There is problems in the methodology. As well as Modularity of Mind which it depends on. It is not because it is perceived to be offensive that it should be discarded. I agree with you on this account. It is because it is horrible science. Go read Jesse J Prinz. A plurality of views is good. I got them during my undergrad in psych, I can assure you there is only one in the EP paradigm.
The evolutionary explanation of sex differences in sexual behavior EXPLAINS the cultural stud/slut double standard, which is useful in undermining its moral force. If we can explain to people why we tend to lack respect for promiscuous women in evolutionary terms (i.e. they were poor long term mates because its hard to know who the father of there babies are), we can show that there's nothing inherently WRONG with female promiscuity. Rather, its wrongness is an illusion programed by evolution.
I wholeheartedly agree with this video. I've worked in the human and social services field for 20 years and have felt like something was missing in the interpretation of behavior. After studying evolutionary psychology, I finally feel like there is an answer.
I agree "it's a challenge in communication". I think part of the problem is that not enough people have a reasonable grasp of Evolutionary Psychology and so they fall back on easy assumptions, or gross exaggerations that EP is "deterministic" or "reductionist" or wishes to justify racism/ sexism etc. This is a tremendous shame because that is not EP's aim.
Also to paraphrase David Buss (2005): 'Everyone will find something offensive about EP.' But being offensive does not make it untrue.
Mainly I'm referring to the unique capacity in humans to disobey our genes commands through some kind of moral system or sorts.
A decent example would be in the movie The Good Son, where the mother chooses to let her son (an evil McCauley Culkan) die, over her nephew. In this case the self-preservation of her genes (selfishness) was trumped by the fact that her son was a sadistic little bastard who deserved to die.
Well I'm a student at the moment, so fortunately the Mohawk is not exclusive to the study of evolutionary psych or any other subject I've found so far. As for the hands free head set, we all do the best with what we have.
Do you have anything to comment on regarding the content of the video sir?
The great irony is that while evo-psych is passing itself off as science, there are other writers who seem to be encouraging domestic violence or adultery who pass their work off as religion.
You state that the books on violence and rape and adultery that are labeled evo-psych are easily misinterpreted by non-scientists.
That's yet another reason why it's a problem that evo-psych authors try to give their work a scientific sheen.
If some obscure genre of essays lead some to commit to rape and/or adultery, then it makes sense for the authors to write prefaces that mention impulse control at least in passing in order to try to counteract that effect.
Evolutionary psychology is not a normative endeavour, it simply seeks to explain the origins of some of our behaviours in evolutionary terms. How John Q. Public acts in response to this body of work is of little importance.
What exactly compels you to label evolutionary psychology as a pseudo-science? Do you doubt that some of our behaviours and "drives" are inherited? Why not attempt to elucidate the reasons as to why certain behavioural traits were selected for?
The pursuit of "truth" should not be impeded by the potential reactions of lay people, it's a non-issue.
Someone who was a potential rapist who hadn't gotten around to raping anybody yet who reads a few evolutionary psychology books and finds out that rape is a perfectly natural expression of masculinity.
I'm someone who believes in science and believes in academia.
I believe in the First Amendment. I am not for censoring pseudoscience. But it's important for us civilians to understand the difference.
Scientists don't -know- anything about the innermost thoughts of cavemen. They're all dead. They can't be interviewed. All we can do is stare at a few cave paintings and . . .
speculate.
Evolutionary psychology is pure speculation. Not science.
In other words, it -isn't- a branch of evolutionary theory any more than a Breitling Winderider Chronomat Evolution is a branch of evolution. It's a men's watch that happens to have the word 'evolution' in the name.
Do you reject all proposed evolutionary pathways for this same reason?
It sounds to me that you have problems with the methodology employed by evolutionary psychologists, but do you reject the underlying proposition that much of our basic behaviour (social behaviour including altruism, the sexual drive, motherhood instinct, facial expressions, etc.) is inherited and was originally selected for as it improved inclusive fitness?
On the political perspective, a lot of men behave in very primitive ways. They have the power, thank God, to pause when they have what seems to be a very primitive impulse and just sit and think about everything until they come up with a better approach.
I think that's true of any man who is mentally competent.
Evolutionary psychology tends to argue the opposite: that we don't. And what's worse, many evo-psych authors (not all) even argue or imply that we shouldn't even try.
If I say men are animals, that's indisputably true.
If I say men are animals in the colloquial sense, that's not true. Some behave badly; some don't.
I'm fascinated by why we behave the way we do and it's very easy for me or -anyone- to speculate about how living in the woods and killing animals with pointy sticks might make us the way we are psychologically.
There is problems in the methodology. As well as Modularity of Mind which it depends on. It is not because it is perceived to be offensive that it should be discarded. I agree with you on this account. It is because it is horrible science. Go read Jesse J Prinz. A plurality of views is good. I got them during my undergrad in psych, I can assure you there is only one in the EP paradigm.
burnthesystem11 4 days ago
The evolutionary explanation of sex differences in sexual behavior EXPLAINS the cultural stud/slut double standard, which is useful in undermining its moral force. If we can explain to people why we tend to lack respect for promiscuous women in evolutionary terms (i.e. they were poor long term mates because its hard to know who the father of there babies are), we can show that there's nothing inherently WRONG with female promiscuity. Rather, its wrongness is an illusion programed by evolution.
ianw19 5 months ago
I wholeheartedly agree with this video. I've worked in the human and social services field for 20 years and have felt like something was missing in the interpretation of behavior. After studying evolutionary psychology, I finally feel like there is an answer.
LaRock1969 2 years ago
I agree "it's a challenge in communication". I think part of the problem is that not enough people have a reasonable grasp of Evolutionary Psychology and so they fall back on easy assumptions, or gross exaggerations that EP is "deterministic" or "reductionist" or wishes to justify racism/ sexism etc. This is a tremendous shame because that is not EP's aim.
Also to paraphrase David Buss (2005): 'Everyone will find something offensive about EP.' But being offensive does not make it untrue.
NickAlexanderFirth 2 years ago 3
go to hell selfish genes!
TheObnubilators 2 years ago
Um, care to qualify that?
Keylimedelight 2 years ago
I'll assume that you mean clarify, not qualify.
Mainly I'm referring to the unique capacity in humans to disobey our genes commands through some kind of moral system or sorts.
A decent example would be in the movie The Good Son, where the mother chooses to let her son (an evil McCauley Culkan) die, over her nephew. In this case the self-preservation of her genes (selfishness) was trumped by the fact that her son was a sadistic little bastard who deserved to die.
TheObnubilators 2 years ago
I'm not entirely sure if I misrepresented this at all. I'm sort of new to the idea of the selfish gene. If anyone can correct me, please do.
TheObnubilators 2 years ago
Are you a telemarketer by trade?
PeeGeeBeeDee 2 years ago
Um, no. why do you ask? does my mellow voice drive you to crave material goods?
Keylimedelight 2 years ago
Well, whatever you are by trade you should stick to because evolutionary psychology is not your cup of tea.
PeeGeeBeeDee 2 years ago
Do you have something in particular you'd like to criticize? I'm curious about what i said that would give you that impression.
Keylimedelight 2 years ago
It's the hands free headset and mowhawk that I'm having a problem with.
PeeGeeBeeDee 2 years ago
Well I'm a student at the moment, so fortunately the Mohawk is not exclusive to the study of evolutionary psych or any other subject I've found so far. As for the hands free head set, we all do the best with what we have.
Do you have anything to comment on regarding the content of the video sir?
Keylimedelight 2 years ago
I don't like the backdrop. You might want to add a little more pizazz to it like Drew did.
PeeGeeBeeDee 2 years ago
It's more advantageous for women to be promiscuous in polygamous societies, but more advantages for men to be promiscuous in monogamous societies.
biglmac 2 years ago
True.
