Evolutionary Psychology

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down

Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:22 pm

Trigger Warning (Oct 22): If you don't like explicit descriptions of sex and find making up crappy fan-fiction surrounding said topics not something you want to kill brain cells on, do not read this thread.

Firstly I want to say that I don't believe in evolutoin. I belive the universe was made 4 months in the future, and that we're actually travelling back in time a second per second, slowly forgetting each second of our lives as we travel back in time and walk backwards into the big bang.
I'm being sarcastic, I really just mean I'm open-minded and willing to argue under different frameworks.

I want to start this off by giving a defense of how I'm going about this. In order for science to be verified it would have to make sense in practice. If the conclusions that science made of a rock farm was at odds with what rocks actually were, you'd be forced to assume that there is some mistake or discrepency that was made somewhere. I don't doubt facts but science can be wrong. If science deduced that rocks were "soft" for example, perhaps the definition of "soft" had a discrepency, or the pool of rocks that the study studied were unusual. Likewise a science of philosophy would have to be reflected in practice of philosophy.

Thirdly I'd like to make a distinction. Obviously since evolution is about natural selection and utilizes sex a lot as a human drive, if I were to argue against that it would extremely easy and a lot of "circlejerking" on my part. So I'm going to say evolution covers more than physical reproduction, but also idealogical reproduction. In that sense as an antisexual I am still participating in reproduction.

So what evo psych is about is how evolution pertain to humans today. Which is very strange, obviously looking at people you can see that they are not governed by the same laws as evolution or animals. Not everyone is a survival-of-the-fittests fit who wants to reproduce (And is evo psych implying that the desire to reproduce is a form of mind control). Social darwinism is fake. Some evo psychs try to say these people serve evolution purposes too (idk. Homosexuals "promote diversity" as an idealogical value and that's an evolutionary trait. Seems bunk, "My values are more natural!")
The question is, is conciousnes even a product of the pattern of evolution or is it something bigger. Was it a mistake that came out of evolution but has since trumped the old ways of survival of the fittest? Since conciousness tends to go against traditional evolution that you see in animals.
I think that you'd have to say it's still evolution, but not in this traditional context. Is any change of ours considered evolution? Anything that humans do a natural progression?

As you can see even though I am an antisexual and attempting to replicate and preserve my values idealogically, I wouldn't HAVE to do that. I COULD not concern myself with anyone other than myself. I would be an outlier. But by that same logic couldn't everybody with their conciousness decide to be an outlier. Isn't conciousness counter-intuitive to replicating.
Or is it NOT very POSSIBLE for everyone to decide to be an outlier, since they would need a motive to be. (But why can't they have a motive?)

This is all fine philosophical questions, but back to evo psych. Is Evo psych trying to find traditional evo (My term for animal evolution) reasons for conciousness (Which itself exceeds traditional evo ideals?)
Or does it try to claim we are still under traditional evo. After all if conciousness is just a narrative, it's meaningless. Is our conciousness in control or not. Is it just an expression of what I am biologically.
I could use philosophical examples to try to decide this. Take "Martyrdom". Where dying for your beliefs is certainly against the drive to survive and against traditional evo. But on the other hand would evo psychs say that martrydom is simply an expression of idealogical replication, where dying for your beliefs legitimizes them in the minds of others. Who who who's got the narrative? Is this even an important question?
But what about Determinism, where peoples choices are already determined. My question is how does this disprove or diminish conciousness? Since conciousness is still the driving force. I still made a choice. Perhaps it's the only choce I would have made perhaps not (Perhaps alt universes are fiction). Is the value of money an illusion? In a sense it is. A $10 bill is just paper. It's still real socially. Couldn't a lot of things be considered "illusions" when looked at a certain way?

