« Congrats
New and improved coming up! »

Two books and a scientific rationale for Woman’s fickleness

Published by Ravikiran Rao April 8th, 2004 in Science

I have been reading two books - The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker and The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. Both are related to evolution, though they deal with different topics. A review is forthcoming in the future. (as against forthcoming in the past? -ed.)

Anyway, this post is to announce to the world that I finally have logical proof based on evolutionary psychology, of the common knowledge that women’s whims can lead to the destruction of the species. An exposition of the proof is also forthcoming (in the future? ed. Yes - Ravi)

20 Responses to “Two books and a scientific rationale for Woman’s fickleness”  

Feed for this Entry
  1. 1 Ramnath Apr 8th, 2004 at 1:27 pm

    Any reason for categorizing this under Art/ literature instead of science?

  2. 2 MadMan Apr 8th, 2004 at 2:10 pm

    The Blind Watchmaker is an excellent book

  3. 3 Ravikiran Apr 8th, 2004 at 2:26 pm

    Ramnath, that is because Yazad hasn’t created a category called science and I was too lazy to go and create one.

  4. 4 Yazad Apr 8th, 2004 at 2:49 pm

    Stop blaming me for your laziness. Creating a new category is a simple operation!!!

  5. 5 MadMan Apr 8th, 2004 at 3:06 pm

    Creating a new category is a simple operation

    Indeed it is.

    And God said, “let there be a science category”, and there was a science category.

    I’ve also changed the category of your post in anticipation of future sloth.

  6. 6 Aadisht Khanna Apr 8th, 2004 at 11:00 pm

    Are you referring to the chapter on sexual selection, with the example on how a preference for long tails is reducing the whatsitname-bird’s ability to fly?

  7. 7 Ravikiran Apr 8th, 2004 at 11:14 pm

    Yes of course.

  8. 8 Kingsley Apr 10th, 2004 at 8:26 am

    I can’t believe this is the first time you guys are posting science. Shame shame puppy shame!

  9. 9 Yazad Apr 10th, 2004 at 10:07 am

    Actually not. This is the first time the science category has been created.

  10. 10 Ankh Apr 12th, 2004 at 3:03 pm

    The dearth of a science category is probably a reason why India is not shining… ditto on the oozability guy’s comments.

  11. 11 Sanjay Vyas Apr 13th, 2004 at 7:36 pm

    Must get my hands on these books. Meanwhile Dr. Desmond Morris deals with athropology in his books “The naked ape” and “Man watching” which I found very engrossing.

  12. 12 Lakshmi Apr 13th, 2004 at 8:50 pm

    Hi Mr.Ravikiran Rao,

    I want to know your comments on what is written in http://theultimatereality.blogspot.com/ about IIM graduates.

    Thanks
    Lakshmi

  13. 13 Ravikiran Apr 14th, 2004 at 12:56 am

    Which post are you referring to?

  14. 14 Shanti Apr 14th, 2004 at 9:16 pm

    Whoa, Ravi - you got female fans now? Does your wife know about this? :p

  15. 15 Ravikiran Rao Apr 14th, 2004 at 10:53 pm

    Shanti, Lakshmi was the second person to comment on my blog. The first was her then-to-be future husband .

    So my wife, whoever she is, can relax ;)

  16. 16 S Simon Apr 15th, 2004 at 1:50 am

    did someone say “shame shame puppy shame!” in here?

  17. 17 Lakshmi Apr 15th, 2004 at 11:07 pm

    :-))))))))))))))

    Ravi,
    The post with the heading as ‘IIM MBAs: Wealth creators? Wealth chasers? ‘

    So, are you getting ready to star in my movie?

  18. 18 Ravikiran Apr 15th, 2004 at 11:54 pm

    What movie? I’ve already won the award for the best actor in a tragic role in real life.

    I will comment on the post in due course.

    Ankh, look who’s talking…

  19. 19 suns Apr 22nd, 2004 at 12:12 pm

    Since you profess to “finally have logical proof based on evolutionary psychology, of the common knowledge that women’s whims can lead to the destruction of the species”
    dont you think that the word “destruction” can be viewed differently as in “evolution” or “progress”.
    And destruction/evolution of which species?

  20. 20 Ravikiran Apr 22nd, 2004 at 1:18 pm

    ‘dont you think that the word “destruction” can be viewed differently as in “evolution” or “progress”.’

    Firstly evolution is not synonymous with progress. Evolution is neutral. You can evolve to something that might temporarily get you an advantage, but can lead to destruction of the species in the long run.

    By ‘destruction’ I mean that the species gets wiped out, or exist in vastly reduced numbers than before. You can call it progress only at the cost of the destruction of language.

    As to which species, it could be any.