It’s not unheard of for heterosexual men to feel an inexplicable urge to kiss a male friend when they’re standing face to face. It’s also understandably challenging for these men like to maintain platonic relationships with women.
To be fair, the author uses the expression "it's not unheard of", not "it's very common". It seems predictable that something like that is not "unheard of", but I would be surprised to learn it is...
To be fair, the author uses the expression "it's not unheard of", not "it's very common". It seems predictable that something like that is not "unheard of", but I would be surprised to learn it is common.
Unfortunately, we are forced to take the author at their word. What is "not unheard of"? Does the author have documented examples? Is it hearsay? If it is observable in a sample of heterosexual...
Unfortunately, we are forced to take the author at their word. What is "not unheard of"? Does the author have documented examples? Is it hearsay? If it is observable in a sample of heterosexual males, a study can be taken to make a measurement.
The rest of the statement also logically does not follow.
The author makes a claim with no rigorous backing, making this a puff piece at best, and disingenuous at worst.
I think you're asking a lot of what is a pretty uncomplicated empirical observation. We might have different backgrounds, but I wouldn't be surprised if a straight friend told me they felt such an...
I think you're asking a lot of what is a pretty uncomplicated empirical observation.
We might have different backgrounds, but I wouldn't be surprised if a straight friend told me they felt such an urge… because they already have. I've seen memes on the internet about it. I've also felt it. (tbh, kinda hard not to have these moments if you spend 3 hours a day on a sports team.) I'm not really interested in defending the validity of these experiences or our sexualities to skeptics over the internet, but it definitely isn't unheard of for decidedly straight men to mix up boundaries with close platonic friends, especially in emotional, high-stakes situations, and I also don't feel compelled to cite a study to argue that it's common.
In general, I would ask you this: is it necessary or useful to back every observation we make with the full might of the scientific endeavor? I'm reminded of academic statements like "the fear of death [has] a central and often unsuspected role in psychological life" or "people with a high social intelligence are enormously qualified for life." This is tautology. Academia can build off such axioms to reach meaningful conclusions, but it doesn't need to prove them beforehand. I would ask you to consider whether our hyper-liberal, hyper-rational, scientistic inclinations are actually beneficial when they inhibit our ability to think for ourselves, and particularly when they make us beholden to the extremely vast set of procedural issues within scientific research.
I know this ruffles feathers in educated circles. I bring it up because the inclinations I refer to raise the bar for basic, mutual human understanding beyond a reasonable threshold. Your accommodation of a straightforward, reasonable, and/or obvious remark—or even an outlandish one—isn't harmful as long as you recognize it as "one experience/interpretation among many" and not automatically as "The Great Truth of the Universe." Skepticism is great, but I encourage you not to instinctively reject observations on the basis that they don't have a scientific study attached.
Amen. Science is hard to get right, particularly in squishy test subjects such as human brains. If we have good studies, we use them. If we don't, we should think whether the results are worth the...
I would ask you to consider whether our hyper-liberal, hyper-rational, scientistic inclinations are actually beneficial when they inhibit our ability to think for ourselves, and particularly when they make us beholden to the extremely vast set of procedural issues within scientific research.
Amen. Science is hard to get right, particularly in squishy test subjects such as human brains. If we have good studies, we use them. If we don't, we should think whether the results are worth the struggle. Then you think long and hard about what exactly you're going to study how exactly. 5 years later you have results. To prove a statement that (a) was a non-essential point in an argument and (b) could have been anecdotally confirmed by just the social media response of this article here and on menslib.
I know this ruffles feathers in educated circles.
Speaking for myself (you're going to have to believe me that I'm an educated circle), no feathers ruffled.