Harms of evo psych: As I've pointed out there's people that use "nature" as a god. Another harm is people who try to apply traditional evo to today. The former is easily dismissed, but the latter? Trad evo has terrible valuess and animals are terrible examples (Look at "rape apologists in evolutionary psychology" as an example). But how do you disprove Fredian "appeal to motive" claims. I mean as much as I'd love to accept sex drive as a subhuman less-then-conciousness mechanism. That's just self-defeating. You're mind is what you make of it and determinism (As we know it conciously) is not in bed with trad evo anymore.

Another thing I want to rag about with regards to science is take for example a study that is shared. "Republicans have lower intelligence then democrats". And take that this is a scientific study, it is objective and it shows no bias. You cannot argue that republicans have a lower intelligence then democrats.
Do you have a problem? You can't.
You may say, "What is intelligence" or "Comparing anything between two groups, the odds of them having the exact same of that thing is very low, how much of a difference?" or "Is it because republicans promote to poor people with poor education more" or any other causation claims?
It's not science's job to find causation, it is it's job to find facts.
It is a true statement that repulicans have lower intellgence then democrats.
But....WHy was this study made? What is it trying to prove?
Did it use other studies of what "intelligence" was?
And would this study be used as a basis in other studies who want to assume that republicans are less intelligent than democrats? (Sounds like the legal system now).
You could criticize this SCIENCE but without you're own SCIENCE and papers using their jargon, you can't dispute it.
But is it worth it to dispute it? Worth it to go through all that trouble? Worth it to spend time to prove rocks are hard?
Of course real scientists argue that "real" science isn't flawed. And I believe they're right, but Is It Worth It.

In short: Evolution is fine to study, but it should stay the hell away from philosophy.

And also, this is just some thoughts. Like a bloge. If there's any scientists here feel free to poke my ignorance.


Last edited by Biscotti on Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 768
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:23 pm

I'll post more as I read more about evo psyc, until I decide it's not worth it anymore.

Evo psych faq: http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/evpsychfaq.html
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 768
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:35 pm

Over the last 200,000 years, humans regularly encountered spiders and snakes, creatures whose toxins would have significantly impeded the reproduction of individuals unlucky enough to get injected with them. Over the last 100 years, humans have regularly encountered automobiles, encounters that also can seriously impede reproduction (e.g., by getting run over). Because 200,000 years is long enough for humans to evolve protective mechanisms, but 100 years isn't, we can predict that humans may well possess an innate aversion to spiders and snakes, but not to automobiles--even though far more people are currently killed by cars than by spiders or snakes. Once we have firmly established that avoiding spiders and snakes would have reliably facilitated the reproduction of ancestral humans, we can then design experiments to determine whether humans in fact possess an innate, cognitive ability to detect and avoid these animals (more on how to do this below). A major lesson of evolutionary psychology is that if you want to understand the brain, look deeply at the environment of our ancestors as focused through the lens of reproduction. If the presumptions of evolutionary psychology are correct, the structure of our brains should closely reflect our ancestral reproductive ecology. Thus, evolutionary psychology provides a method for perceiving the functional organization of the brain by studying the world--currently a far more tractable problem than disentangling neural assemblages.

I had someone say something like this to me. "We industrilizaed to fast! We're not evolved enough to handle current technology"
He sounded like a complete wimp.

Also the quoted text once again make reproduction a god. Okay, I'll try to look past that.
"innate" "cognitive"
Cognitive is the ability to look at your innate perceptions critiquely.

And actually I really only made this post to call that guy a wimp. I dont have much else to say.

Another question I have about evo psych is how it tries to attribute everything to survival-of-the-fittest.

But the question is. There are certain behaviours that very specifically are not very survival of the fittest.

Dependency?

Laziness?

Maybe lazy people's ancestors were kings?

Self-destructive behaviour?
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 768
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:58 pm

Why do some people hate evolutionary psychology? In my experience, most knee-jerk criticisms of evolutionary psychology are motivated by the following (incorrect) syllogism: I [the critic] want political change. Political change requires changing people. Evolutionary psychologists argue that people have innate and unchangeable natures. Evolutionary psychologists are therefore opposed to social or political change, and are merely attempting to scientifically justify the status quo. More generally, all scholars, particularly 'scientific' social scientists, need to acknowledge the ideological underpinnings of their work.

