Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeComment on conclusion
Posted by Fletcher on 24 Jun 2009 at 17:17 GMT
In the conclusion, it is stated "Such gender-specific incentive sensitization phenomenon may reflect an evolutionary-derived need for diversion of limited resources to the nurturance of healthy offspring."
Was there any consideration to the fact that many (most?) males are often attracted to disturbing images and women in general are not? Should the males interest/curiosity in the disfigurement be at least considered as a reason for their extended viewing and females lack of such interest be a possible reason to quickly skip to the next image?
RE: Comment on conclusion
Aligarner replied to Fletcher on 27 Jun 2009 at 01:37 GMT
I agree with the previous comment. Also the fact that only 27 people were involved in the study is absurd. Did you consider the possibility that people have been taught not to stare at those with facial differences? Or that it might be difficult for a compassionate woman to look for a long time as a baby with a cleft palate because she knows that it's a difficult situation for the baby? This in no way means that as a mother she wouldn't love an "unattractive" baby. I also object to the characterization of those with facial differences as being unattractive - - I have a son with Down syndrome and have considered him to be beautiful from the day he was born. I think the article was too flawed to have even been considered for publication.