Though as an educated circle, I would prefer if our language had the nuance to distinguish "overwhelming confidence" ("The earth is round") from "confident to the point of, for a limited scope, accepting it as truth" ("I haven't read any studies that demonstrate the frequency, but some men have this urge"). Well, without being verbose anyway. I want people to express a low-but-unimportant doubt in their own statements, without getting bogged down in details. It's an important part of academic honesty, whether you subscribe to a scientistic world view or not. (Edit:) To clarify why this is important, the idea here is to be able to make an argument concisely, while acknowledging "yes, there might be issues with this point if you look at it very closely. It doesn't affect my argument, so I'll ignore it. However, I'm aware there might be issues and I don't want you to go and propagate these statements in different contexts, where these issues might be material."
I think you are probably correct. Lots of articles like this one are published, and trying to force a bar of "has several peer reviewed studies" for entry is unfair and potentially harmful.
I think you are probably correct. Lots of articles like this one are published, and trying to force a bar of "has several peer reviewed studies" for entry is unfair and potentially harmful.
Technically I'd interpret "not unheard of" as "something I heard of at least once", but preferably it should probably be "something I heard of three or more times". But yeah, similarly to what...
Technically I'd interpret "not unheard of" as "something I heard of at least once", but preferably it should probably be "something I heard of three or more times".
But yeah, similarly to what @k463b_92p said, I think you're demanding too much from what is clearly an assortment of personal observations.
I personally don't think it's a stellar article, but I also understand that this is a non-scientific article, and as such I believe you're expecting too much from it.
I’ve had this. Although I think it’s a normal intrusive thought (like jump in front of the arriving train) and not indicative of some deep emotional shortcoming.
I’ve had this. Although I think it’s a normal intrusive thought (like jump in front of the arriving train) and not indicative of some deep emotional shortcoming.
I wouldn't say you're the outlier, I don't have any reason to think so at least. It's just that the article seeks to reassure and validate inner thoughts that can be disturbing to some people, and...
I wouldn't say you're the outlier, I don't have any reason to think so at least. It's just that the article seeks to reassure and validate inner thoughts that can be disturbing to some people, and it's not very helpful for others to come and say "uh, I never felt that, that's absurd". This might be perceived as gaslighting and would make those with contradictory feelings feel even less accepted and validated. And nobody wants that.
This article leans on sources I cannot in good faith take seriously, to say nothing else. I hope anyone reading it applies a very healthy dose of skepticism.
This article leans on sources I cannot in good faith take seriously, to say nothing else. I hope anyone reading it applies a very healthy dose of skepticism.
Why not? The sources are fairly diverse, most being non-fiction books and others being e.g. science news articles (and one of which, EurekaNews, is the science news outlet of AAAS which is home to...
Why not? The sources are fairly diverse, most being non-fiction books and others being e.g. science news articles (and one of which, EurekaNews, is the science news outlet of AAAS which is home to one of the top three most prestigious journals (Science)). I took your advice and looked into a few of them randomly. I couldn't find anything wrong with any of them.
Do you really have a bad opinion of every single source and author of each source? Or are you just wholesale dismissing it all because you don't like the content and conclusions of the article? Or, as your handle suggest, are you purposely being 'flippant' (serious question)?
I looked at a few links, and they weren’t obviously good or bad, but they also aren’t evidence for the claim she’s making. They’re providing context. There’s a study that most people find it hard...
I looked at a few links, and they weren’t obviously good or bad, but they also aren’t evidence for the claim she’s making. They’re providing context. There’s a study that most people find it hard to sit still doing nothing. There are studies of brain plasticity.
The article itself admits there aren’t good scientific studies:, but doesn’t dwell on it:
Because of moral and ethical limitations, empirical studies about sexual conditioning are lacking and are limited mostly to animals, but there is a fair amount of evidence for the existence of conditioned emotional and sexual responses, and practical experience demonstrates the effect.
(Knowing that conditioned responses exist isn’t evidence for this conditioned response. It doesn’t tell us if it happens or how common it is.)
I suggest a middle ground: no it’s not proven, and that’s okay. It’s actually normal for this sort of thing. Therapists have been writing about things they can’t prove for a long time, which is fine as far as it goes. People learn things from experience, but proving them is hard.
I'll try to detail my thought process. I wasn't sure what the OP had in mind with this article so I avoided calling out specifics to let users read the article without knowing what I took offense...
