Evolutionary Psychology

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by xenosimiana on Sat Jan 20, 2018 11:37 pm

I think the sentence should be "And is often why I get the sense that he is just some pervert trying to validate his sex fetishes." Right now I think it's good, but I have a feeling you're going to do more editing, which you should because usually when you take a break more ideas are going to come. I just don't want you to send it in prematurely regretting some parts. I wish more people would contribute to this, because I'm getting frustrated because I can't offer more advice right now.

xenosimiana

Posts : 336
Join date : 2016-11-12
Location : Detroit, MI

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Sun Jan 21, 2018 3:48 pm

Would "random schmuck" work instead? What's a polite way to call somebody pathetic.

Yes, I took a break from it and hope to make better articulation. I'm wondering if I should go into an exaustive list where I paste direct samples from the textbook and criticize it, or just do a broad overview of my takeaway of it.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 902
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by xenosimiana on Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:01 pm

Hmmm, try doing both then decide.

xenosimiana

Posts : 336
Join date : 2016-11-12
Location : Detroit, MI

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:37 pm

Alright, I sent it off. I'm only worried about one thing, it's that I really confidentally pushed that 
intention of humans != intention (in reality outcome) of evolution.

While I feel they might argue that a mutation that causes people to value something could be picked by evolution. Say, there's a gene that causes someone to be sex-positive and so would have sex and would reproduce (This is only example and not reality as sex-positivity is a modern concept, much like, as I must point out, GENES ARE A MODERN CONCEPT THAT WE ARE ONLY RECENTLY AWARE OF SO HOW THE *#(* WERE PRIMITIVE PEOPLE SUPPOSED TO VALUE GENES IF THEY DIDNT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE AND HOW WAS GENE-SELFISHNESS SUPPOSED TO HELP EVOLUTION ANYWAY, AN ENTITY IS AN ENTITY).

Thing is, you have to still prove that such a gene is passed on to kids. I mean its pretty obvious that kids are not restricted to thinking like their parents (And when that does happen it's difficult to say it's not nurture/how they were raised). Even w/ animals it's hard to say. This is such a ridiculous train of thought, I agree with the author when he says that this is complicated, and I have to add that THEREFORE YOU CAN NOT SAY THESE RIDICULOUS SWEEPING STATEMENTS

Like you can say "all humans have two arms" there may be SOME things you can say about human psychology that DO categorize them as a species. But I'm sticking my antisexual flag here and am saying that SEX-POSITIViTY IS NOT ONE OF THEM. And probably attitudes toward anything in general are not one of them.

If you want to find ones that describe a species, then I would suggest looking at things that DO describe a species. All humans what. Have constant monologues in their head? (At least defaultly, idk much about meditation). All humans, have the capability to feel certain emotions? Humans have the capability to recognize their bodies?
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 902
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:40 pm

Here was my write-up. I included some pics that just had examples of what I was talking about but weren't necessary to the discussion.

Spoiler:

A. The reason why it is 'fraudulent'
The most primary concern I have regarding the fraudulent nature of the class is the way it presents it's material. It begins in the very title of the textbook that is used, David Buss's “The New Science of the Mind”. However what this book contains is NOT science. (And I will argue it's hardly Psychology either). While it is normal in some sciences to take assumptions, this book takes that practice and pushes it to it's extremes. I will use an analogy to demonstrate what I mean.
If you measured the water depth in a lake and mixed it with the assumption that a giant purple sea monster lived there (An assumption with no proof) to get a conclusion that the sea monster is causing the water level to rise. Would you call this conclusion valid, and this process helpful? While I suppose it is POSSIBLE that a purple sea monster could exist, this process is fringe and not fact. And the bar would be really low if the college let any class with any sorts of pre-made "assumptions" into it like this one. While I could see it potentially happening if the assumptions were HELPFUL, I will later go on to explain how this class is anything but helpful.
What I have described is what this book does, over and over again. The assumptions it makes are not proven, not elaborated on, mostly ridiculous and oftentimes seem to have an agenda behind them (It is hard to prove this but I will try in (C)). In the same breath the author will describe Evolution to be a "complex process”, the author will then go on to say that he believes in many of the super simple claims his narrative makes, like “females are (evolved to be) sexually attracted to people with money/power”. None of this is followed with any proof TO THE PROCESS HE OUTLIES. The only reason he believes in many of his claims are because in his opinion this is what would be the natural outcome of evolution. Again and again he comes up with these assertions, where he makes up a story of a potential society/condition where a certain behaviour was rewarded and treats the fact that he conceived of such a condition as proof that the human species evolved that way (or more specifically, at one point lived like that). What cinches his claims for him, is when he provides a study that backs up his claims. These population studies are analogous to measuring the water levels in the sea monster analogy I gave above. Additionally, if these modes of operation ARE helpful to living then you'd expect to see these traits appear in modern society anyway. And THIS brings out another error in that he never provides any causation between his made-up stories and current day outcomes. Theoretically if he's making up stories for what would have favored a potential mutation that caused a specific mode of behaviour (Which imo is a complex mode of thought that is probably impossible to get any substantial results from and is not as simple as he continually makes it out to be and continuously bends it to feed his personal sex fetishes) then he still has to explain how that mutation is used and affects people today. But not only does he not do this, but he embarrasses himself by repeatedly conflating the two instances to make it seem like people who currently operate under a mode of behaviour are doing so DIRECTLY because of their ancestors actions millions of years ago in a completely different context.
So at this point not only are we suspending our disbelief to lofty claims with no proof, but we are now going further and being told to hold this claims in higher importance than tangible proof we could find that DIRECTLY affect peoples behaviour. This is mysticism in it's ugliest form and is NOT science. This is exactly why I call this class fraudulent. If it were to correctly identify itself as a fringe “”spiritual”” movement, then it at least would be honest about itself, but I would still rally against it because it also makes for bad psychology.
B. Why it makes bad psychology.
While Psychology is meant to help someone understand how behaviour operates, David's approach does the exact opposite. Instead of ever investigating any of the phenomenon he discovers in his population studies, he chalks it up to his assumptions to the point where it's like a ridiculous religion around ancestral sex ghosts.
This is not only a huge logic leap but has no actually useful insight whatsoever and is a perfectly blatant example of promoting mal-adaptive thought processes (Which is when someone is led to think a certain way based on incorrect assumptions, and is a phenomenon I often confuse with actual mental illnesses because it can just as well prove harmful to an individual and certainly to the field). This result is the exact opposite of what Psychology is meant to be about, and it trades understanding for ignorance. It is pretty much the definition of Anti-Psychology.
C. Why I think it is biased.
One thing that is never explained is how the author thinks that the way an initial development occurred (under his narrative) is related to current day situations. The author always assumes they are directly analogous, he will take the causation in one of his stories, then provide a modern-day study and suggest that the results are directly caused by the same thing. Obviously you cannot attribute someones current situation to his narrative that he controls, as his narrative I will claim is highly biased. To what? You'll have to look at what he values. He values things like “survival”, "passing on genes", "fertility" and weird trash. And is often why I get the sense that he is just trying to validate his sex fetishes. However we don't have to use the author in this, because proving the authors intentions is out of my capability. But, even without a person behind it, these values are still present, and I can still claim that this book is biased toward these values.
The author will defend this by saying evolution naturally favours these values. But the author makes the same logic-leap again and again by assuming that products of evolution share the same values as evolution itself. And obviously that's not true, you can see animals that will adopt animals that do not share it's genes. And you can very easily find humans who do not share these given values. (As a side-note the author one time embarrassingly tries to say suicide is a result of sensing that you are a hindrance to your siblings reproductive success. Good psychology right?)
So since modern-day humans do not share the same values of (classical) evolution, I do not believe the author can use that justification to excuse the biases. And I believe the false-equivalancies he makes are agenda'd and biased on purpose. But I digress. In addition some of the behaviours that the author lists seem to have piss-all to do with having survival/passing on genes as an immediate outcome anyway, just more examples of the author stretching to have his process fit the outcome.
This brings up yet another egregious error the author makes in that he repeatedly seems to assume evolution is some creature with agency, like a god or a mystical guide that actively works for it's outcomes rather then being an outcome by definition. It's cringy and embarrassing.

D. Damage That Evolutionary Psychology Is Doing.
Evolutionary Psychology is stunting the growth of Psychology, particularly peoples use of it. The kind of thinking it promotes is harmful and is stunting the growth of good psychology. It's frankly ridiculous that the college has accepted this drivel as a college course, when I saw Evo Psych I went into the textbook with an open mind, thinking that the college would be a little bit better then some moron at a bar with discerning through this crap but it wasn't. On top of that, impressionable people who are dumb enough to believe this drivel are also typically dumb enough to believe in authority fallacies and will take the fact that this is taught in college as proof of it's validity (Take that how you will, I do have some people in mind while typing it). Supporting this class is socially irresponsible.
E. Problems with Course Approval Process
The fact that this course was allowed through is evidence that the current course approval process needs work. While if ANY of the people who approved the class that I contacted were able to at least ATTEMPT to defend the class against the arguments I wrote to them, then maybe I'd be less harsh on the course approval process. But none of them did.
This class is REALLY low-hanging fruit as well. It's errors are up-front and in your face. Believe me, I do not feel smart at all for bringing this to attention.

AS LONG AS THIS COURSE CONTINUES TO CALL ITSELF A SCIENCE it is fraudulent. Even if the course were to correctly identify itself, I would still be against this class as it is now, but on different grounds.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 902
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:43 pm

Oh also they may come at me for saying that they said they treated (his storied examples) and (modern examples) as having a 1:1 causation relationship.

Tbh they weren't really clear, they'd go back and forth with no real explanation. They might come at me and say "no we dont mean that, we just mean this"

even then tho, theres no proof to their claims that that the resulting behaviour of modern humans developed under their circumstances, for such a direct purpose, or that the brain is even operating under the modular design they propose.


Last edited by Biscotti on Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 902
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:47 pm

Oh yeah, a little cringe on the "socially irresponsible" line. tbh I put that in because I noticed their mission statement was to be "socially responsible".

As far as I know, no evo psyc person has directly contested me yet, so I may/may not have to worry about opposition.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 902
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:14 pm

Oi. Okay how to frame this.

This person I emailed, I believe, is aware that I have been on this case for awhile. Keep that in mind, because I just got a facepalming reply.

Basically, with copious amounts of assurance that my points were read and considered. She doesn't believe it's in violation of a college regulation.

I already sent an email back, telling her the fairly obvious point that that does not make the issue over. You cannot say you disagree but GIVE NO EXPLANATION WHY! DUH!

And even if you want to pin it on the regulations, the fact that a class fits in with regulations does not make it okay. In fact, if this is the method she wants to go then that just escalates the conflict because now that indicates that there is something incredibly wrong with the Universities regulations. Which would mean that I would now have to escalate my rhetoric to questioning the academic integrity of the entire school and value of the """""education"""""" system to begin with. (Which I'm actually cool with.)

But HOLY HECK. GIVE JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR DECISION, YOU HAVE A PHD. I feel like a teacher correcting a 5th graders homework. (sorry, I'm probably being rude but I'm a little pissed)

I'm now going to rant about college in the venting thread (unless I decide against it)
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 902
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Fri Jan 26, 2018 5:51 pm

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-psychology/

This article is actually interesting and makes me think evo psych might actually have a potential spot, if it weren't currently taken over by sex-positives. (on that note, might think of a few patterns of argument that specifically attack this aspect. Cross-cultural studies - > monastary cultures? Attitudes (in general, speaking with a modular approach) seem to not be evolutionarily picked as can be observed that rarely is their a consensus on any opinion?)
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 902
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by xenosimiana on Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:26 am

Don't apologize, you're not in the wrong. It's just the sad but typical "I don't give a fuck about your disagreement, it's about money...plus I think you're crazy, plus it's just little ole you that has a problem."

I think looking at other attitudes especially monastery cultures would be a good idea. I'm not that well versed in psychology or even sociobiology but...this is what I'm thinking, when they're trying to explain behavior as part of natural selection that brings about evolution (for the most part), but at the same time explaining to people that even though you have a lot of short-tempered and thieving family members those are "genetic dispositions" and not sealed in stone you can control it etc....then why does explaining human and nonhuman behavior really matter? I take that back, it does matter, but I see behavior as having base emotions that diversify because of various levels of malleability among different animals which I think is the only thing that's biological (I probably proved their point).

Why can't we see it as variables that cause shit to happen without them always having a practical use? There's many things that aren't ideal, but it exists and yes it might from time to time have a function for it but that doesn't always mean it's for "survival". It could be other aspects that cause an organism to survive and not just one or a few particular characteristics that just get "carried on" to the next generation. 

For me, I don't see a survival aspect to having a fetish for inflicting pain, or for feet (but I guess the reasoning for that would be it leads to sex to pass on genes. But again, how does one's various opinions of why they like someone's feet help with survival? As long as they can walk what does it matter?) as examples help organisms truely survive.
But, as long as it leads people to have sex is what matters the most. 

I'm probably not making sense and need to now more about it but....?

xenosimiana

Posts : 336
Join date : 2016-11-12
Location : Detroit, MI

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:56 pm

It was about 7 am yesterday that I finally figured out my next move.

As it seems that these people are refusing to take this issue seriously to the point where they will not engage with me on it. It is time that I give them reason to take this seriously.

As such, I will be distributing this poster to all the offices in the psychology department sometime this week. (And if need be I can distribute it elsewhere too.)

avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 902
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:57 pm

I may edit a little more (The course of PSY497 is only related because it's pseudo-science and is not directly related to the example. The example is only there because these people seem to not recognize the harms of promoting mal-adaptive thought processes)
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 902
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by xenosimiana on Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:12 am

Ok. I think a little more editing would be good, hopefully this would incite a response besides dismissal.

xenosimiana

Posts : 336
Join date : 2016-11-12
Location : Detroit, MI

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:05 pm

Any specifc qualms?
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 902
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by xenosimiana on Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:05 am

My concern is that it doesn't seem to scream the pseudo-science going on because people would interpret that differently as it being maladaptive yes, but not quite linking it to evo psy. I guess keep the sample as you said to help people understand the harm, but I guess add something psy has that needs checking.

xenosimiana

Posts : 336
Join date : 2016-11-12
Location : Detroit, MI

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by xenosimiana on Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:26 pm

https://www.thecut.com/2016/12/not-all-critiques-of-evolutionary-psychology-are-the-same.html

"Even if they do, as Coyne points out, there’s an important is/ought distinction here — you can accept that we’re evolved in a certain way without endorsing that type of behavior, and such knowledge can in fact help design societal structures more likely to strip us of bits of evolutionary baggage that are no longer adaptive."


I understand this and agree with it, but like I was trying to say before what's the point exactly in trying to figure out if certain types of behavior is evolutionary driven if other fields such as say...sociology or ideologies already work on ridding so-called "evolutionary baggage that are no longer adaptive" behaviors?

xenosimiana

Posts : 336
Join date : 2016-11-12
Location : Detroit, MI

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:23 pm

Evo psych is tiring, I've sent out some more emails, and I have gotten better at picking apart it (There are so many logic gaps that it can be difficult to know where to start, but once you do, you can easily do it. I've noted it's flawed conclusions and flawed logic in applying itself, as well as numerous inconsistencies and ignorances)

But this paper "Can We Save Darwin from Evolutionary Psychology?" (google it. hope you can get access) does it well. And now I feel I should focus on something specific about evo pysch and that is the actual sex-positive corruption that is currently inside it.

That is, it is incredibly safe to call evo psych bullshit. This argument is over. The issue now is approach, how to take this argument we have won on, and enable us to make the "sex-positives" look bad so that they do not attempt this again. (In other words, make the sex-positive-assuming that evo psych partakes in go out of fashion. Make it a topic to be aware of.)

The of course, other alternative is to work with evo psych to not make these mistakes and oversights again. That would be the friendly way (and really my interest is fading in this subject and I never planned on this campaign to turn into a career). The way I'm describing is more of a political move.

But I don't really have any ideas yet. That's just what I've been thinking about lately. I did not follow through with that poster yet btw. So don't worry.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 902
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:44 pm

Sorry, wanna clarify that there are a wholr lot of prosexual issues in te subject ASIDE from "antisexual awareness" (which is more of a minor issue acually) and that those were what i was mainly referring to in the previous post. (just clarifying becausr i know this topic is publicly viewable to newcomers)
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 902
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:25 pm

I figured out the next move.

Posters around campus that say something like "Sexuality is not the default" in big letters. It's eye-catching proclamation.

Underneath there is information about meeting up to discuss the blind spot in sexual literature regarding sexual attitudes (even prosexuals I'm sure have some sort of sexual attitudes..........right?)

End goal: raising awareness that sex-positivity is not a "default state", potentially gaining interest in this sort of subject and maybe even pursuing some research topics (that I brought up before in the research area) with people who are not antisexuals, but possibly may be interested in sex-critical or even sex-negative thinking.

Sorry, I'm tired and have a tough midterm tomorrow. Hope I at least conveyed the general gist.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 902
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Thu Feb 08, 2018 12:17 pm

I also wonder if raising this issue in front of celibate communities might work.

I've tried it with asexual communities and their so god-damn brainwashed that it makes me lose faith in humanity.

I blame it on evo psych, but not really, I blame it on the psych industry. Given that asexuals are convinced through logical fallacies that "because people had sex in the past, people must be inclined to have sex" (There is NO RELATION TO THESE THINGS, BUT I HEAR IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN), I'm CONVINCED there is some sort of brainwashing going on. ESPECIALLY when I hear it from "asexuals" who at the same time say that they, themselves are EXEMPT from this "phenomenon" in the first place?

Where is this kool aid coming from. Is it the school system? Is it sexuals own toxic view of themselves?
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 902
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by SCH0206 on Thu Feb 08, 2018 6:01 pm

You can try targeting the celibate community, although I have a feeling that they may say something along the lines of "While I felt that I became a better person by not having sex, you shouldn't be bashing sex or telling consenting adults how to live their lives."

But, who knows? Antisexual celibates exist, too.

SCH0206

Posts : 446
Join date : 2015-04-30

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:32 pm

https://www.reddit.com/r/Celibacy/comments/7w74qi/stop_cultural_biases_sexuality_is_not_the_default/

good results so far. But (#$*)$#( DOCTORS SHOULD NOT BE TELLING PEOPLE WHO ARE ABSTAINING FROM SEX THAT THEY ARE REPRESSING THEMSELVES. I WOULD BE MADDER IF I DIDNT BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS ALREADY ILLEGAL AND THAT THE COMMENTOR JUST HAS A BAD DOCTOR.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 902
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by SCH0206 on Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:54 pm

That's great, Biscotti.

I'm, too, irritated about that doctor. I'm not sure if it's illegal or not to ask patients such questions, but it's very nosy to do so. A doctor's job is to check out, treat, and/or cure a patient, not tell them how to conduct their lives unless it was hazardous to their health, and celibacy is not hazardous to one's health.

SCH0206

Posts : 446
Join date : 2015-04-30

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Biscotti on Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:00 pm

Asking that question (are you sexually active) is fine. Recommending sex is not fine. In fact it's harassment.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 902
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by SCH0206 on Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:01 pm

@Biscotti wrote:Asking that question (are you sexually active) is fine. Recommending sex is not fine. In fact it's harassment.
That's true. That's what I meant to say.

SCH0206

Posts : 446
Join date : 2015-04-30

Back to top Go down

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

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