Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

Evolutionary psychology

Page 3 of 4 [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

30 Jul 2013, 8:29 pm

Verdandi wrote:
^^^^^

Some people will believe anything, so long as it confirms their biases.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 99,00.html

http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/hyde.pdf

Has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with the fact that you're spouting some bad science there, and that evo psychi is often execrable science because it is unfalsifiable.

Also:

http://schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/neurosexism/


Your links do not take into consideration that elementary schools and high schools use a model that are better suited at girls than at boys. It's a well known fact that men can solve both geometric tasks and equations quicker than women, but that women are better at remembering formulas than men. Nobody claimed that the differences were big, but they are there.

As far as biases go, those who believe that the media decides everything about what's attractive, gender roles, and so on, are much more likely to be driven by biases. The media didn't just one day decide that hereafter, all men had to like women who were feminine and fertile, all women should be good at empathy and all men should be good with tools. Studies on both monkeys and apes have shown the same differences there.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... fhoD20QjhQ



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

31 Jul 2013, 1:59 am

I think the proof for what is inherited and what is cultural is on everybody that makes claims, which includes sociology. Today there are ridiculous requirements on evo psych and ethology, and basically none on sociology and feminists that can present just-so-stories for anything they like without being questioned. Sociology and feminists love to refer to neurodiversity as evidence for their claims: See this neurodiverse that has atypical gender behaviors. This proves it is cultural (as we already excluded the possibility that neurodiversity itself is biological).



omegatyrant
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 26 Oct 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 50

31 Jul 2013, 8:06 am

Kurgan wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
^^^^^

Some people will believe anything, so long as it confirms their biases.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 99,00.html

http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/hyde.pdf

Has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with the fact that you're spouting some bad science there, and that evo psychi is often execrable science because it is unfalsifiable.

Also:

http://schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/neurosexism/


Your links do not take into consideration that elementary schools and high schools use a model that are better suited at girls than at boys. It's a well known fact that men can solve both geometric tasks and equations quicker than women, but that women are better at remembering formulas than men. Nobody claimed that the differences were big, but they are there.

As far as biases go, those who believe that the media decides everything about what's attractive, gender roles, and so on, are much more likely to be driven by biases. The media didn't just one day decide that hereafter, all men had to like women who were feminine and fertile, all women should be good at empathy and all men should be good with tools. Studies on both monkeys and apes have shown the same differences there.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... fhoD20QjhQ


Not everyone who doesn't believe in EvoPsych is a media brainwashed moron. Am I sensing your own bias at work here?



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

31 Jul 2013, 8:15 am

Kurgan wrote:


f**k political correctness; we share 98.6% of our DNA with chimpanzees.


I have no problem comparing humans to chimpanzees.

I just require that the person doing the comparing has a good understanding of how chimps ACTUALLY behave, and isn't just cherry-picking details to support their biases.

The over-simplified and cartoonish depictions of non-human primate behavior utilized by wanna-be "evolutionary psychologists" bears little resemblance to empirical data and observations gathered by experts who have spent years in the field with these animals.

F**k making bitter male virgins feel better about their lack of appeal to the opposite sex.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


greyjay
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 58

31 Jul 2013, 9:04 am

Quote:
A lot of our behaviours can be exolained by evolutionary psychology...

...f**k political correctness; we share 98.6% of our DNA with chimpanzees.


A lot of the behaviour that I have seen evo-psych present as "human universals" in regards to gender norms, beauty standards, excetera, does not hold true cross culturally. Much of what I have read is based on a poor understanding of animal or primate behaviour and an even poorer and highly stereotyped view of how hunter gatherer economies function.

We also share 98.6% of our DNA with bonobos, the fact of which has no bearing on the validity of evo-psych as a science.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

31 Jul 2013, 11:39 am

XFilesGeek wrote:
Kurgan wrote:


f**k political correctness; we share 98.6% of our DNA with chimpanzees.


I have no problem comparing humans to chimpanzees.

I just require that the person doing the comparing has a good understanding of how chimps ACTUALLY behave, and isn't just cherry-picking details to support their biases.