I'll try to detail my thought process.
I wasn't sure what the OP had in mind with this article so I avoided calling out specifics to let users read the article without knowing what I took offense to. My comment may give other users a bias, but I decided to go ahead both because remaining skeptical and encouraging others to do so is a habit of mine, and I have a history of doing so on this site, even when I may be mistaken.
The article takes a lot of things as ground truths, when in fact they remain contentious and poorly studied. Lots of references are actually newish popular psychology bestsellers. I personally feel that some of these are not credible at a rigorous academic standard.
Ultimately the article felt like an advertisement for a recent publication, and made what I consider groundless claims.
I read this post because I felt the topic was interesting, but quickly soured on it. After recognizing some of the links and refreshing my memory, I decided to post my comment even if it damaged my reputation (not that I have one) on this site.
My handle comes from how I speak online, so yes, I would consider myself 'flippant', and would like to apologize to the OP and anyone else who feels I was rude or otherwise demeaning of something they may have found insightful or worth merit.
I hope this clarifies for you. If you would like me to go into greater detail on my qualitative analysis of the links, I can discuss it with you privately.
...what?
To be fair, the author uses the expression "it's not unheard of", not "it's very common". It seems predictable that something like that is not "unheard of", but I would be surprised to learn it is common.
Unfortunately, we are forced to take the author at their word. What is "not unheard of"? Does the author have documented examples? Is it hearsay? If it is observable in a sample of heterosexual males, a study can be taken to make a measurement.
The rest of the statement also logically does not follow.
The author makes a claim with no rigorous backing, making this a puff piece at best, and disingenuous at worst.
I think you're asking a lot of what is a pretty uncomplicated empirical observation.
We might have different backgrounds, but I wouldn't be surprised if a straight friend told me they felt such an urge… because they already have. I've seen memes on the internet about it. I've also felt it. (tbh, kinda hard not to have these moments if you spend 3 hours a day on a sports team.) I'm not really interested in defending the validity of these experiences or our sexualities to skeptics over the internet, but it definitely isn't unheard of for decidedly straight men to mix up boundaries with close platonic friends, especially in emotional, high-stakes situations, and I also don't feel compelled to cite a study to argue that it's common.
In general, I would ask you this: is it necessary or useful to back every observation we make with the full might of the scientific endeavor? I'm reminded of academic statements like "the fear of death [has] a central and often unsuspected role in psychological life" or "people with a high social intelligence are enormously qualified for life." This is tautology. Academia can build off such axioms to reach meaningful conclusions, but it doesn't need to prove them beforehand. I would ask you to consider whether our hyper-liberal, hyper-rational, scientistic inclinations are actually beneficial when they inhibit our ability to think for ourselves, and particularly when they make us beholden to the extremely vast set of procedural issues within scientific research.
I know this ruffles feathers in educated circles. I bring it up because the inclinations I refer to raise the bar for basic, mutual human understanding beyond a reasonable threshold. Your accommodation of a straightforward, reasonable, and/or obvious remark—or even an outlandish one—isn't harmful as long as you recognize it as "one experience/interpretation among many" and not automatically as "The Great Truth of the Universe." Skepticism is great, but I encourage you not to instinctively reject observations on the basis that they don't have a scientific study attached.
Amen. Science is hard to get right, particularly in squishy test subjects such as human brains. If we have good studies, we use them. If we don't, we should think whether the results are worth the struggle. Then you think long and hard about what exactly you're going to study how exactly. 5 years later you have results. To prove a statement that (a) was a non-essential point in an argument and (b) could have been anecdotally confirmed by just the social media response of this article here and on menslib.
Speaking for myself (you're going to have to believe me that I'm an educated circle), no feathers ruffled.
