the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
Locked
1234
1234
 
|
On 02/23/2018 07:12 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > I think one is an evolutionary psychologist if and only if one thinks that knowledge of human evolutionary history has something to contribute to our understanding of contemporary human behavior. So, yes, you may call me an evolutionary psychologist. My guess is that, on that definition, so are you. Ha! No, I'm not. As I've argued lots on this list, I think thoughts are either purely epiphenomenal or, at least, rhetorical abstractions. (Yes. "This sentence is false.") To the extent that even an extreme behaviorist draws a (artificial) line between a behavior like sneezing and its underlying physiology, you can't include me in that group. There is no line. Psychology seems, to me, like a misguided stepchild of philosophy. Add to that my appreciation for postmodernism and context-determined behavior and you might wonder what strength evolutionary arguments hold at all, of anything other than trickery and artifice like Peterson's. Note that I'm qualifying "argument" with "evolutionary", not suggesting I don't believe evolution is, and is accurate. It is both. But the space of arguments invoking it is *swamped* with bullsh¡t (https://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html). Luckily, I see no bullsh¡t in the 3 or so papers of yours that I've read. > ... particularly if we take them as CAUSAL claims. And what other kind of claims to increased understanding are there? Now *that's* another interesting topic, non-causal claims. But I suspect everyone's tired of me by now. So, I really should back off. 8^) -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
|
Jordan Peterson doesn't list evolutionary psychology anywhere in his wikipedia article. He paints himself as much more of the Carl Jung variety psychologizer, which makes sense since his PhD is in Clinical Psychology. Then he tacks on Soren Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich as influences, which puts him pretty far out there for any kind of psychologist. His principle work is Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief which looks on the face of it, and on his appeals to its authority, to be a strong appropriationist claim to understand everyone's belief systems better than the believers do themselves. This is why he attacks all his enemies at the universities, because he has identified postmodernism as crypto-marxist (ie, they claim to have rejected Marxism, but their maps of meaning are clearly still Marxist, as his many years of studying authoritarian thought systems allow him to see). It's pretty obvious why dialogue with Peterson is awkward for people who do not grant his assumption that he understands why everyone believes what he thinks they believe. Those kinds of people are always awkward partners for intellectual discussions, they're always telling you to sit down, shut up, and listen. It's also clear why his secret decoder ring lectures for filing political opponents into pigeon holes could collect such a following, who wouldn't want to know what everyone really believes? His research program at Toronto is currently crowdfunded after his Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council grant was cancelled last spring. Bizarrely foreshadowing the future of all academics? There's a funny part in the article where he describes "white privilege" as a totally unfair way of blaming whites because some of their ancestors were assholes, where I always think of it as calling out whites for being assholes in real life. I guess the meaning sort of floats around or flickers between those poles, also making dialogue awkward. -- rec -- On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:49 AM, ∄ uǝʃƃ <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
|
|
In reply to this post by Prof David West
I found the email with David’s question for me re the Lena image.
I don’t think the Lena image had anything significant to do with the decline in the percentage of women going into CS. It was a very limited group of people that actually dealt with or even saw the image. And they were almost all male. When I was chair of the CS dept at UNM (1985-88) about 40% of the majors were women. Two other factors were much more responsible for the decline that started around then First, pre the mid 80’s, women saw CS as closer to Math but a major that led to jobs. However, they found that CS was more like Engineering (or was becoming more like Engineering), a field which for various reasons was not appealing to women or welcoming of them. Second, more and more students were attracted to CS because they they were computer game players. They were almost 100% male, aggressive, individualistic and often obnoxious, all characteristics that were not those that women students possessed (to their credit). Consequently, beginning programming classes were terrible experiences for many women students and they left the program With the faculty almost all male and comprised of people who had been rewarded for precisely these characteristics, there wasn’t much effort to change to make the program more attractive to women. Eventually CS at UNM changed and now has a healthy percentage of women students and faculty. Ed _______________________ Ed Angel Founding Director, Art, Research, Technology and Science Laboratory (ARTS Lab)
Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, University of New Mexico 1017 Sierra Pinon
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
|
|
I appreciate and second Ed's observaions here. While my own role as an instructor during this period was very limited. I was first a student *among* CS majors (I was a Physics/Math major with a CS minor) in the 70's when it was all pretty new by some measure and the participation by women was higher than in the more physical engineering and science disciplines (ME/EE and Physics/Chemistry) which I generally attribute to the socialization of girls against manipulating the natural world as aggressively as boys (i.e. playing with sticks and stones outside), but might *also* reflect the possibility that males DO have a *different* sense of 3D spatial relations and possibly even materials than females. As for Lena... I think the fact that *she* was selected in the first place by the male eye, and her recurrence in the "industry" was probably almost exclusively a male propagation for what I would call "obvious" reasons (and Glen might argue against that). I think Lena's pervasive image might have been a symbol of the "maleness" of CS in general and Image Processing in particular and THAT might have inhibited some women at a very subtle level, recognizing that the other (male) students might objectify them a bit. Of course one could make a MUCH stronger argument in this regard for any of the Sports fields and perhaps some subset of "Sports Journalism"? One might want to infer something about the ubiquity of the Teapot in the field of Computer Graphics... Ed can probably reference how it got started (who made the first Teapot as a 3D model?) and why it got re-used so ubiquitously... sort of the "Hello World" of CG. But probably nothing about culinary arts or kitchens or even the British love of Tea is likely to be significant. - Stve On 2/24/18 6:57 PM, Edward Angel wrote:
I found the email with David’s question for me re the Lena image. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
|
|
Both the Lena image and the Utah Teapot have their own wikipedia pages.
I was working with the image processing group at USC when they started using the Lena image as their standard test image. Before that they had been using what they all called the “girl image” which was probably from the 50’s and had a resolution of around 256 x 256 so it was pretty limited. There were no women working in what was a very large research group so I doubt there was any protest over the use of the Playboy centerfold. At that time it was not easy to find good images to test compression algorithms with. The Utah teapot was created by Martin Newell at Utah from his wife’s teapot. It was very nice because it could be described by 32 smooth bicubic spline patches and was used everywhere for a long time to test rendering algorithms. It’s not used much anymore as people use much larger data sets and there isn’t as much interest in splines since you now render tens of millions of animated triangles in real time. The really great story about standard data sets (but not on wikipedia) is the 3D data set of a lobster. It was created from a CT scan of dead lobster. I heard a talk by the guy who did it. He had to sneak into the medical scanner room in a hospital where he was working at night to do it. It took multiple days at the end of which the lobster really reeked and was losing body parts (which is noticeable in the reconstruction). My student, Pat Crossno, did the 3D reconstruction with a particle system that sought out body parts and then distributed the particles across the surfaces. Ed _______________________ Ed Angel Founding Director, Art, Research, Technology and Science Laboratory (ARTS Lab)
Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, University of New Mexico 1017 Sierra Pinon
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
|
|
An observation, if this thread is not totally abandoned.
Last Thursday night I had a conversation with Brigham Young. (I am a huge fan of and explorer of altered states of consciousness, so take that statement as denoting an experience that my mind turned into a visual/audio metaphor.) One of the threads in our discussion was women and in particular why so many religions (Christianity, Islam, Mormonism) that began with pro-woman beliefs and practices only to devolve into abhorrent misogynistic cults. (Brigham was an ardent feminist.)
I was talking with a friend about this conversation and he challenged me with the question: if they were so pro-female, why not practice polyandry? My first response was he was mistaking polygyny as a "privilege" rather than a "responsibility." Of course, the foundation of his taking things this way was the apparent sexual availability of multiple women.
That aside, I began thinking about why polygyny is so common and polyandry is so rare. About 2/3 of the cultures we know about are 'officially' polygynous — multiple wives and consorts are approved and expected. Almost a third of cultures are serial monogamist. around 1% are monogamous, and only a handful are polyandrous. In those few that are polyandrous, it is most commonly fraternal polyandry — marry a man and all his brothers.
Thoughts circled back to the onus of polygyny via Mark Twain's faux interview of Brigham Young. Brigham saying that he cannot bring a rose to one of his wives, he must bring 27 and how expensive that is. And, if he gives a tin whistle to one child he must give one to each, and imagine living in a home with 40-50 kids running around blowing tin whistles.
Almost flow of consciousness takes me back to Peterson. His "alpha males" cannot be more than greedy little boys because they do not accept the responsibility of their actions - they are not Men! The same scorn directed to absentee fathers in impoverished communities has been earned by Peterson's minions. In cultures like Mormonism and mainstream Islam, polygyny is (was) allowed, but there are strict expectations that must be met by the polygynist.
Finally, and to the point of this thread, might the prevalence of polygyny and the rarity of polyandry among humans be an evolutionary adaptation" and/or an evolutionary psychology adaptaptation?
Evidence suggests that women can accommodate the sexual needs of multiple husbands, but not the procreative needs. cultural evolution might allow for polyandrous relations within the context of cultural evolution but the procreative needs would dominate biological evolution.
davew
On Sun, Feb 25, 2018, at 12:04 PM, Edward Angel wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
That's a great way to phrase the question. It highlights, I think, that evolutionary _psychology_ is a bit strange. It's much stranger than, say, the article Roger posted, which refers to evolutionary anthropology. In this question, there are 2 concrete things: 1) the extent to which poly[andry|gyny] is engaged vs. 2) the extent to which it is accepted, discussed, thought about, etc. It (again) brings to mind the ubiquity of hypocrisy (a form of game playing) as a kind of falsification method for evolutionary psychological hypotheses. The preacher preaches against some behavior, but then is found to engage in that behavior. Or, another example, an insecure male watches youtube videos which present rhetoric he can wear on his sleeve (Peterson) and how-to instructions on how to better *present* a persona, but deep down, in his physiology, he is insecure, the opposite of the affect presented.
So, if evopsych is *anything*, it should be about the *disconnect* between behavior and what we say/think about that behavior. On 03/01/2018 03:07 PM, Prof David West wrote: > Finally, and to the point of this thread, might the prevalence of polygyny and the rarity of polyandry among humans be an evolutionary adaptation" and/or an evolutionary psychology adaptaptation? > > Evidence suggests that women can accommodate the sexual needs of multiple husbands, but not the procreative needs. cultural evolution might allow for polyandrous relations within the context of cultural evolution but the procreative needs would dominate biological evolution. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
|
|
Here's another take on Jordan Peterson from The Medium by a guy who also got the recommendation from YouTube. Sounds like Peterson's campaign against the Canadian civil rights legislation was a bunch of hooey, too. https://medium.com/s/story/a-field-guide-to-jordan-petersons-political-arguments-312153eac99a Again there's no hint of pseudo-science, he's getting roasted by lawyers in this telling for simple factual errors. There's an article in Time, too, haven't had the heart to look at that. It seemed to me that all of this feeds back into the sustainable minority paper. The alt-right is afraid of being swallowed up by the globalist majority, christian bakers afraid of enforced cakes, canadian psychologists afraid of non-binary pronouns, women afraid of male violence, blacks of white violence, back country tribes afraid of casual weekend genocides, gun owners of gun confiscation, & c.. So, is the fundamental question of the age who gets refuge and what kind of refuge do they get? Because we're not addressing the question at all, we're still arguing about who gets to be the dominant group and what indignities they can impose on the rest of us. -- rec -- On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 6:31 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote: That's a great way to phrase the question. It highlights, I think, that evolutionary _psychology_ is a bit strange. It's much stranger than, say, the article Roger posted, which refers to evolutionary anthropology. In this question, there are 2 concrete things: 1) the extent to which poly[andry|gyny] is engaged vs. 2) the extent to which it is accepted, discussed, thought about, etc. It (again) brings to mind the ubiquity of hypocrisy (a form of game playing) as a kind of falsification method for evolutionary psychological hypotheses. The preacher preaches against some behavior, but then is found to engage in that behavior. Or, another example, an insecure male watches youtube videos which present rhetoric he can wear on his sleeve (Peterson) and how-to instructions on how to better *present* a persona, but deep down, in his physiology, he is insecure, the opposite of the affect presented. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
I'm confused by your use of "again". This all smacks of pseudoscience, similar to the anti-vaxxers and the hyped claims of chemicals like reseveratrol or bee pollen. Perhaps you're using a focused definition of "pseudoscience"? For me, it's basically any claim dressed up in the trappings of science, but lacking any credible methodology.
