offspring and you can’t leave to find non-family mates. But then people made up a bunch of zodiac style personalities for this shit, and they’re just as scientific.
Did Schenkel deliberately make up that alpha shit (which would justify calling his paper “bogus”) or was he just bad at research?
From what I’ve heard it’s just bad research. He looked at family units and thought the father was designated as the leader due to size and strength but really he was just a dad.
I was also under the impression that the captive wolves were in mixed- that is forced- packs.
All the fighting that was observed came from that rather than any sort of natural behavior.
There are species that do have leader types in the social hierarchies though. Gorillas for example, or orcas.
I’ve heard this debunk a lot over the years, and I don’t disbelieve it, but is it not the case that one or two animals (wolves or otherwise) in a group will be the “bosses” or something close to being dominant over the others? Is all of that internal power struggling we see in groups/families of animals not really what it seems? Or is the “alpha” stuff different from that? Or does it only apply to wolves, and “alphas” do exist in other animal species?
Yours, confused and uneducated,
u/58008
The behaviour initially exhibited and observed were of wolves in captivity (think prison). Once they were observed in the wild, the theory fell apart. Caged animals act differently, just like people.
You can sorta see the alpha thingamajig in hyenas. The chick with the biggest clit gets a possy of white knights trying to please her.
But it’s not obligatory. Dudes just chilling together and biting asses can still happen without a chick to lead them on.