Though as an educated circle, I would prefer if our language had the nuance to distinguish "overwhelming confidence" ("The earth is round") from "confident to the point of, for a limited scope, accepting it as truth" ("I haven't read any studies that demonstrate the frequency, but some men have this urge"). Well, without being verbose anyway. I want people to express a low-but-unimportant doubt in their own statements, without getting bogged down in details. It's an important part of academic honesty, whether you subscribe to a scientistic world view or not. (Edit:) To clarify why this is important, the idea here is to be able to make an argument concisely, while acknowledging "yes, there might be issues with this point if you look at it very closely. It doesn't affect my argument, so I'll ignore it. However, I'm aware there might be issues and I don't want you to go and propagate these statements in different contexts, where these issues might be material."
This seems reasonable. I would still prefer more rigorous logical correctness in statements to do with health and science.
I think you are probably correct. Lots of articles like this one are published, and trying to force a bar of "has several peer reviewed studies" for entry is unfair and potentially harmful.
Technically I'd interpret "not unheard of" as "something I heard of at least once", but preferably it should probably be "something I heard of three or more times".
But yeah, similarly to what @k463b_92p said, I think you're demanding too much from what is clearly an assortment of personal observations.
I personally don't think it's a stellar article, but I also understand that this is a non-scientific article, and as such I believe you're expecting too much from it.
I’ve had this. Although I think it’s a normal intrusive thought (like jump in front of the arriving train) and not indicative of some deep emotional shortcoming.
I wouldn't say you're the outlier, I don't have any reason to think so at least. It's just that the article seeks to reassure and validate inner thoughts that can be disturbing to some people, and it's not very helpful for others to come and say "uh, I never felt that, that's absurd". This might be perceived as gaslighting and would make those with contradictory feelings feel even less accepted and validated. And nobody wants that.
This article leans on sources I cannot in good faith take seriously, to say nothing else. I hope anyone reading it applies a very healthy dose of skepticism.
Why not? The sources are fairly diverse, most being non-fiction books and others being e.g. science news articles (and one of which, EurekaNews, is the science news outlet of AAAS which is home to one of the top three most prestigious journals (Science)). I took your advice and looked into a few of them randomly. I couldn't find anything wrong with any of them.
Do you really have a bad opinion of every single source and author of each source? Or are you just wholesale dismissing it all because you don't like the content and conclusions of the article? Or, as your handle suggest, are you purposely being 'flippant' (serious question)?
I looked at a few links, and they weren’t obviously good or bad, but they also aren’t evidence for the claim she’s making. They’re providing context. There’s a study that most people find it hard to sit still doing nothing. There are studies of brain plasticity.
The article itself admits there aren’t good scientific studies:, but doesn’t dwell on it:
(Knowing that conditioned responses exist isn’t evidence for this conditioned response. It doesn’t tell us if it happens or how common it is.)
I suggest a middle ground: no it’s not proven, and that’s okay. It’s actually normal for this sort of thing. Therapists have been writing about things they can’t prove for a long time, which is fine as far as it goes. People learn things from experience, but proving them is hard.
It's a lot easier to answer "does this happen" than "why does this happen".
I'll try to detail my thought process.
I wasn't sure what the OP had in mind with this article so I avoided calling out specifics to let users read the article without knowing what I took offense to. My comment may give other users a bias, but I decided to go ahead both because remaining skeptical and encouraging others to do so is a habit of mine, and I have a history of doing so on this site, even when I may be mistaken.
The article takes a lot of things as ground truths, when in fact they remain contentious and poorly studied. Lots of references are actually newish popular psychology bestsellers. I personally feel that some of these are not credible at a rigorous academic standard.
Ultimately the article felt like an advertisement for a recent publication, and made what I consider groundless claims.
I read this post because I felt the topic was interesting, but quickly soured on it. After recognizing some of the links and refreshing my memory, I decided to post my comment even if it damaged my reputation (not that I have one) on this site.
My handle comes from how I speak online, so yes, I would consider myself 'flippant', and would like to apologize to the OP and anyone else who feels I was rude or otherwise demeaning of something they may have found insightful or worth merit.
I hope this clarifies for you. If you would like me to go into greater detail on my qualitative analysis of the links, I can discuss it with you privately.