If animal behaviors have an evolutionary basis, which is undisputed, why does that not offer an incredibly strong argument for some human behavior having an evolutionary basis? If we acknowledge that, why is the study of it not a valid field?
Because it is not politically correct to use evolutionary science to explain the behavioral differences between men and women.
I mean, you know how tremendous whores people are about gender issues and whatnot.
If animal behaviors have an evolutionary basis, which is undisputed, why does that not offer an incredibly strong argument for some human behavior having an evolutionary basis? If we acknowledge that, why is the study of it not a valid field?
Because it is not politically correct to use evolutionary science to explain the behavioral differences between men and women.
I mean, you know how tremendous whores people are about gender issues and whatnot.
You're a goddamned idiot if you think that childishly simplistic analysis is the problem here. Go back and read the thread again.
Being underwieght is pretty dangerous too. Trouble is it's much more diffuclt ot be 30 pounds underweight than 30 pounds overweight in the US. Eating feels good even if its shitty food. Starving never feels good unless you're anorexic.
If animal behaviors have an evolutionary basis, which is undisputed, why does that not offer an incredibly strong argument for some human behavior having an evolutionary basis? If we acknowledge that, why is the study of it not a valid field?
Because it is not politically correct to use evolutionary science to explain the behavioral differences between men and women.
I mean, you know how tremendous whores people are about gender issues and whatnot.
Once again, you start with a hypothesis but you don't set out to prove it true. There is an actual and significant difference between seeking the answer to a question and seeking to prove your opinion is truth. You don't get to go "oh, well since it's impossible to control for X, we'll just decide that X has no effect". That's not the way science works.
If animal behaviors have an evolutionary basis, which is undisputed, why does that not offer an incredibly strong argument for some human behavior having an evolutionary basis? If we acknowledge that, why is the study of it not a valid field?
Because it is not politically correct to use evolutionary science to explain the behavioral differences between men and women.
I mean, you know how tremendous whores people are about gender issues and whatnot.
You're a goddamned idiot if you think that childishly simplistic analysis is the problem here. Go back and read the thread again.
Gonna have to agree with the Cat here.
There have been tremendous problems with the way Evo Psych has been approached ever since it developed.
I'm just saying, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it.
If animal behaviors have an evolutionary basis, which is undisputed, why does that not offer an incredibly strong argument for some human behavior having an evolutionary basis? If we acknowledge that, why is the study of it not a valid field?
Because it is not politically correct to use evolutionary science to explain the behavioral differences between men and women.
I mean, you know how tremendous whores people are about gender issues and whatnot.
You're a goddamned idiot if you think that childishly simplistic analysis is the problem here. Go back and read the thread again.
Oh, it sure is the problem. edit: at least a very big part of it.
I mean, we all know and accept that science makes mistakes sometimes. But the problem isn't that the conclusion "women like purses because purses weigh similar to babies" is myopic and wrong. The problem is that it is politically incorrect. That is why people -- women especially -- hate evolutionary psychology with a passion.
MikeMan's question stands: animal behavior has an evolutionary basis. Why shouldn't human behavior?
that's because most Evol pysch is , as I said before, a relacement for armchair Anthopology. You know the stuff where stuffy gentlemen from Enlgand sat around theorizing why the darkies were poor when they had never actually met a black person? Yeah that kinda stuff.
Read that article closely. There's no study, no tests, no concrete evidence. It's total speculation.
Nobody's saying pyschology isn't influenced by evolution. Just taking exception to vague notions being presented as science.
If animal behaviors have an evolutionary basis, which is undisputed, why does that not offer an incredibly strong argument for some human behavior having an evolutionary basis? If we acknowledge that, why is the study of it not a valid field?
Because it is not politically correct to use evolutionary science to explain the behavioral differences between men and women.
I mean, you know how tremendous whores people are about gender issues and whatnot.
You're a goddamned idiot if you think that childishly simplistic analysis is the problem here. Go back and read the thread again.
Oh, it sure is the problem.
I mean, we all know and accept that science makes mistakes sometimes. But the problem isn't that the conclusion "women like purses because purses weigh similar to babies" is myopic and wrong. The problem is that it is politically incorrect. That is why people -- women especially -- hate evolutionary psychology with a passion.
Have you controlled for X yet? Because I don't want to hear another word from you until you control for X. As without controlling for X, your claim is bunk, because in reality the problem with evo-psych in the specific cases you reference here is that X cannot be controlled for, ergo it's all groundless speculation trying to pass itself off as science.
God, you're a retard. The conclusion is false because its blatantly idiotic stereotyping reliant on a western cultural prop that's only been in common use for a few decades. FFS, giant handbags only came back into fashion like a year ago. Handbags themselves are a recent invention as far as women's fashion goes. And I"m not even touching the notion that women are all so desperate to have an infant hanging off them that they'll latch on to random substitutes for comfort. God almighty, do you enjoy being considered a dolt?
If animal behaviors have an evolutionary basis, which is undisputed, why does that not offer an incredibly strong argument for some human behavior having an evolutionary basis? If we acknowledge that, why is the study of it not a valid field?
Because it is not politically correct to use evolutionary science to explain the behavioral differences between men and women.
I mean, you know how tremendous whores people are about gender issues and whatnot.
You're a goddamned idiot if you think that childishly simplistic analysis is the problem here. Go back and read the thread again.
Oh, it sure is the problem.
I mean, we all know and accept that science makes mistakes sometimes. But the problem isn't that the conclusion "women like purses because purses weigh similar to babies" is myopic and wrong. The problem is that it is politically incorrect. That is why people -- women especially -- hate evolutionary psychology with a passion.
MikeMan's question stands: animal behavior has an evolutionary basis. Why shouldn't human behavior?
No, the problem with that purses thing is it's an example of exactly what I was lamenting: crackpot shit that gives the field a bad name. That's an inane study and an inane conclusion for a whole wealth of reasons, not the least of which is what about the cultures where women don't carry around small things constantly?
And what woman carries a purse like she carries a baby? Who slings a baby around their shoulder?
What purses indicate, and this is blindingly obvious, is that in many modern cultures fashion has lead to women not having as many pockets and needing to carry makeup and other things much more than men. What started as a necessity born of inequal gender expectations has turned into a fashion statement. A purse is another thing to show off, like an iPhone or whatever.
That study is idiotic.
MikeMan on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
If animal behaviors have an evolutionary basis, which is undisputed, why does that not offer an incredibly strong argument for some human behavior having an evolutionary basis? If we acknowledge that, why is the study of it not a valid field?
Because it is not politically correct to use evolutionary science to explain the behavioral differences between men and women.
I mean, you know how tremendous whores people are about gender issues and whatnot.
You're a goddamned idiot if you think that childishly simplistic analysis is the problem here. Go back and read the thread again.
Oh, it sure is the problem. edit: at least a very big part of it.
I mean, we all know and accept that science makes mistakes sometimes. But the problem isn't that the conclusion "women like purses because purses weigh similar to babies" is myopic and wrong. The problem is that it is politically incorrect. That is why people -- women especially -- hate evolutionary psychology with a passion.
MikeMan's question stands: animal behavior has an evolutionary basis. Why shouldn't human behavior?
No, that would be why it's bad and people, especially scientists, don't like it. Wrong things are bad in science, in case you couldn't tell.
As for Human behavior, it does have some evolutionary basises, but to find it, you have to have an objective experiment, and we haven't had one of those on evolutionary human behavior yet. If it doesn't have a good scientific method, it isn't scientific, and it should in no way be considered valid or correct.
Edit: Also, generalizations are bad too, and another reason why this sort of thing has trouble getting of the ground.
If evo psych suggested that men like briefcases because they weigh similar to clubs, I don't think it would generate near as much controversy as the purse thing.
If evo psych suggested that men like briefcases because they weigh similar to clubs, I don't think it would generate near as much controversy as the purse thing.
See what I'm getting at here?
It would, because it's equally as stupid. And no, in this case, this is not a double standard thing.
Also, jesus christ, stop it. A crackpot does not = evo psych. "Evo psych" did not suggest the purse thing. An idiot did.
There is valid science in the Evo Psych field. Like a while back i read about a study where they shoed people computer generated images of women with exagerrated feminine traits. People were asked to judge which was most attractive in an attempt to weed out universal traits that men find attractive in women. Not a particularly fruitful study IIRC but still one approached as a real inquiry.
If evo psych suggested that men like briefcases because they weigh similar to clubs, I don't think it would generate near as much controversy as the purse thing.
Right because us dudes love being baselessly stereotyped. The ones about how we're all rapists deep down inside really do me proud. I know that neither myself nor any of the rest of us guys here would ever raise a ruckus over that kind of bullshit.
There is valid science in the Evo Psych field. Like a while back i read about a study where they shoed people computer generated images of women with exagerrated feminine traits. People were asked to judge which was most attractive in an attempt to weed out universal traits that men find attractive in women. Not a particularly fruitful study IIRC but still one approached as a real inquiry.
Forgive my complete idiocy in the subject, but surely that would only net you culturally relevent results.
If evo psych suggested that men like briefcases because they weigh similar to clubs, I don't think it would generate near as much controversy as the purse thing.
See what I'm getting at here?
Someone needs to turn this sequence of posts into another 'watch ege make a damn fool of himself' sig.
Seriously, how insecure are you by women questioning this stuff? Its pathetic.
There is valid science in the Evo Psych field. Like a while back i read about a study where they shoed people computer generated images of women with exagerrated feminine traits. People were asked to judge which was most attractive in an attempt to weed out universal traits that men find attractive in women. Not a particularly fruitful study IIRC but still one approached as a real inquiry.
Forgive my complete idiocy in the subject, but surely that would only net you culturally relevent results.
Unless they were using only feral adult humans for the experiment, yes, that is correct.
If evo psych suggested that men like briefcases because they weigh similar to clubs, I don't think it would generate near as much controversy as the purse thing.
See what I'm getting at here?
Someone needs to turn this sequence of posts into another 'watch ege make a damn fool of himself' sig.
Seriously, how insecure are you by women questioning this stuff? Its pathetic.
I don't have a problem with women questioning it.
I have a problem with women dismissing the entire field of evo psych because they didn't like a few things it suggested.
There is valid science in the Evo Psych field. Like a while back i read about a study where they shoed people computer generated images of women with exagerrated feminine traits. People were asked to judge which was most attractive in an attempt to weed out universal traits that men find attractive in women. Not a particularly fruitful study IIRC but still one approached as a real inquiry.
Forgive my complete idiocy in the subject, but surely that would only net you culturally relevent results.
Unless they were using only feral adult humans for the experiment, yes, that is correct.
Um, or they had hundreds of subjects from many, many different cultures.
There is valid science in the Evo Psych field. Like a while back i read about a study where they shoed people computer generated images of women with exagerrated feminine traits. People were asked to judge which was most attractive in an attempt to weed out universal traits that men find attractive in women. Not a particularly fruitful study IIRC but still one approached as a real inquiry.
Forgive my complete idiocy in the subject, but surely that would only net you culturally relevent results.
Unless they were using only feral adult humans for the experiment, yes, that is correct.
Um, or they had hundreds of subjects from many, many different cultures.
Including cultures that have never heard of Coca Cola?
If evo psych suggested that men like briefcases because they weigh similar to clubs, I don't think it would generate near as much controversy as the purse thing.
See what I'm getting at here?
Someone needs to turn this sequence of posts into another 'watch ege make a damn fool of himself' sig.
Seriously, how insecure are you by women questioning this stuff? Its pathetic.
I don't have a problem with women questioning it.
I have a problem with women dismissing the entire field of evo psych because they didn't like a few things it suggested.
Do you actually think people even listen to women whose argument against evo psych consists solely of "I don't like what it says", let alone that those particular stupid women hold overwhelming influence over the view the scientific community in general takes of particular fields of study?
There is valid science in the Evo Psych field. Like a while back i read about a study where they shoed people computer generated images of women with exagerrated feminine traits. People were asked to judge which was most attractive in an attempt to weed out universal traits that men find attractive in women. Not a particularly fruitful study IIRC but still one approached as a real inquiry.
Forgive my complete idiocy in the subject, but surely that would only net you culturally relevent results.
Unless they were using only feral adult humans for the experiment, yes, that is correct.
Um, or they had hundreds of subjects from many, many different cultures.
Including cultures that have never heard of Coca Cola?
If it's a good study, of course. Pygmies, Ebo, what have you. Are you deliberately trying to be dense, here? That's what would make a good study, by definition. Maybe your opinion of Evo Psych is such that they wouldn't dream of being so scientific, in your mind, but rest assured. Some are, your misconceptions about the field notwithstanding.
There is valid science in the Evo Psych field. Like a while back i read about a study where they shoed people computer generated images of women with exagerrated feminine traits. People were asked to judge which was most attractive in an attempt to weed out universal traits that men find attractive in women. Not a particularly fruitful study IIRC but still one approached as a real inquiry.
Forgive my complete idiocy in the subject, but surely that would only net you culturally relevent results.
Unless they were using only feral adult humans for the experiment, yes, that is correct.
Um, or they had hundreds of subjects from many, many different cultures.
Including cultures that have never heard of Coca Cola?
If it's a good study, of course. Pygmies, Ebo, what have you. Are you deliberately trying to be dense, here? That's what would make a good study, by definition. Maybe your opinion of Evo Psych is such that they wouldn't dream of being so scientific, in your mind, but rest assured. Some are, your misconceptions about the field notwithstanding.
Actually I'm more driving at the fact that it's not actually possible to completely isolate or negate culture as a variable without finding a culture that has had no contact with any other cultures.
There is valid science in the Evo Psych field. Like a while back i read about a study where they shoed people computer generated images of women with exagerrated feminine traits. People were asked to judge which was most attractive in an attempt to weed out universal traits that men find attractive in women. Not a particularly fruitful study IIRC but still one approached as a real inquiry.
Forgive my complete idiocy in the subject, but surely that would only net you culturally relevent results.
Unless they were using only feral adult humans for the experiment, yes, that is correct.
Um, or they had hundreds of subjects from many, many different cultures.
Including cultures that have never heard of Coca Cola?
If it's a good study, of course. Pygmies, Ebo, what have you. Are you deliberately trying to be dense, here? That's what would make a good study, by definition. Maybe your opinion of Evo Psych is such that they wouldn't dream of being so scientific, in your mind, but rest assured. Some are, your misconceptions about the field notwithstanding.
Yes, unfortunately doesn't that kinda mean that any evo-psych would need to have a similar sample selection. And there can't be that many pygmies around to go testing your work on. Which means very quickly you'll have a very biased sample selection.
Don't like? No, idiot, its because they're wrong. I dislike incorrect things. I'm sorry if that makes you sad.
Science in general is often incorrect.
SHOW ME WHERE SCIENCTIFIC STUDY IS INVOLVED HERE AT ALL
It's not bad science it's simply non-science. Science isn't some smart guy in a lab coat telling us stuff. It's a system of study that utilzes repeatable tests and conclusions drawn from them.
This is why I hate socialology in general getting treated like a a real science.
There is valid science in the Evo Psych field. Like a while back i read about a study where they shoed people computer generated images of women with exagerrated feminine traits. People were asked to judge which was most attractive in an attempt to weed out universal traits that men find attractive in women. Not a particularly fruitful study IIRC but still one approached as a real inquiry.
Forgive my complete idiocy in the subject, but surely that would only net you culturally relevent results.
Unless they were using only feral adult humans for the experiment, yes, that is correct.
Um, or they had hundreds of subjects from many, many different cultures.
Including cultures that have never heard of Coca Cola?
If it's a good study, of course. Pygmies, Ebo, what have you. Are you deliberately trying to be dense, here? That's what would make a good study, by definition. Maybe your opinion of Evo Psych is such that they wouldn't dream of being so scientific, in your mind, but rest assured. Some are, your misconceptions about the field notwithstanding.
Actually I'm more driving at the fact that it's not actually possible to completely isolate or negate culture as a variable without finding a culture that has had no contact with any other cultures.
Most everyone having heard of Coca Cola doesn't mean that there aren't radically different cultures all over the world. If you're going to sit here and tell me Pygmy culture is so similar to ours as to not be a sufficient control because they may have heard about Coca Cola, I'm afraid I don't know what to say.
If you find traits that are universal among all humans, it's a pretty safe bet that they evolved. Find a study big enough, and you can get a good idea of the former. The latter follows logically. We're not a single "monoculture" yet, American dominance notwithstanding. There is an incredible amount of diversity in the world, and an incredible amount of variety and ancient cultures.
Don't like? No, idiot, its because they're wrong. I dislike incorrect things. I'm sorry if that makes you sad.
Science in general is often incorrect.
That sentence doesn't actually even make sense. "Science" is a system. It is not the findings people reach by using that system. Evo psych falls under criticism for failing to employ that system, and you have displayed absolutely no conceptual grasp of it. This is probably why you are so convinced the whole fuss is just a symptom of PMS. In other words, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Don't like? No, idiot, its because they're wrong. I dislike incorrect things. I'm sorry if that makes you sad.
Science in general is often incorrect.
SHOW ME WHERE SCIENCTIFIC STUDY IS INVOLVED HERE AT ALL
It's not bad science it's simply non-science. Science isn't some smart guy in a lab coat telling us stuff. It's a system of study that utilzes repeatable tests and conclusions drawn from them.
This is why I hate socialology in general getting treated like a a real science.
Are you saying that evolutionary psychology as a field has never utilized the scientific method?
Because if there is even one case where it has, that means you cannot dismiss it as non-science.
I mean, you people are doing what you are accusing me of doing: you are generalizing. Sure, the claim in the OP is stupid pseudo-science, and so are many others, but the fact stands that evolutionary psychology as a field is far from bunk like many of you are suggesting.
Posts
Because it is not politically correct to use evolutionary science to explain the behavioral differences between men and women.
I mean, you know how tremendous whores people are about gender issues and whatnot.
You're a goddamned idiot if you think that childishly simplistic analysis is the problem here. Go back and read the thread again.
Once again, you start with a hypothesis but you don't set out to prove it true. There is an actual and significant difference between seeking the answer to a question and seeking to prove your opinion is truth. You don't get to go "oh, well since it's impossible to control for X, we'll just decide that X has no effect". That's not the way science works.
Gonna have to agree with the Cat here.
There have been tremendous problems with the way Evo Psych has been approached ever since it developed.
I'm just saying, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it.
Oh, it sure is the problem. edit: at least a very big part of it.
I mean, we all know and accept that science makes mistakes sometimes. But the problem isn't that the conclusion "women like purses because purses weigh similar to babies" is myopic and wrong. The problem is that it is politically incorrect. That is why people -- women especially -- hate evolutionary psychology with a passion.
MikeMan's question stands: animal behavior has an evolutionary basis. Why shouldn't human behavior?
Read that article closely. There's no study, no tests, no concrete evidence. It's total speculation.
Nobody's saying pyschology isn't influenced by evolution. Just taking exception to vague notions being presented as science.
Have you controlled for X yet? Because I don't want to hear another word from you until you control for X. As without controlling for X, your claim is bunk, because in reality the problem with evo-psych in the specific cases you reference here is that X cannot be controlled for, ergo it's all groundless speculation trying to pass itself off as science.
No, the problem with that purses thing is it's an example of exactly what I was lamenting: crackpot shit that gives the field a bad name. That's an inane study and an inane conclusion for a whole wealth of reasons, not the least of which is what about the cultures where women don't carry around small things constantly?
And what woman carries a purse like she carries a baby? Who slings a baby around their shoulder?
What purses indicate, and this is blindingly obvious, is that in many modern cultures fashion has lead to women not having as many pockets and needing to carry makeup and other things much more than men. What started as a necessity born of inequal gender expectations has turned into a fashion statement. A purse is another thing to show off, like an iPhone or whatever.
That study is idiotic.
No, that would be why it's bad and people, especially scientists, don't like it. Wrong things are bad in science, in case you couldn't tell.
As for Human behavior, it does have some evolutionary basises, but to find it, you have to have an objective experiment, and we haven't had one of those on evolutionary human behavior yet. If it doesn't have a good scientific method, it isn't scientific, and it should in no way be considered valid or correct.
Edit: Also, generalizations are bad too, and another reason why this sort of thing has trouble getting of the ground.
See what I'm getting at here?
Well, in fairness I'm not a woman and I despise children...
It would, because it's equally as stupid. And no, in this case, this is not a double standard thing.
Also, jesus christ, stop it. A crackpot does not = evo psych. "Evo psych" did not suggest the purse thing. An idiot did.
Right because us dudes love being baselessly stereotyped. The ones about how we're all rapists deep down inside really do me proud. I know that neither myself nor any of the rest of us guys here would ever raise a ruckus over that kind of bullshit.
Forgive my complete idiocy in the subject, but surely that would only net you culturally relevent results.
Someone needs to turn this sequence of posts into another 'watch ege make a damn fool of himself' sig.
Seriously, how insecure are you by women questioning this stuff? Its pathetic.
Unless they were using only feral adult humans for the experiment, yes, that is correct.
I don't have a problem with women questioning it.
I have a problem with women dismissing the entire field of evo psych because they didn't like a few things it suggested.
Um, or they had hundreds of subjects from many, many different cultures.
Including cultures that have never heard of Coca Cola?
Err...
http://ittibitti.com.au/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=86
Now, these are clearly inspired by slings used by African women to carry their children. African families are more likely to have more children and...
...fewer purses!
So where do I collect my Evo Psych doctorate?
Do you actually think people even listen to women whose argument against evo psych consists solely of "I don't like what it says", let alone that those particular stupid women hold overwhelming influence over the view the scientific community in general takes of particular fields of study?
If it's a good study, of course. Pygmies, Ebo, what have you. Are you deliberately trying to be dense, here? That's what would make a good study, by definition. Maybe your opinion of Evo Psych is such that they wouldn't dream of being so scientific, in your mind, but rest assured. Some are, your misconceptions about the field notwithstanding.
Shut up. :P
We'll make millions I tell ya
Science in general is often incorrect.
Actually I'm more driving at the fact that it's not actually possible to completely isolate or negate culture as a variable without finding a culture that has had no contact with any other cultures.
A poo purse? Your words have merit.
Yes, unfortunately doesn't that kinda mean that any evo-psych would need to have a similar sample selection. And there can't be that many pygmies around to go testing your work on. Which means very quickly you'll have a very biased sample selection.
SHOW ME WHERE SCIENCTIFIC STUDY IS INVOLVED HERE AT ALL
It's not bad science it's simply non-science. Science isn't some smart guy in a lab coat telling us stuff. It's a system of study that utilzes repeatable tests and conclusions drawn from them.
This is why I hate socialology in general getting treated like a a real science.
Most everyone having heard of Coca Cola doesn't mean that there aren't radically different cultures all over the world. If you're going to sit here and tell me Pygmy culture is so similar to ours as to not be a sufficient control because they may have heard about Coca Cola, I'm afraid I don't know what to say.
If you find traits that are universal among all humans, it's a pretty safe bet that they evolved. Find a study big enough, and you can get a good idea of the former. The latter follows logically. We're not a single "monoculture" yet, American dominance notwithstanding. There is an incredible amount of diversity in the world, and an incredible amount of variety and ancient cultures.
That sentence doesn't actually even make sense. "Science" is a system. It is not the findings people reach by using that system. Evo psych falls under criticism for failing to employ that system, and you have displayed absolutely no conceptual grasp of it. This is probably why you are so convinced the whole fuss is just a symptom of PMS. In other words, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Are you saying that evolutionary psychology as a field has never utilized the scientific method?
Because if there is even one case where it has, that means you cannot dismiss it as non-science.
I mean, you people are doing what you are accusing me of doing: you are generalizing. Sure, the claim in the OP is stupid pseudo-science, and so are many others, but the fact stands that evolutionary psychology as a field is far from bunk like many of you are suggesting.
Why?
Because traits are inherited through biological mechanisms, not societal norms, trends, or practicality.