For those who are so incredibly lucky that they have never heard about this pseudo-scientific rubbish: evolutionary psychology is a clumsy attempt to present gender inequalities and patriarchal worldview in a language that sounds vaguely scientific. In this way, losers who are incapable of adapting to a society where gender discrimination is not as pervasive as it used to be can convince themselves that their outdated worldview is somehow supported by science.
17 comments:
I think some of the claims of evolutionary psychology are probably true, and that there is an evolutionary psychology (as there has to be -- our brains are an evolved organ, just like the pancreas), but that most of them are not scientifically testable and certainly haven't been tested.
I won't say any more than that, because it just ends up pissing people off more than I already do, but I don't really buy into any of the gender essentialist claims of EvPsych -- but I do believe certain aspects of human behavior in men and women is pretty hard-wired (and no, not that women like to be barefoot and pregnant), but that people in general don't like comparing themselves to animals, and thus evolution is rejected by conservatives and evolutionary psychology of any kind -- no matter how sane -- is rejected by liberals for this reason.
All to avoid being compared to animals, and realizing that you (in the general sense) yourself are an animal, too, and not an angel.
-Mike
My take on it is that while evolutionary psychology can give us some insight on why the things evolved the way they evolved, it should not be treated as a set of rules to live by forever.
Nobody in their right mind considers the holy ancient art of making good stone axes as something to which all modern engineering has to be reduced...
I think the concept of studying psychology from an evolutionary perspective is sound. But the unverified hypotheses listed on the Bingo card that transparently promote the absurd status quo are a serious misapplication of it.
I will promulgate another one: Male humans are evolutionarily compelled to gather together in large groups for the purpose of killing. This arose from the necessity, millenia ago, of exterminating large carnivores which preyed upon us (leopards, sabre-tooth cats, etc.) The compulsion persists, even though it has outlived its usefulness. Much of evolutionary psychology should be viewed as clarifying things that have outlived their usefulness, I suspect.
(This explanation of "why" humans engage in warfare is not original with me, but I have forgotten where I first read it.)
This graphic is making the rounds through the Internets. Here's another entry for it at Language Log (which I highly recommend): http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2237
Thank you, everybody, for contributing to this discussion.
When I made fun of people using evolutionary psychology in a stupid way, I of course meant the sad bunch of unintelligent people who use it as a way to coach their sexism in pseudo-scientific terms.
Now, mthe science itself does not convince me in the least, either. I honestly believe it's nothing but a fad that will disappear in due course. Every field of knowledge has these weird moments when something appears because there is demand for it in pop culture.
Perhaps you intended to stop this discussion with your last comment, but it occurs to me that there are valid evolutionary reasons for women to be polyamorous: The more men who think they might be the father of a woman's children, the more help she has raising them.
The discussion should continue as long as it can. :-)
And your hypothesis is really funny. :-)
Why is it funny? I thought it was thought-provoking. The cultures (Northern India and Tibet, for example) where polyandry is common are in places where resources are very scarce and a woman really does need more than one man to help her provide for children.
I'm sorry, I'm really tired today, so my comments are a little weird. I meant that it was an unexpected way of looking at the issue and it's very interesting. I never thought about it this way.
I am not bothered at all that you found it funny; I was just surprised.
I am reading a book called _Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality_ which argues pretty convincingly for what I wrote here. Apparently I am not the only person who was thinking that females' having multiple sex partenrs is a good idea. There are quite a few tribes around the world, especially in South America, but elsewhere also, where this is practiced. Every man in the tribe then regards every child as his own, and helps support all children accordingly.
I think that it's a good idea for people to have as many sex partners as they feel like having at any given time.
The difference between the way we live in our society and the way people live in the tribes of South America, is that it doesn't take the "support" of so many men to py for raising a child. Neither do women have all that many children. As a result, we are lucky enough to have the luxury not to sell our sexuality for "support" but to explore it freely guided by our own desires.
Oh, I agree with you about that. What I do not agree with is your dismissal of evolutionary psychology as pseudoscience. I think evolutionary psychology is at the point where quantum mechanics was in 1880 or so. I think it holds promise as a field of research, and should not be discarded simply because the present early attempts to use it to make sense of human and animal behavior are so absurd and politically suspect. Where it will lead, I don't know, of course, but the book I mentioned is clear evidence that it is a living, growing field which is already changing from its crude beginnings as an attempt to justify the patriarchal status quo.
I want to make a prediction. As I said, I do not know where evolutionary psychology is heading long term. However, my guess is that it will end up completely undermining the patriarchy in ways that we cannot imagine right now.
I'm not extremely familiar with evolutionary psychology but the reason I dislike it is that it makes these wild assumptions about human beings based on what happened in prehistoric times. Human brain has an extremely well-developed capacity to adapt itself to change. We can see that happening even from one generation to another. To believe that we are more shaped by something that our far away ancestors did a million years ago to survive than by what we need to know and do today sounds extremely unconvincing.
Besides, we can't even know for sure what our prehistoric ancestors did and for what reason. Every time people try to explain history from their contemporary understanding of the world, the result is silly. In my post about Columbus's journey I gave an example of such a contemporary reading. People keep repeating, "Columbus went to look for gold and spices" simply because they want to attribute contemporary motivations to a medieval man. But at least we have some records about this particular medieval man. The data about prehistoric humans, is a lot less reliable or detailed.
I have finished the book I referred to. It makes a really strong case for female autonomy and against patriarchy in terms of evolutionary psychology. It makes me very happy.
Maybe I should read this book, too. It's available on Kindle, which makes it easier.
Thanks for recommending it!!!
Post a Comment