Peterson dresses his obsolete cultural and psychological ideas up in the trappings of biological evolution, with no methodology to back them up. So, his claims are pseudoscience. It's difficult for me to impute that you (or any scientifically literate person would) disagree. 8^) Now, you could simply be arguing that evopsych is not pseudoscience, Peterson is pseudoscientific, hence Peterson is not evopsych. That seems reasonable. Or, perhaps you're simply saying that this article, like so many others don't make a clear case for (or against) Peterson's claims as pseudoscientific? On 03/08/2018 09:10 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote: > Again there's no hint of pseudo-science, he's getting roasted by lawyers in this telling for simple factual errors. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
|
|
I'm not finding any pseudo-scientific arguments in the stuff I'm looking at. It's just typical conservative rhetoric: my rights, my rights! the marxists, the marxists! all to defend the established order at any cost. I guess this article, https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/rights-favorite-new-intellectual-has-some-truly-pitiable-ideas-about-masculinity, from your first post found some evolutionary psychology, but it sounds more like rhetorical sawdust than the planks he stands on. I guess maybe I am being picky. -- rec -- On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:25 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote: I'm confused by your use of "again". This all smacks of pseudoscience, similar to the anti-vaxxers and the hyped claims of chemicals like reseveratrol or bee pollen. Perhaps you're using a focused definition of "pseudoscience"? For me, it's basically any claim dressed up in the trappings of science, but lacking any credible methodology. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Ah! OK. I take it that you're not looking at any of Peterson's videos, then ... only at the commentary about his videos/lectures/book, etc.
I also hear you when you say you haven't seen evidence that Peterson is an evolutionary psychologist (because his Wikipedia page or whatever doesn't mention it). But that's some sort of persnickety "letter" vs. "spirit". Even if there's some obscure technical defn of "evolutionary psychologist" that Peterson does not meet, he's clearly a clinical psychologist whose professorial lectures and his pop book justify his psychological framework with concepts from biological evolution. So, he fits pretty much every defn of "evolutionary psychologist" I can think of, in my naivety. If you can present a definition for which he does not fit, I'd appreciate hearing it. More directly, though, it's not at all clear that the typical conservative rhetoric consists of evolutionary arguments. There's a common conception that much of conservative rhetoric denies biological evolution. I've already agreed that Peterson and his ilk (like Harris and Haidt) often slip down the slope into typical conservative rhetoric. But that ilk makes a special appeal to authority by winding back to more solid turf, invoking "science" (neuro- for Harris, social- for Haidt, evolution for Peterson) when the validity of their inferences are challenged. In these cases, we have to separate the champion from their followers. Peterson's fanboys might rely on the typical conservative rhetoric, but Peterson does not. He pretends/tries to *derive* typical conservative rhetoric from more primitive principles. I suppose I can answer my own question to you and say that the analogies Peterson:Harris and Peterson:Haidt are broken because Peterson has no credible (scientific) background in evolution. He's merely cherry-picked popularized tokens from evolution to use willy-nilly. But, implicitly assuming that is analogous to implicitly assuming meteorologists *obviously* can't speak credibly about climate science. And we know how badly that assumption has hurt the climate science literacy. As unfair as it is (http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-bullshit/), the burden lies upon those of you who are literate to illuminate and educate those of us who are pseudo-literate. Hence, this thread. On 03/08/2018 11:13 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote: > I'm not finding any pseudo-scientific arguments in the stuff I'm looking > at. It's just typical conservative rhetoric: my rights, my rights! the > marxists, the marxists! all to defend the established order at any cost. I > guess this article, > https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/rights-favorite-new-intellectual-has-some-truly-pitiable-ideas-about-masculinity, > from your first post found some evolutionary psychology, but it sounds more > like rhetorical sawdust than the planks he stands on. > > I guess maybe I am being picky. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
|
|
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2164-0947.1967.tb02279.x/abstract
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Weird paper! Right off the bat, I'm not surprised by the inference that people who entertain the idea of being a different gender would test with higher IQs. But I *am* surprised by their abilities to draw! Surely the authors cherry-picked the good ones and the rest were as crappy as my own attempts to draw people.
On 03/08/2018 12:59 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2164-0947.1967.tb02279.x/abstract -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
|
|
I thought of that factoid when looking over some of Peterson's remarks. If this is generally true in the population, is it because of nature vs. nurture? I anecdotally had the experience it was true, and that (just now) made me go look to see if there was any research on it.
Lady Gaga's interpretation of Born This Way seems to be the politically-correct perspective these days. (As opposed to the more sensible "Who the hell are you to tell me how to live?") Presumably, the T in LGBT would also tend to adopt that perspective. Running with that, it seems to be reasonable to ask what other pseudo-gender differences exist, like intelligence, and the other things mentioned. There could be cognitive benefits to the alternative wiring, like there might be creative benefits from having synesthesia. Alternatively, a Peterson (faced with robust statistics on this) would have to consider the hypothesis that the (maladaptive?) lifestyle selected for intelligence or perhaps even improved it. Marcus On 3/9/18, 10:36 AM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: Weird paper! Right off the bat, I'm not surprised by the inference that people who entertain the idea of being a different gender would test with higher IQs. But I *am* surprised by their abilities to draw! Surely the authors cherry-picked the good ones and the rest were as crappy as my own attempts to draw people. On 03/08/2018 12:59 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2164-0947.1967.tb02279.x/abstract -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Well, again caveat my ignorance, many of these evolutionary justifications seem to ignore any possible eusocial effects. The idea of transgenders showing a predisposition to hair dressing BEGS us to make a spitball eusocial (or at least semiotic) evolutionary argument ... you know, the benefits of good grooming and all.
The same could easily be said for curiosity and intelligence. Groups with innovative members are likely to outperform groups without them ... like Steve's regular invocation of The Shaman. I know *I'm* happier with people like Lady Gaga and Marilyn Manson running around making noise. 8^) On 03/09/2018 10:26 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I thought of that factoid when looking over some of Peterson's remarks. If this is generally true in the population, is it because of nature vs. nurture? I anecdotally had the experience it was true, and that (just now) made me go look to see if there was any research on it. > Lady Gaga's interpretation of Born This Way seems to be the politically-correct perspective these days. (As opposed to the more sensible "Who the hell are you to tell me how to live?") > Presumably, the T in LGBT would also tend to adopt that perspective. Running with that, it seems to be reasonable to ask what other pseudo-gender differences exist, like intelligence, and the other things mentioned. > There could be cognitive benefits to the alternative wiring, like there might be creative benefits from having synesthesia. > > Alternatively, a Peterson (faced with robust statistics on this) would have to consider the hypothesis that the (maladaptive?) lifestyle selected for intelligence or perhaps even improved it. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
|
|
Ah, here's an article about Peterson that touches on the evolutionary psych angle, but what's a little pseudo-science among fascist mystics? -- rec -- On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 1:43 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote: Well, again caveat my ignorance, many of these evolutionary justifications seem to ignore any possible eusocial effects. The idea of transgenders showing a predisposition to hair dressing BEGS us to make a spitball eusocial (or at least semiotic) evolutionary argument ... you know, the benefits of good grooming and all. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |