3 ms·

> The fear of spiders, ... is believed to be a primal fear, an evolutionary safeguard [Citation Needed] I've heard that too, but all the evidence I've seen in

by rm999 13y ago

> The fear of spiders, ... is believed to be a primal fear, an evolutionary safeguard [Citation Needed] I've heard that too, but all the evidence I've seen indicates arachnophobia is a largely cultural European phenomenon. For example, see this: http://animalsplatform.org/assets/library/274_s214.pdf http://animalsplatform.org/assets/library/274_s214.pdf Also note that in parts of Asia and South America people actually eat spiders.

PeterWhittaker 13y ago
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000579679800059X http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005796798...
- rm999 13y ago
  You can't just link to a paper (behind a pay-wall, of all things) and expect me to find the relevant part! Explain why it's relevant. I just spent 20 minutes reading that paper ಠ_ಠ and I see no evidence to support the argument. The paper I linked to by the same author explicitly contradicts it: >The tendency of Europeans and their descendants to be fearful of spiders does not seem to be shared by people in many non-European cultures, and this is not consistent with those evolutionary accounts of spider fear which suggest that spider fear should be a common feature of the human gene pool regardless of culture (e.g. Seligman, 1971). However, it is consistent with the present thesis which argues that spider fear developed as a result of the association between spiders and disease in Europe after the tenth century
  - ceejayoz 13y ago
    Say [Detailed Sourced Explanation Needed] rather than [Citation Needed], then.
    - rm999 13y ago
      It's not a real citation if it doesn't support the point. Linking to a paper and hoping people believe it supports you because it's a paper is poor form. I expect people to be able to analyze their citations - that's pretty standard practice.
      - saraid216 13y ago
        http://arno.unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fid=2382 http://arno.unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fid=2382 I googled for the paper title and this was the second result. It's just a scan, but it's readable.

by rm999 13y ago

PeterWhittaker 13y ago

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000579679800059X http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005796798...

rm999 13y ago
You can't just link to a paper (behind a pay-wall, of all things) and expect me to find the relevant part! Explain why it's relevant. I just spent 20 minutes reading that paper ಠ_ಠ and I see no evidence to support the argument. The paper I linked to by the same author explicitly contradicts it: >The tendency of Europeans and their descendants to be fearful of spiders does not seem to be shared by people in many non-European cultures, and this is not consistent with those evolutionary accounts of spider fear which suggest that spider fear should be a common feature of the human gene pool regardless of culture (e.g. Seligman, 1971). However, it is consistent with the present thesis which argues that spider fear developed as a result of the association between spiders and disease in Europe after the tenth century
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  Say [Detailed Sourced Explanation Needed] rather than [Citation Needed], then.
  - rm999 13y ago
    It's not a real citation if it doesn't support the point. Linking to a paper and hoping people believe it supports you because it's a paper is poor form. I expect people to be able to analyze their citations - that's pretty standard practice.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      http://arno.unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fid=2382 http://arno.unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fid=2382 I googled for the paper title and this was the second result. It's just a scan, but it's readable.