Talk:David Buss

Unscientific Liar
So his method of creating new knowledge in psychology is as such: 1) Go anywhere and observe anything 2) Go home and think up some "evolutionary" reason this thing happened 3) Go out again and collect data to show that the thing you observed in 1 occurs.

By this standard you can prove anything; but because 'evolutionary psychology' is a niche cult it doesn't mind that the same method disproves everything they think too. In fact if you disagree with this sort of half-witted attempt at 'science' they say you don't "believe in evolution". All of this is my own experience with this charlatan. So, how do I out this unscientific BS masquerading as science? What sort of sources do I need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.112.109 (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There are certainly critiques of evolutionary psychology (and counterarguments as well)if you wanted to include a section on that. However, you'd need to use MUCH, MUCH more professional language than you do here.  Words like "unscientific liar" and "charlatan" certainly don't do justice to David Buss.  Nor to you.  So, there's room for critique, but keep it professional.  StoneProphet11 (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Evolutionary psychology is a "theoretical approach" (like string theory) which in practice amounts to "good faith pseudoscience". In many Wikipedia articles it is unfortunately wrongly treated as if it was an established science like psychology. It's not just this article but like a systematic bias. Esailija (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "it is unfortunately wrongly treated as if it was an established science like psychology". Like how David Buss himself published a book calling it a "science" straight up? As well as the "ultimate psychology". If the OP called him a charlatan that's hardly unprofessional when it's such an accurate descriptor. 128.193.154.54 (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Anon


 * , general relativity is also a theory, but it's widely supported by the scientific community, and so I wouldn't call it "good faith pseudoscience." Same goes for a lot of things we know (or rather think we know) about space and time. Flyer22 (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * General relativity is not "also a theory" it's a scientific theory while EP is a "theoretical approach" which is has the word "theory" in it yes but it is not in the same meaning at all. At the very least it's not established science and controversial. Esailija (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , stating "General relativity is not 'also a theory' it's a scientific theory" makes no sense. My point is that it's a theory. A mainstream theory, yes. But a theory nonetheless. I did not state or intentionally imply that general relativity is the same thing as evolutionary psychology in terms of scientific support. My other point is that calling either of those two theories "good faith pseudoscience" is not accurate, and that many notions regarding science have not been proven or proven beyond all doubt; neither general relativity nor evolutionary psychology fit what the WP:Fringe guideline opposes. Certain aspects of them could be called fringe, but that applies to any scientific field. The way you are differentiating "theory" from "theoretical" is also odd to me, given that general relativity is an aspect of theoretical physics. Our Theoretical physics article also currently has the string theory in the Proposed theories section, not in the Fringe theories section. This doesn't mean that no WP:Reliable sources have referred to the string theory as fringe, though; similar goes for evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology certainly started out as fringe, and is referred to as pseudoscience by some critics (especially regarding some of its aspects). Flyer22 (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The point is that it is conflating the word theory that is used to mean ideas, hypotheses etc. with scientific theory (knowledge built by applying the scientific method). General relativity is firmly the latter kind of theory while there is controversy about EP (and I obviously don't mean "controversy" in the evolution-vs-creationism kind of sense). Ñote that I didn't put EP in the actual fringe/pseudoscience category but I think it's not in the established science category either which is the view of many philosophers of science and biology. I agree "good faith pseudoscience" is not an accurate label here. Esailija (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Untitled
Is this guy married? I ask because he is believed to be an expert in dating and such, but one must look at his personal merit with the ladies before being giving him such a title.
 * He is NOT an expert in dating. He is trying to explain the whys of dating.  Why do women prefer wealthy men?  Why do men prefer young women?  Why do we feel jealousy?  His arguement is that these are evolved behaviors shared by all humans, not merely cultural effects. 75.0.55.108 00:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)T


 * You seem to be asking if he is a successful player. He is now 54 years old and I'd doubt very seriously if he weren't married.  Regardless, one does not have to be a zookeeper to be a professor of biology.  As the previous user mentions, his focus is to explain common human mating behaviors through evolutionary psychology, of which he is nothing short of a founding member.--Loodog 02:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You should check out his website where he has yearly photographs with his grad students. Most of 'em (guys as well as girls) seem pretty hot!--NZUlysses 22:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but who the fuck cares?? 78.138.4.51 (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems from the narrative that he went from an assistant professorship at Harvard to a full professorship at UMich, which I suppose is not inconceveable, but unlikely at any rate.Tychoish 23:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Can someone change the title to David M Buss? That is, after all, his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.60.185 (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Prose style in "Act Frequency Theory" section
It's not up to scratch. I know nothing about Buss's work, otherwise I'd try to clean it up. But it needs a lot of work. ZoomaBaresAll (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. I've attempted an improvement of it, and I think it's substantially less bad now. However, like you I knew nothing about Buss' work before reading this article, so I couldn't do all that much to help that section, and as such it still requires a lot of work. Hopefully someone else with deeper knowledge of the subject matter will come along and sort it out. BreakfastJr (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Published Books
Should be sorted chronologically 178.11.254.88 (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Buss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121029024130/http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/busslab/pdffiles/ to http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/busslab/pdffiles/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)