Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The rise of the evolutionary psychology douchebag [View all]Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)109. Margaret Mead's work answered a lot of this bullshit 60 years ago.
http://www.bnl.gov/bera/activities/globe/mead.htm
The Samoan work, published as Coming of Age in Samoa, became a best seller and has been translated into many languages. This work presented to the public for the first time the idea that the individual experience of developmental stages could be shaped by cultural demands and expectations, so that adolescence might be more or less stormy and sexual development more or less problematic in different cultures. I t was addressed above all to educators, affirming that the "civilized" world had something to learn from the "primitive." The Manus work, published as Growing Up in New Guinea, effectively refuted the notion that "primitive" peoples are "like children." Different developmental stages, and the relationships between them, need to be studied in every culture. Mead was thus the first anthropologist to look at human development in a cross-cultural perspective.
In subsequent field work, on mainland New Guinea, she demonstrated that gender roles differed from one society to another, depending at least as much on culture as on biology, and in her work in Bali with her third husband, Gregory Bateson, she explored new ways of documenting the connection between childrearing and adult culture, and the way in which these are symbolically interwoven. She and Gregory Bateson had one child, Mary Catherine Bateson.
As an anthropologist, Mead had been trained to think in terms of the interconnection of all aspects of human life. TheMargaret with Paulo production of food cannot be separated from ritual and belief, and politics cannot be separated from childrearing or art. This holistic understanding of human adaptation allowed Mead to speak out on a very wide range of issues. She affirmed the possibility of learning from other groups, above all by applying the knowledge she brought back from the field to issues of modern life. Thus, she insisted that human diversity is a resource, not a handicap, that all human beings have the capacity to learn from and teach each other. Her delight in learning from others showed in the way she was able to address the public with affection and respect.
When World War II cut off field research in the South Pacific, Mead and Benedict pioneered the application of anthropological techniques to the study of contemporary cultures, founding the Institute for Intercultural Studies. Then, in her most sustained post-war field work, Mead returned to Manus in 1953 to study the dramatic changes made in response to exposure to a wider world. Reported in New Lives for Old, this research offered a new basis for her insistence on the possibility of choosing among possible futures. In a society becoming increasingly pessimistic about the human capacity to change, she insisted on the importance of enhancing and supporting that capacity. She believed that cultural patterns of racism, warfare, and environmental exploitation were learned, and that the members of a society could work together to modify their traditions and to construct new institutions. This conviction drew her into discussions of the process of change, expressed in the slogan, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world."
In subsequent field work, on mainland New Guinea, she demonstrated that gender roles differed from one society to another, depending at least as much on culture as on biology, and in her work in Bali with her third husband, Gregory Bateson, she explored new ways of documenting the connection between childrearing and adult culture, and the way in which these are symbolically interwoven. She and Gregory Bateson had one child, Mary Catherine Bateson.
As an anthropologist, Mead had been trained to think in terms of the interconnection of all aspects of human life. TheMargaret with Paulo production of food cannot be separated from ritual and belief, and politics cannot be separated from childrearing or art. This holistic understanding of human adaptation allowed Mead to speak out on a very wide range of issues. She affirmed the possibility of learning from other groups, above all by applying the knowledge she brought back from the field to issues of modern life. Thus, she insisted that human diversity is a resource, not a handicap, that all human beings have the capacity to learn from and teach each other. Her delight in learning from others showed in the way she was able to address the public with affection and respect.
When World War II cut off field research in the South Pacific, Mead and Benedict pioneered the application of anthropological techniques to the study of contemporary cultures, founding the Institute for Intercultural Studies. Then, in her most sustained post-war field work, Mead returned to Manus in 1953 to study the dramatic changes made in response to exposure to a wider world. Reported in New Lives for Old, this research offered a new basis for her insistence on the possibility of choosing among possible futures. In a society becoming increasingly pessimistic about the human capacity to change, she insisted on the importance of enhancing and supporting that capacity. She believed that cultural patterns of racism, warfare, and environmental exploitation were learned, and that the members of a society could work together to modify their traditions and to construct new institutions. This conviction drew her into discussions of the process of change, expressed in the slogan, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
157 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
fantastic angle. thank you for posting. i had not thought of it from that angle.
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#8
I read a theory that leopards helped us evolve, because they killed and we stole.
mainer
Apr 2014
#18
"they killed and we stole.""biologist called...equivalent of fast food". i interpret
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#19
Actually due to our ability to sweat, humans are better than most animals at running...
Humanist_Activist
Apr 2014
#83
hey, if i can convince my father, 76 and never voted dem, to vote obama and my husband,
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#9
and then there is all that. actual facts of the past. and what we can or cannot know. nt
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#11
Well crap, murder and violence in general is part of human evolution. But so are social contracts.
yellowcanine
Apr 2014
#6
it takes our social and gender roles now and tries to extrapolate them backwards
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#15
i know. i swear i can find it in the kid bible with dinos playing around as a pet. nt
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#16
it is not science. and per all the info in the OP i am not discounting cause i do not like
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#23
...you're using the fact that one evolutionary psychologist may have done something bad to attack
Donald Ian Rankin
Apr 2014
#24
google. educate yourself. i did not provide the vast documentaion provided on google that
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#29
this is not a fun game for me. and i have stuff to do. so... believe. i do not care. info is
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#32
I did some research on it. it isn't without controversy but it is a real field of science
arely staircase
Apr 2014
#84
and the rest of the scientific community reject them, because of the inadaquacies they take
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#89
you are wrong. but, you are just starting to read up on it. you can catch up at will
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#102
from my OP. i am aware it is in our universities, criminal system, govt, judical system.
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#112
My op already states it is in the universities. Hence, I know universities pay. Nt
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#122
Don't you get it? Facts be damned, she knows what's up and there's no changing her mind.
cleanhippie
Apr 2014
#115
well. firstly there was more than just one "done something bad" so what does that say about your
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#28
It was one psychologust doing one thing? Sounds like you did not read what you are commenting on....
bettyellen
Apr 2014
#41
actually no. a theory can be ridiculous and discredited. not "as good as it gets", LOL.
bettyellen
Apr 2014
#40
evo psych is largely a crock of shit, unlike Hubble peering into the past.....
bettyellen
Apr 2014
#49
well, you have to believe we KNOW there was no communication or tranmission back then, and we do not
bettyellen
Apr 2014
#58
"Stasis was much more the norm in those days" is a supposition that has been frequently disproved.
bettyellen
Apr 2014
#65
other than evo psych, tell me what other science is called a new religion in the NAME of science.
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#56
too interesting. i figured you were going to show me creationism, being a science. hm...
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#66
Are you claiming that evo psych is a scientific theory or just blurring the lines between
Chathamization
Apr 2014
#153
really? i give you an OP that explains the problems. you want a more scientific approach to the
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#78
seriously? now are you asking me to get the bunk studies of evo psych and them being discredited?
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#91
what opiate? continually asking for more info is just a game? no surprise there. gotta be games.
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#154
geez guys. everyone knows what scientific theory is and knows the use of theory as a word
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#48
the actual handling is the issue. why would we embrace a falsehood as a truth, when we know it is
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#42
that is not true. what do you mean, yup. where did ANYONE state chemicals do not effect brain. ONE
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#68
studies are coming out all on its own, no. and someone challenging that is a long way
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#93
the brain stuff is not really the domain of evolutionary psychologists, its more the domain of neuro
La Lioness Priyanka
Apr 2014
#72
right, but brain chemistry is not exactly what evolutionary psychologists are trained to do. nt
La Lioness Priyanka
Apr 2014
#81
As I understand it they are studying the relationship between mental function and chemistry.
rrneck
Apr 2014
#96
evolutionary biologist, i think is what the more basic scientific approach is. this field is respect
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#82
what the hell does it matter and why should i waste my time. you have made it clear you are not
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#94
i object also, but i believe in putting in the title given. and no, it is not. nt
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#85
I think that the issue is that the field is far too young, and involved psychology...
Humanist_Activist
Apr 2014
#95
i see a handful of men really invested in evo psych. and i am not surprised by a single man that is
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#104
I hVe scientists on my side and most of the population. The other side? Anti feminists. Anti women.
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#123
post 64. i give you the info. you refuse to read. i understand it is an illusion for SOME men to
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#133
evolution occurs at the genetic level, not at the level of the individual item of behaviour.
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#110
Post 123 dude. As I say, the only ones invested in evo psych in this thread are those anti feminist
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#124
MRAs are much closer aligned with conservative Fundies- unless your ONLY concern is porn? Nice try!
bettyellen
Apr 2014
#127
do you know the difference between the theory of evo and evo psych? do you understand why the fundie
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#131
a lot fo christian coalition men support evo psych. this author actually points out
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#136
and in this thread alone, beside the men that consistently fight against women issues, everyone
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#130
just about every thread that comes up. and no... i am not gonna point out what you are well aware
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#137
"It's an appealing fallacy, though." they are here in the thread, well invested in their evo psych
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#132
How do you know cooperation was not the start and with a hierarchy and power over
seabeyond
Apr 2014
#144
Just a reminder; MRA's are considered HATE groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center
ismnotwasm
Apr 2014
#155