Keylimedelight 2 years ago
lmao. nice.
NumOneZero 2 years ago
I'm grouchy about this because I care about people. And I want them all to get along better with one another.
That's all.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
I guess another danger is domestic violence.
The great irony is that while evo-psych is passing itself off as science, there are other writers who seem to be encouraging domestic violence or adultery who pass their work off as religion.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
You state that the books on violence and rape and adultery that are labeled evo-psych are easily misinterpreted by non-scientists.
That's yet another reason why it's a problem that evo-psych authors try to give their work a scientific sheen.
If some obscure genre of essays lead some to commit to rape and/or adultery, then it makes sense for the authors to write prefaces that mention impulse control at least in passing in order to try to counteract that effect.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Evolutionary psychology is not a normative endeavour, it simply seeks to explain the origins of some of our behaviours in evolutionary terms. How John Q. Public acts in response to this body of work is of little importance.
gunman806 2 years ago
If people run around raping their girlfriends, that doesn't have any impact on you??
I'm saying both. I'm saying it's harmful to relations between men and women AND it's phony pseudoscience.
Where's the good part? EP is fun and damaging to everyone it touches and useless. Like a combination of crack and heroin.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
What exactly compels you to label evolutionary psychology as a pseudo-science? Do you doubt that some of our behaviours and "drives" are inherited? Why not attempt to elucidate the reasons as to why certain behavioural traits were selected for?
The pursuit of "truth" should not be impeded by the potential reactions of lay people, it's a non-issue.
gunman806 2 years ago
You're probably exaggerating, but what sort of a person would start raping and pillaging in response to a branch of evolutionary theory?
gunman806 2 years ago
Someone who was a potential rapist who hadn't gotten around to raping anybody yet who reads a few evolutionary psychology books and finds out that rape is a perfectly natural expression of masculinity.
I'm someone who believes in science and believes in academia.
I believe in the First Amendment. I am not for censoring pseudoscience. But it's important for us civilians to understand the difference.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
You've evaded my first query. Please elaborate on your claim that evolutionary psychology is a pseudo-science.
You continue to confuse description for prescription.
gunman806 2 years ago
hear hear.
Keylimedelight 2 years ago
Scientists don't -know- anything about the innermost thoughts of cavemen. They're all dead. They can't be interviewed. All we can do is stare at a few cave paintings and . . .
speculate.
Evolutionary psychology is pure speculation. Not science.
In other words, it -isn't- a branch of evolutionary theory any more than a Breitling Winderider Chronomat Evolution is a branch of evolution. It's a men's watch that happens to have the word 'evolution' in the name.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Do you reject all proposed evolutionary pathways for this same reason?
It sounds to me that you have problems with the methodology employed by evolutionary psychologists, but do you reject the underlying proposition that much of our basic behaviour (social behaviour including altruism, the sexual drive, motherhood instinct, facial expressions, etc.) is inherited and was originally selected for as it improved inclusive fitness?
gunman806 2 years ago
On the political perspective, a lot of men behave in very primitive ways. They have the power, thank God, to pause when they have what seems to be a very primitive impulse and just sit and think about everything until they come up with a better approach.
I think that's true of any man who is mentally competent.
Evolutionary psychology tends to argue the opposite: that we don't. And what's worse, many evo-psych authors (not all) even argue or imply that we shouldn't even try.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
If I say men are animals, that's indisputably true.
If I say men are animals in the colloquial sense, that's not true. Some behave badly; some don't.
I'm fascinated by why we behave the way we do and it's very easy for me or -anyone- to speculate about how living in the woods and killing animals with pointy sticks might make us the way we are psychologically.
It's just not science.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
But if you use logic to reach the conclusion that cavemen were more promiscuous than cave women in the EA . . .
that's not science.
That's just taking what's known (gestation) and using it to make a guess about human behavior one million years ago.
Logic is great. But that's not how a -scientist- gathers evidence or proves or disproves a working hypothesis.
That example is just idle speculation.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago