Rachel haircut.

I think maybe you need to send Greg to beauty school. That's cute as all hell, though.

Rachel haircut.

HaHa...that was my initial reaction too.

She just got back from auditioning for Furry Friends.

Director: "You got a lot of style, babe, but I gotta be honest with you: you're just showing too much skin."

Hah, Daghain. I'm home now. And I do like that he brought her brush back -- unused!

Like she's trying to look sultry. You back to slut-shaming your dog?

Amy, I had a question, are there any evo-psych papers which prove that the adaptations in traits, any one for this example, can be causally linked to genes? I ask this because a common criticism of evo-psych research is that the causality is never proven, leaving the hypothesis a just-so story. Also that evo-psych studies are poorly done given that they use samples that are poorly representative. Given my decades long perusal of the evolutionary psychology literature and contradicting findings in more well-vetted fields like genetics, evolutionary biology, and many other related and interconnected fields, I would say that the above contentions are true. But I would love to hear an answer to that from an evo-psych academic. Love your book, btw!

https://evolution-institute.org/article/evolutionary-psychology-is-neither/

There's also this comment by highly regarded geneticist and polymath Greg Cochran https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/12/21/the-inexorable-progress-of-science-psychology/

@James Barrett

You are right, evo-psych currently is a broken field, what I mean is that most of the research you'll find in the field is pretty terribly conducted. The field has rather low standards but it has some insights, however. I follow Amy for the advice, anyway, not the science, which is shoddy.

Evo-psych was much better in E. O. Wilson's day, when it was still called sociobiology.

Ahilan, that is my view as well, as I expressed. But Amy claims that evo-psych has proven causal link between genes and adaptations in certain traits, so if that's actually true, then perhaps evo-psych has some future. Otherwise the field is deserving of all the criticism it routinely gets, from essentially every serious academic who isn't an evolutionary psychologist.

But no matter, I'm waiting for Amy's response for that. (I really loved the book, just to say again!)

She really is a glamorous looking little dog. Love the pictures you post of her.

Hi there! My name is Jasper and I would like to meet you at the park.

http://www.adweek.com/fishbowldc/danas-doggies-style-dana-perino/89707

Love her dog. He's a Viszla. They're beautiful and spirited. Similar in playful spirit to Aida.

And thank you, Nina!

This is not a post about evolutionary psych and I'm not going to respond here about it. I will say that the wild generalizing that the entire field is shit says more about the person saying it than about the field.

I have a column to finish a day early, which is why I woke up at 5am today.

And really, I don't appreciate finding these off-topic turds here. This is a post about my dog.

I thought you were a science blogger, Amy? Do you follow any other science bloggers, like John Derbyshire, Steve Sailer, or Ken Weiss? Whenever you ask a question about science, no matter what the content of the actual post, they answer it. You focus on evolutionary psychology, so if someone asks a question about that field, it's best to answer it. It's a custom of science blogs for more than a decade now. And economics blogs too, AFAIK.

"so if someone asks a question about that field, it's best to answer it"

Apparently no one here actually works for you, Jim.