The over-simplified and cartoonish depictions of non-human primate behavior utilized by wanna-be "evolutionary psychologists" bears little resemblance to empirical data and observations gathered by experts who have spent years in the field with these animals.

F**k making bitter male virgins feel better about their lack of appeal to the opposite sex.


I'm neither bitter, nor a virgin—and I seem to have a higher sex appeal when the girl is ovulating; I'll happily admit that I don't have much to offer in terms of a relationship at the present time, though (Guess what? Unlike some people here, I accept responsibility for this and DO NOT blame the patriarchy or the matriarchy). Claiming that humans are not fundamentally different from other mammals in most aspects and that we're still governed a lot by instincts, has nothing to do with what state of mood a person is in or if he's ever gotten his d!ck wet.

Seems to me like you're using weasel words like "empirical data" to counter something when you do not have any data to back up your claims. Chimpanzees have some differences from humans (they don't have any problems with rape, paedophilia or incest, for instance), but also a lot of similarities, such as an intuitive understanding of taboo, altruism, grief, rituals, bargaining and different cultures across different tribes. Another signifiant difference, is that the gender dimorphism is a lot smaller in chimpanzees. If we apply Occam's razor to all of this, then it's fairly obvious that a lot of our behaviours are hardwired into our mindsets.

If you fall short on some expectations, it's not necessarily because of social constructs, pressure, the media and so on.



littlebee
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,338

31 Jul 2013, 12:14 pm

Jayo wrote:
I see evo psych as relevant to Aspergers, in the sense that we are victims of it, so to speak.
Dr. Tony Atwood recently referred to Aspies as "prey animals", and in the evo psych context, he is fairly accurate.
Not just in terms of bullying and harassment based on their inherent differences, but also...since few Aspies become successful with the opposite sex and produce offspring, and their traits generally repel potential mates rather than attract them.

Fascinating in how this tries to pinpoint and categorize in a way that is not practical; This is because there are at least two different kinds of aspies and probably more.. Some look different having noticeable features which I would describe as more rounded...it is observable and recognizable and others are not discernible from the general population in that the features are more classically formed, though who is to say what beauty is? I think certain traits in the latter group were and are actually designed to help this group survive and did succeed in doing so. To place both of these groups together and then to try to figure it out from this angle makes not too much sense.

And is there an environmental aspect? Of course. The evolutionary psych idea is ridiculous.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

31 Jul 2013, 2:13 pm

Kurgan wrote:
Your links do not take into consideration that elementary schools and high schools use a model that are better suited at girls than at boys. It's a well known fact that men can solve both geometric tasks and equations quicker than women, but that women are better at remembering formulas than men. Nobody claimed that the differences were big, but they are there.


Of course. When education and society are firmly focused on benefiting men over women and keeping women in inferior roles, then we see a totally true distribution of male vs. female aptitudes, but when women start defying those aptitudes, then it's all social engineering. There is nothing wrong with such analysis at all.

(the above paragraph was completely sarcastic)

Quote:
As far as biases go, those who believe that the media decides everything about what's attractive, gender roles, and so on, are much more likely to be driven by biases. The media didn't just one day decide that hereafter, all men had to like women who were feminine and fertile, all women should be good at empathy and all men should be good with tools. Studies on both monkeys and apes have shown the same differences there.


Everyone is likely to be driven by biases, not just the people with whom you disagree.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

31 Jul 2013, 2:20 pm

Kurgan wrote:
Seems to me like you're using weasel words like "empirical data"


Yeah, I think this says it all. When you are given data to back up claims, you throw out another just so story to dismiss it.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

31 Jul 2013, 2:24 pm

rdos wrote:
I think the proof for what is inherited and what is cultural is on everybody that makes claims, which includes sociology. Today there are ridiculous requirements on evo psych and ethology, and basically none on sociology and feminists that can present just-so-stories for anything they like without being questioned. Sociology and feminists love to refer to neurodiversity as evidence for their claims: See this neurodiverse that has atypical gender behaviors. This proves it is cultural (as we already excluded the possibility that neurodiversity itself is biological).


This is a straw man.

Also, given what I've seen published under the label of evolutionary psychology, I would agree that there are ridiculous requirements: Ridiculously lax requirements. This stuff is basically unfalsifiable but some people actually treat it like real science. Ludicrous.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

31 Jul 2013, 2:30 pm

Verdandi wrote:
Of course. When education and society are firmly focused on benefiting men over women and keeping women in inferior roles, then we see a totally true distribution of male vs. female aptitudes, but when women start defying those aptitudes, then it's all social engineering. There is nothing wrong with such analysis at all.


Numerous studies have been conducted here. While it's a much bigger problem in the EU/EEA nations than it is in the US, the problem is present there as well.

http://www.livescience.com/4163-johnny- ... girls.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion ... 6541480888
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... girls.html

I'm all for female engineers and male pre-school teachers, but it's not gonna change the fact that the genders have differences.

Quote:
Everyone is likely to be driven by biases, not just the people with whom you disagree.


This is true. However, people who instantly write off simple and natural explanations for human behaviour are probably just out to blame someone for not having enough estrogen to have a hourglass shaped body, not enough testosterone for a V-shaped torso or not a good enough education to be a manager for Halliburton.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

31 Jul 2013, 2:35 pm

Verdandi wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Seems to me like you're using weasel words like "empirical data"


Yeah, I think this says it all. When you are given data to back up claims, you throw out another just so story to dismiss it.


I wasn't given any empirical data. Anyone can find an essay written by someone by using Google and thus use the "argument from authority" fallacy. I've never denied that there are social constructs around us, but many significant aspects of our lives are determined by Mother Nature herself.



TheHaywire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 531

03 Aug 2013, 12:28 pm

What's funny is that people actually pretend to believe this nonsense because they don't want to to get accused of being Politically Correct. It seems like PC is the new un-PC.

If you think evo-psych is nonsense, it is clearly because you are an anti-scientific liberal with an egalitarian agenda. You couldn't possibly view it as futile because you realize it is downright incorrect, unless applied only to neurotypicals.

Love it.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

03 Aug 2013, 6:42 pm

TheHaywire wrote:
What's funny is that people actually pretend to believe this nonsense because they don't want to to get accused of being Politically Correct. It seems like PC is the new un-PC.

If you think evo-psych is nonsense, it is clearly because you are an anti-scientific liberal with an egalitarian agenda. You couldn't possibly view it as futile because you realize it is downright incorrect, unless applied only to neurotypicals.

Love it.


The belief that humans are fundamentally different than animals in most aspects, is as out-of-date as Windows 3.1. If you think evopsych is nonsense, you do not understand it well enough. It can't be a coincidence that men prefer the most fertile and healthy women, the people of every race, religion and age are hell bent on climbing the pecking order, that people will readily submit themselves to a strong leader who's really full of sh!t (Hitler and Lenin are grade A examples) and so on. Even stuff that's controlled by the media, is still rooted in our instincts.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

03 Aug 2013, 7:58 pm

Finding evolutionary psychology's unfalsifiable just so story explanations for human behavior to be dodgy and unscientific does not have anything to do with the false notion that humans are fundamentally different from animals. Clearly, we're not. Just as clearly, much of evo psycho is predicated on assumptions about human behavior and it seems that it fails at parsimony as well as falsifiability. There's little to separate much evo psych from creationism as far as the scientific method goes.

Plus the fact that you had to make excuses for why data that disagrees with your beliefs must be false or the result of social engineering or some other factor that makes it somehow less true.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

04 Aug 2013, 9:30 am

Verdandi wrote:
Finding evolutionary psychology's unfalsifiable just so story explanations for human behavior to be dodgy and unscientific does not have anything to do with the false notion that humans are fundamentally different from animals. Clearly, we're not. Just as clearly, much of evo psycho is predicated on assumptions about human behavior and it seems that it fails at parsimony as well as falsifiability. There's little to separate much evo psych from creationism as far as the scientific method goes.

Plus the fact that you had to make excuses for why data that disagrees with your beliefs must be false or the result of social engineering or some other factor that makes it somehow less true.


You cannot prove a negative, so pretty much any interesting theory is unfalsifiable. To prove someting wrong, you need something that explains the situation better than the theory you want to dismis. As of 2013, at roughly 4000 years of medical science and 2500 years of evolutionary biology, evo psych still explains everything the best way.