Nooo that's not really why I hate it. In fact I'm not sure I could say why I distrust it in one line. The OP was my best attempt.
I don't think evo psych says people can't change. That was determinism and even in a deterministic framework it doesn't discount that people change.

Probably the most reason I hate it is because it's obssessed with sex lol. Also the people that abuse it. And the lack of applicability it has.

I do have problems with claiming genetics determine your ideas, but thats a different topic. (With arguments on both sides, anyone want to write that one up?)

Critics are welcome to challenge the evidence or provide testable alternative explanations for it. As for the unavoidable personal biases that supposedly color all research, the only real solution is to encourage students with diverse backgrounds and experiences to study evolutionary psychology. It is naive to assume that individuals can easily perceive their own biases. Far better to develop a diverse community of researchers that engage with, and critique, each other's work. Evolutionary psychologists (as well as other scholars) have an intellectual obligation to encourage and train students from as great a range of ages, classes, ethnicities, and personal backgrounds as possible.
All right.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 768
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Sun Mar 05, 2017 5:00 pm

Can someone please explain why people actually believe evo psych is relavant or applicable despite 100 glaring obvious flaws with the theory and with the method. This is the main thing that's bothering.

Furthermore, rarely is evo psych rarely used in a manner that could be plausible, 99.9% of the time I hear it used it is used in regards to sexual preferences as a sort of horoscope of what relationship method  or method of attracting someone is going to be the best. Which makes me further think I'm wasting my time and that this is just really crappy clickbait that's hiding behind science. I suppose if you're looking at it in the lens of reproducing (which traits are going to be more popular) is going to be there to an extent but it's not how it comes across.

And here we go back to guesswork. I feel as if I'm standing on a potential paradox. If humans are evolved then wouldn't these """"theorists"""" (more like conjecturists) say that people are naturally attracted to people with an evolved mind? So if we could prove antisexualism as a more evolved way of thinking (Which we could try due to the terribly subjective nature of what ""evolution"" is especially in modern times, but in the end it would be about as laughable as everyone else's attempt to prove their idealogy as "natural" which is about 4545.930 laughable.) but it would also display a paradox.

Evo psych has many paradoxes, and psychology in general does too. After all psychology is a major example of how observing behavior change the outcome and has to face the duality (or singularity depending on P.O.V) of the mental brain and physical brain.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 768
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:43 pm

Here are some decent tear-downs
http://www.science20.com/michael_taft/why_evolutionary_psychology_pisses_you_and_why_maybe_it_shouldnt-87622
My input by point.
1. Notes that it's obssessed with sex and is easily sensationalized.
2. I think is iffy, we're not talking about determinism, and the parallells between evo psy and determinism are not layed out in the article so it's difficult to tell the writers intrepretation.
3. is funny
4. Talks about people who abuse it's meaning
5. I don't agree with. How does evopsy damage our ego? People who abuse it may try to use it like that, but that's abuse not use.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 768
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Thu Jul 06, 2017 3:39 pm

FREAKING HELL
I just saw "Evolutionary Psychology" as a proposed class at my college. I'll be investigating into this.
They have a proposed syllabus and teacher email so it makes it easy.

Reading it shows that they do have thought put into it and claim that there are faults with it. But they still imo vastly over-exaggerate the potential of this. The most effective method of moving,  I believe, would be checking out the textbook and making arguments against it to the teacher.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 768
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by xenosimiana on Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:06 pm

@Biscotti wrote:The most effective method of moving,  I believe, would be checking out the textbook and making arguments against it to the teacher.
Yeah I think it's a great start because there's many people present, and could set up for potential embarrassment and exposure.

xenosimiana

Posts : 302
Join date : 2016-11-12
Location : Detroit, MI

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:58 pm

I feel dumber after just reading the first chapters. It makes claims, but crosses some logic gap, then says that any doubt over it's lack of proof is a "Fallacy of personal incredulity". Uhuh. Then it pushes this whole sex-first narrative that's pretty toxic, sure it backs it up with some information but doesn't convince. I'll go more in depth.

I've read "things" before. I've read some man's extensive research on how multiple isolated mysterious deaths across the world are part of a conspiracy because they share key similaraities with each other. It's fascinating when you let yourself get sucked into it, listen to his stories and connections he finds. But really, at the end of the day, not convincing.

This is what this evo psych book is. Except, well, it's not fascinating it's pathetic (Subjective opinion). But some times it makes me nod, like it's claim that the reason we have good taste for onion and garlic, is because onion and garlic kill bacteria and help survival! But then 5 minutes later, once I think about it a bit, I feel like I've been listening to that old man convince me about mysterious murders being connected because they all mostly happened near berry bushes.

And then the inaccurate analogies, between animal psychology and human psychology. And the edgelord teenager point that "it's so quaint when people try to seperate humans and animals, humans ARE animals lol that's a fact!" (Everyone groans because he misses the point). The most he can draw out of these is that a long time ago something similar to rat tests may have happened to humans-before-they-were-humans. But that says almost nothing about psychology.

Also it seems really insecure. It brings up a few examples evolution-skepticism (Both religious/science viewpoints) and then tears them down to point out that "evolution is the only accepted scientific viewpoint". Okay. Fine. Then talk about evolution and science, why are you bringing this up? I think it's insecurity because, well, it's ironic that, EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY is trying to pull the "science" card so it feels the need to build itself up or something in order to get you to swallow the stuff that follows. It also brings up a few misconceptions, seemingly as a way to counterargue, but the misconceptions are kind of dumb and their counterarguments are obvious. I guess it can allow itself a little self-defense, but I feel that by getting into self-defense territory it's showing that it knows it's not really indisputable. I mean, psychology by definition isn't indisputable, much less this approach.

Also while sex is the backbone of evolution, this dude tries to make it out as if sex is some sentient force and "goal" of every organism. I suppose there's two ways of looking at it. Either sex (I'm using interchangeable with reproducing) is everything and everything else is just a byproduct of sex. Or life is everything and sex is just a byproduct of life. And neither one is objective. It is like the chicken and the egg. 

Ultimately his theories are nothing more then taking how they believe Evolution to happen (And note the reason evolution is a theory is precisely because they are not able to repeat the process of humans evolving and really have no concrete data to map out HOW we evolved in detail) and then making guesses, that is "fanfiction" of why/how we developed these things.
And my strongest contention, is the one I went over earlier in this thread, even if some of their theories turn out to be correct, the relevance this has to current human psychology is 0%. And actually I'm tempted to put that number in the negatives since I believe (Though can't prove) That using evolutionary psychology is more harmful then beneficial. It basically looks through everything through a lens of sex. At least, that's how THIS author does it.
And I don't mean to build myself up, but my previous attempt at modernizing evolution through looking at ideological reproduction is a more meaningful application of evolutionary psychology. Maybe a country with a certain shared philosophy is stronger or provides more boons then another country because of it and that causes that philosophy to be spread more readily. Or a company with a certain marketing tactic is more effective so that company's products are more widespread.

These are my preliminary thoughts after the first 2.5 chapters. I might be wrong.

Amusing points
Take a drink (Doesn't have to be alcoholic, though will probably still kill you anyway) every time he brings up snake-fear as an example.

The author briefly went over a history of psychology. Including a debate over how many 'instincts' humans had. There was one male scientist who downplayed the role of instincts, saying "instinctive acts are in man few in number, and, apart from those connected with the sexual passion, difficult to recognize after early youth is past" (cited in James, 1890/1962, p. 405)."
How amusing, or how pathetic is that even a 'scientist' SKEPTICAL of 'instincts", relegates their sexuality into being some unjustified "instinct" that they don't identify with, even hypocritically breaking their idea that humans aren't instinct-driven in the process. I sincerely hope, people aren't really that unhinged, but I'm wrong, I'm wrong!!!
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 768
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Admin on Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:57 am

When I was in college, evolutionary psychology was talked about in several of my classes. The discussions weren't outright for or against it. One of them was a debate over whether it's fundamentally bad, or if it isn't, but that it is misused a lot.

I think it's a valid field, but that it is misused a lot, and caution needs to be taken. It's a field that can easily be misused by researchers who want to use it as a way to reinforce their biases and validate them academically. It can be difficult looking through papers to see which are clearly biased and which aren't, but one factor I remember being told about is to stay away from papers with a hypothesis that can't be falsified.

One of the principles of scientific research is falsifiability, the chance that a hypothesis could be false, which is also reflected in statistics when they're used properly in scientific research. Statistics are misused a lot too that it can warrant a discussion of its own. In statistics, there's no such thing as a result with zero margin of error.

_________________
This fortress is for those resisting sexual society! See the main page for more information. This ongoing project is looking for contributors!
avatar
Admin
Admin

Posts : 723
Join date : 2015-04-07

https://fortressresistingsexualsociety.wordpress.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:06 pm

I think it's a valid field

What makes you think that? What is it for?

Specifically, how is it justified as applicable, justified as psychology? Regardless of the validity of it's claims over what humans may have done a long time ago. It's taking psychologies trend of looking back to the extreme of the extreme.

(This is regarding eco psych as a concept, not the book I'm reading which has many other problems)


Last edited by Biscotti on Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 768
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by xenosimiana on Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:08 pm

I don't know much about psychology, but being that psychology is considered a "soft" science to me is the main reason why it's so easy for people to exploit.

xenosimiana

Posts : 302
Join date : 2016-11-12
Location : Detroit, MI

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:16 pm

Regarding psychology being a soft science (What is, evo psych a goopy science?) Taking physics helped me realize why it's a soft science. Here we were given mathematical relationships for how things moved. Simply multiplying things together with a square here and there could model simple movement. It got me wondering why, these mathematical constructs weren't completely native to reality, they were just constructs we made to fit them.

And on the last day of class, the teacher brought this up. Saying "What is science but saying that this phenomenon is reliable and creating a model that will accurate fit it. An underlying assumption of science is that what we perceive as reality is reliable."
This logic doesn't apply to psychology. Sort of. As I've said, psychology (Outside of maybe clinical psychology) focuses too much on what is, over what can be which is always annoying to people who want to change the status quo.

Sorry getting off topic. P.s even though I think it's unethical, neuroscience is probably the future of mind science.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 768
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Tue Jul 11, 2017 4:55 pm

I'm about 2/3 through. Here's my thoughts, I start out weak, main points come at the end. Read the intro with british accents and it becomes better.
------------------------
Reading this book has cleared a lot of things up. Not in the way you'd think.

I've argued sex-positive idiots before, who seem to lack a certain logic bridge. This book helped explain that.
It didn't help explain the logic bridge, but it explained the idiots, I think they've all read this book.

So many things I read in this book bring back flashbacks.

Example I hid because it includes rape:

Example. I once talked to some...I think he was like a pickup artist or something. ("red pill"). Who said, something along the lines of, women (regardless of if they're asexual) should find a partner who'll protect them so that they won't get raped.
As an antisexual I thought that was stupid (Still do) simple-minded and preying on paranoia. Have sex, to protect yourself from having sex. I mean, sure they're different experiences, but come on.
Then this book suggests that ancient societies. "Women might offer up sex, to gain allies to protect them from rape". Sex, to avoid having sex again. 

Is that where he got the idea? I can't really say definitively. I mean, it's not like it's REALLY illogical if you're not antisexually-inclined, though small-minded especially in todays society.


But I'm so far not addressing the real problems with this book. First off is it's odd use of society-ingrained behaviour.

Let me be transparent. I think gender differences are primarily because of sex differences. And that the male function/female function when reproducing have natural ways of playing out when used. (And also perhaps a bit when NOT used, through comparatively smaller and certainly a lot more optional.)

This book also uses this logic, but it's a bit stretching at times.

Basically it paints for us, this whole culture and uses how sex works to paint that picture. (And expands that picture by looking at how sex works in other species and what traits arise). I'm 2/3 through and my gosh, it's got more worldbuilding then...well....it's like a novel.

But at times it just seems off. It's worldbuilding is coherent, sure. But the proof (Which generally is just a poll of todays population showing a preference that matches their story) is..lacking. And I'm not sure where to put my thumb, there's so many leaps of logic that I don't know which leap to start with.

For example, given the fact we have free-thought is so perceivably counter-intuitive to evolution. (Suicide! Nukes! and on the bright side--Not reproducing!) I'd deduce that most of how we think was not evolved directly but indirectly. Like, we gain free-thought to help with survival, but then use it self-destructively instead. And so, I would not think most of our "preferences" are necessarily evolved to be a certain way.
And furthermore it seems to think various common areas-of-thought in humans are distinct, and not part of the same system. (I.e, friendship, art, commerce, detecting-cheaters) But I think it'd be hard to accurately slice that up. Don't know though.

My point is, it makes assumptions things evolved a certain way, that I just don't see proof for. Why is something so fine-tuned and not necessarily even helpful for survival such as a supposed evolved tendency for women to tell their husbands their kid looks like them after birth (With studies to back it up). While something not necessary and counter-productive for survival such as sapience exists, while we also still don't even have the ability to fly. Book doesn't say.

But perhaps I'm just ignorant of evolution, I'll get to my main point. I don't feel this book even makes an effort to understand things comprehensively and is entirely driven by mysticism (Curiously enough, this is also sex-positives main and most annoying weakness).

Because, what I don't get, is why this book does such extensive worldbuilding, to detail why these tendencies (it portrays as unconscious oooohh mystic) exist by going into why these tendencies would be helpful in these ancient cultures.
(These ancient cultures that are entirely driven by reproducing as everyone's main goal. Just swallow it, animals do it so sure.).
In other words, it justifies these tendencies THROUGH the existence of social pressures. And social pressures aren't always arbitrary or silly, they can be for stability and mutually beneficial.
Yet, somehow, today, through "evolutionary psychology" people are just driven by these ancient instincts. And somehow, this is the best way to look through these lens' (I'll go into why this harmful at the end).
I mean, could it be, that today's culture, still promotes certain ways to live? And I don't even mean arbitary culture, like sex promotes certain things about gender, communal living could also promote certain things too? And I'll give the book credit, some of these aren't obvious, I can make guesses for why the wife might be more inclined to say their child looks like the father, but I don't know for sure. Heck, you know how sexuals are, it could be for the books very given reason as "assuring the father they didn't cheat" and heck it could even be a whim spurred by the situation and frame-of-reference and not planned out (i.e, yeah subconciously, but subconciously driven by how sex/culture has played out for them) but in the end, this platform really isn't a good way of figuring that out is it. 
Spoiler:

I can see them saying, "Oh humans, are terrible at explaining their own behaviour." or "Truth doesn't exist, it's just an evolved idea in humans that gives them confidence to fight"

Furthermore, I even agree animal cultures and human cultures have certain similarities because it's just natural byproducts of having stable societies.

But it'll be ironic, that evo-psych defenders will come at me for not trying to understand it. When Evolutionary psychology makes no effort to understand psychological phenomenon comprehensively and thinks that relegating things to mysticism is helpful, and not harmful in any way (Argue any sex-positive person to see why it's harmful.)

In short I figured evo psych would be more loose.

One more thing, for why believing in mysticism is bad (And hurts your arguments). Because, regardless of whether or not it's true, and we are wired to think certain ways (Battle of what's "natural" commences!).
The reason it's bad, is because if you beliEVE it. It'll come true. See: any-given sex-positive who says they want sex/kids because of instincts.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 768
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:24 pm

BIG GROAN
I finally finished, and FREAKING HELL.

I already summarized the big problems, but those problems didn't stop. It was especially egregious at the end. You know my biggest criticism is that is doesn't function well as a psychology? At the end it builds itself up to be the "one true psychology to unite them all" and gives examples of how it would help.
Those examples more describe how it would hurt.

And my biggest treat, my biggest light at the end of the tunnel, were to read the "reviews" for the book that popped up at my college library. But FREAKING HELL the reviews complement the book on the very things I criticized it for! What I see as a con, they somehow see as a boon!

Listen. The reviews: "Many people unfamiliar with evolutionary psychology wonder how ideas about the evolutionary origins of human behavior can ever be proven.Buss does a great job of showing how hypotheses can be developed from evolutionary theory and be tested with various forms of empirical data."

The book doesn't prove anything! They're definition of "proven" is to take some human/animal behaviour stereotype, write a story about how that stereotype could be helpful for survival, then show statistics that it's STILL helpful for survival. And that's still only like the best-case scenario of it's logic. All my complaints I wrote about here only got abused more and more as the book went on.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 768
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:55 pm

Freaking hell, there's 4-5 people reviewing the course. 4 came back with "no objections" and others applauded it as being "an important addition". TBH I wonder if they even read it!

At this point I don't care if I come off a little ignorant, I'm doing a group email, screw everyone.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 768
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by xenosimiana on Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:05 am

Stereotypes...part of what I was thinking reading your pov about the book. Psychology isn't a one size fit all type of thing, how would evolutionary psychology explain people like us? I'm a little curious.

xenosimiana

Posts : 302
Join date : 2016-11-12
Location : Detroit, MI

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:05 pm

How do you think they'd explain people like us? Just write a fanfiction and it'll fit right in.

Sorry if that seems like a lazy answer, but it's pretty much what I'd be doing if I were to give an answer anyway.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 768
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:45 am

Emails sent.

Oh btw @xenosimiana.
They did bring up suicide. Claiming it was natural selection of ridding bad genes from the pool. Their proof, if I remember right, was seeing the depression rates of those with "disabilities" (Disabilities focusing on being ugly/unable to attract a mate).
Yeaaahhh...
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 768
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by xenosimiana on Sun Jul 23, 2017 12:00 am

Wow, lol. It's very difficult to take people like this seriously. Based on that, how many ugly and idiotic people procreate? To me, that's pseudoscience and exaggeration, applying natural selection (the interpretation of it always meaning that the genes that survived must be strong) to humans like it's practical and rational, it being 100% the case. Genes got us only so far, the rest I think is social, with ppl deciding what's beneficial. It's strange to me how one minute people take issue with eugenics but the next minute esp. when it comes to sex, all of a sudden bad genes needing to be rid of.

Ppl at times cherrypick choosing what benefits and edifies them because if ridding bad genes was truly a factor, that would rid the majority of us and more than likely the ppl that wrote that book. Articles talking about people years from now would be bigger and stronger and that we are stronger than our ancestors, but that doesn't really have much to do with ridding bad genes completely. For example, those of certain social classes have access to better resources, does that mean that they have better genes? Genetics and sentience seems to be a battle or struggle amongst humans.

xenosimiana

Posts : 302
Join date : 2016-11-12
Location : Detroit, MI

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Sun Jul 23, 2017 12:41 am

Well, when I say "bad" genes, it depends what you define as "bad". Because evolutionary "bad" just means one who fails to provide children. So even though you are ugly and stupid and everything else, as long as you reproduce you have "good" genes.

Like I said their proof was that "People who can't find/attract a partner are generally depressed"
And yes, I've talked to those people in SPADES. I hardly think their inability to attract a partner is their problem (Rather a symptom).
Though I guess that proves their point. Oh shoot, they were right all along, I take back everything I said.

For real tho, I need a break from this topic.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 768
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by xenosimiana on Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:24 pm

Yeah I understand, the overabundance of sex and reproduction with EP is starting to overwhelm me with repugnance, esp. with suicide, good and bad genes etc.

xenosimiana

Posts : 302
Join date : 2016-11-12
Location : Detroit, MI

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:33 pm

*waves paper excitedly*

T-they noticed me!!!

I'm so happy... and here I thought. But no.

So excited, the day before I actually finally was planning to meet up with some of these people. I get an email. Just today, though it's dated for months ago, weird.

The letter:

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL 

Dear (my name), Our office received a report that indicates that you may have information about or were involved in an incident that occurred on July 19, 2017 via email. Specifically, the report indicates that a faculty member received an email from you that was perceived as a fraudulent rejection of a course proposal. 

It will be necessary for you to schedule a meeting with the Student Conduct and Community Standards office so that we can obtain your description of the circumstances in this incident before the University determines next steps appropriate for this situation. This process promotes student participation and provides the University an opportunity to resolve the situation educationally, administratively, or both. Please call the Student Conduct and Community Standards office at [redacted for iam forum] during standard business hours within three (3) days of the date of this letter to schedule an appointment. If you fail to keep this appointment, the University may proceed without the benefit of your input. 

If you are in need of any assistance for this meeting, such as a translator, accommodations, or a different meeting format, please contact the Office of Student Conduct & Community Standards at [redacted for iam forum]. Please allow at least forty-eight (48) hours of notice for any accommodations. This will allows our office to work with you and various campus resources to address your needs. In some cases, this may require rescheduling our meeting. 

Sincerely, [redacted for iam forum] Assistant Director of Student Conduct & Community Standards


Wow, and here I thought I was ignored. but no! Got my foot in the door. Already have some ideas of where to take this. Alright so yes, I may have tried to act like I had authority when I emailed the instructor (Only for when I emailed the instructor, yes I may have been toying a LITTLE) but if I remember right I do not think I lied. I attached my name to it, obviously I wasn't being fraudulent. I said I was from the college, which I am, and that I reject the course, which I do. I attached my name to it, obviously I meant what I said, else I could have used my fake email. Heck I think I reworded it slightly before sending to make that a little more obvious. In the (What I thought was) NICHE case that I would be reported.
Hopefully.
Anyway if we're speaking about frauds here, I'm gonna try to turn this around on her. We'll see.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 768
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:40 pm

Oh yeah, here's that thing I mentioned earlier about a death conspiracy that CAN pull you in with it's buckets of "evidence" under the light it gives (narrative), but really at the end of the day isn't that convincing

https://www.google.com/search?q=Missing411&oq=Missing411&aqs=chrome..69i57.206j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

(Or just google search "missing 411")

Possibly something to compare evo psych to.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 768
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:51 pm

So, it's time to talk about what I learned today.

I initially made an ambiguous statement acting like I had authority as an attention grabber, hoping it would require a response or at least a readthrough. I did not mean to infringe, as I used my real name.

But what it resulted in....was to get the instructor to shut down and ignore me.

Today I learned that evolutionary psychologists have feelings too. Because way back when caveman bill would demand sex by making up bullshit but caveman pauline had to be able to tell when he was making up bullshit as part of her mating strategy. That's why this interaction happened.

Anywho I tried sort of to make amends with her but it seems to continue I'd be entering bureaucracy and talking through the college system to file complaints to higher uppers and such. Not quite the thing I was hoping for. Was hoping to y'know...talk with someone who KNEW what was going on.

But I'm not done yet. I also learned today, that my suspicions were true. And that aside from the teacher.
no one reads the textbooks.

mhm.

They rely on the textbooks being pre-peer-reviewed.

yup. Not even the 15 or so people who approved the class.

So basically the only person who I really want to talk to has shut me out of her life.

So that's what I learned today
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 768
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum