General Discussion

rrneck

(17,671 posts)

157. I don't think it's a theory yet.

Fri Apr 18, 2014, 11:19 AM

Apr 2014

But I've only read a few books on the subject, and the discipline appears to be in it's arrested infancy. It looks like it got a bad rap in the seventies when Edward O. Wilson published Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, which is part of his thinking about consillence and the unity of knowledge. At the time sociobioligy was accused of being something akin to social darwinism, although I don't think that's the case. I think he ran into trouble with a political zeitgeist that asserted that the bulk of human behavior is defined by nurture.

Since then I think the science of human behavior has predictably found it's way back to Darwin just like every other study of biology. Just as Darwin was dubious about discussing evolution in regards to human development because of ideological agnst, so Wilson ran afoul of ideology as well.

The confusion about how the term "theory" is used reflects the tension between what we know and what we want to believe. Both are important, and each impacts the other.

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:

The rise of the evolutionary psychology douchebag [View all] seabeyond Apr 2014 OP

It's problematic Polito Vega Apr 2014 #1

Did you see this? redqueen Apr 2014 #2

I read a piece that said that a lot of bones with human teeth marks on them chrisa Apr 2014 #3

fantastic angle. thank you for posting. i had not thought of it from that angle. seabeyond Apr 2014 #8

Margaret Mead's work answered a lot of this bullshit 60 years ago. Jackpine Radical Apr 2014 #109

love it. thank you. and one awesome woman. nt seabeyond Apr 2014 #111

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

atlatl rrneck Apr 2014 #36

Actually due to our ability to sweat, humans are better than most animals at running... Humanist_Activist Apr 2014 #83

oh noes... You are going to make men vote for repugs... Ohio Joe Apr 2014 #4

hey, if i can convince my father, 76 and never voted dem, to vote obama and my husband, seabeyond Apr 2014 #9

Well, they're right. Everyone knows Jackpine Radical Apr 2014 #113

I just finished up laundry_queen Apr 2014 #5

and then there is all that. actual facts of the past. and what we can or cannot know. nt seabeyond Apr 2014 #11

wrong place... boston bean Apr 2014 #76

This message was self-deleted by its author boston bean Apr 2014 #79

Well crap, murder and violence in general is part of human evolution. But so are social contracts. yellowcanine Apr 2014 #6

wrong place, sorry. nt seabeyond Apr 2014 #7

EvoPsych is, at best, an emerging science Prophet 451 Apr 2014 #10

it takes our social and gender roles now and tries to extrapolate them backwards seabeyond Apr 2014 #15

yes, it's all post-hoc hypothesizing. nt La Lioness Priyanka Apr 2014 #151

That picture is wrong on so many fronts, I don't know where to start. Rex Apr 2014 #12

i know. i swear i can find it in the kid bible with dinos playing around as a pet. nt seabeyond Apr 2014 #16

Why was Dieteich Stapel tossed in there? AngryAmish Apr 2014 #13

Here is the Wikipedia page on evolutionary psychology. Comrade Grumpy Apr 2014 #14

ah. you believe. k. i knew that. nt seabeyond Apr 2014 #17

You are mistaken. I have no clue about evolutionary psychology. Comrade Grumpy Apr 2014 #20

hm. nt seabeyond Apr 2014 #21

You're welcome. n/t Comrade Grumpy Apr 2014 #25

lol seabeyond Apr 2014 #26

I suppose many biases require one to confuse a critique with an attack. LanternWaste Apr 2014 #33

You cannot discount science just because LittleBlue Apr 2014 #22

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

This is a response to discounting science. chrisa Apr 2014 #34

...you're using the fact that one evolutionary psychologist may have done something bad to attack Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2014 #24

Bingo LittleBlue Apr 2014 #27

google. educate yourself. i did not provide the vast documentaion provided on google that seabeyond Apr 2014 #29

I have google links disproving climate change LittleBlue Apr 2014 #30

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

that doesn't seem to be the case arely staircase Apr 2014 #98

you are wrong. but, you are just starting to read up on it. you can catch up at will seabeyond Apr 2014 #102

you are correct in that I have read very little about it. arely staircase Apr 2014 #108

from my OP. i am aware it is in our universities, criminal system, govt, judical system. seabeyond Apr 2014 #112

wait, what? nt arely staircase Apr 2014 #120

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

really? what fact did i miss? or false accusation a big thumbs up? nt seabeyond Apr 2014 #116

well. firstly there was more than just one "done something bad" so what does that say about your seabeyond Apr 2014 #28

Could you edit this for grammar/clarity, please? Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2014 #31

my edit works better. seabeyond Apr 2014 #35

It was one psychologust doing one thing? Sounds like you did not read what you are commenting on.... bettyellen Apr 2014 #41

Evolutionary Psycology is some pretty interesting stuff. rrneck Apr 2014 #37

in hteory, yes, ... seabeyond Apr 2014 #38

In science a theory is as good as it gets. rrneck Apr 2014 #39

actually no. a theory can be ridiculous and discredited. not "as good as it gets", LOL. bettyellen Apr 2014 #40

... rrneck Apr 2014 #43

oooh, a wiki link. How very peer reviewed, LOL!!! bettyellen Apr 2014 #44

Clearly you don't understand the scientific process. Vashta Nerada Apr 2014 #45

evo psych is largely a crock of shit, unlike Hubble peering into the past..... bettyellen Apr 2014 #49

I've been wondering about rrneck Apr 2014 #54

well, you have to believe we KNOW there was no communication or tranmission back then, and we do not bettyellen Apr 2014 #58

Sure. rrneck Apr 2014 #61

"Stasis was much more the norm in those days" is a supposition that has been frequently disproved. bettyellen Apr 2014 #65

I agree. rrneck Apr 2014 #71

Wiki is very handy rrneck Apr 2014 #50

Another thing that's also interesting is... opiate69 Apr 2014 #51

other than evo psych, tell me what other science is called a new religion in the NAME of science. seabeyond Apr 2014 #56

Entirely too easy. opiate69 Apr 2014 #59

too interesting. i figured you were going to show me creationism, being a science. hm... seabeyond Apr 2014 #66

... opiate69 Apr 2014 #69

Are you claiming that evo psych is a scientific theory or just blurring the lines between Chathamization Apr 2014 #153

I don't think it's a theory yet. rrneck Apr 2014 #157

in theory was to your comment. not scienctific theory. seabeyond Apr 2014 #46

"factually, it is not playing out" rrneck Apr 2014 #53

"Why?" you might start by reading the OP. lol. bah hahah. geez seabeyond Apr 2014 #55

I was asking for any reference you may have to the facts or lacd thereof rrneck Apr 2014 #60

here are a few, cause not like i havent put this out before, in the past. seabeyond Apr 2014 #64

Ah. rrneck Apr 2014 #75

really? i give you an OP that explains the problems. you want a more scientific approach to the seabeyond Apr 2014 #78

You have posted rebuttals written by others rrneck Apr 2014 #86

seriously? now are you asking me to get the bunk studies of evo psych and them being discredited? seabeyond Apr 2014 #91

.. opiate69 Apr 2014 #92

what opiate? continually asking for more info is just a game? no surprise there. gotta be games. seabeyond Apr 2014 #154

Not so with science... opiate69 Apr 2014 #47

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

+1 LittleBlue Apr 2014 #62

Yep. It happens when ideology trumps evidence. rrneck Apr 2014 #63

that is not true. what do you mean, yup. where did ANYONE state chemicals do not effect brain. ONE seabeyond Apr 2014 #68

I'm searching for it now. LittleBlue Apr 2014 #88

studies are coming out all on its own, no. and someone challenging that is a long way seabeyond Apr 2014 #93

ONE person that says chemicals in our brain do not effect us. ONE. seabeyond Apr 2014 #74

the brain stuff is not really the domain of evolutionary psychologists, its more the domain of neuro La Lioness Priyanka Apr 2014 #72

Maybe. rrneck Apr 2014 #77

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

again, they do not examine brain chemistry. La Lioness Priyanka Apr 2014 #99

That's true. rrneck Apr 2014 #103

evolutionary biologist, i think is what the more basic scientific approach is. this field is respect seabeyond Apr 2014 #82

So rrneck Apr 2014 #90

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've asked you for facts at least three times. rrneck Apr 2014 #97

women like pink cause way back when, they picked berries seabeyond Apr 2014 #101

Um, rrneck Apr 2014 #114

Bookmarked for later CFLDem Apr 2014 #52

you are welcome. cfl. nt seabeyond Apr 2014 #57

I object to the use of the term "douchebag" Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #67

except that they are not. nt La Lioness Priyanka Apr 2014 #73

This town needs an enema. nt Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #87

i object also, but i believe in putting in the title given. and no, it is not. nt seabeyond Apr 2014 #85

evo is al post-hoc nonsense (well mostly, at any rate). nt La Lioness Priyanka Apr 2014 #70

but what about the bonobo's? boston bean Apr 2014 #80

i do not know if they are bonobos, but have you seen this thread. love. seabeyond Apr 2014 #107

I think that the issue is that the field is far too young, and involved psychology... Humanist_Activist Apr 2014 #95

yes. it is best to not extrapolate wildly from tiny effect sizes. La Lioness Priyanka Apr 2014 #100

thanks humanist. i agree with you. nt seabeyond Apr 2014 #105

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

So if it quacks like a duck.... Major Nikon Apr 2014 #119

I hVe scientists on my side and most of the population. The other side? Anti feminists. Anti women. seabeyond Apr 2014 #123

Somehow I doubt that Major Nikon Apr 2014 #129

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

Illusion my ass Major Nikon Apr 2014 #146

In 2010, I said of evolutionary psychology.. LeftishBrit Apr 2014 #106

evolution occurs at the genetic level, not at the level of the individual item of behaviour. seabeyond Apr 2014 #110

From what I've seen so far rrneck Apr 2014 #117

A lot of them actually sound like "Natural Law" philosophers. n/t Humanist_Activist Apr 2014 #118

*cough* Vashta Nerada Apr 2014 #121

Post 123 dude. As I say, the only ones invested in evo psych in this thread are those anti feminist seabeyond Apr 2014 #124

Yes. Vashta Nerada Apr 2014 #125

MRAs are much closer aligned with conservative Fundies- unless your ONLY concern is porn? Nice try! bettyellen Apr 2014 #127

Did you even read the link I provided in post #121? Vashta Nerada Apr 2014 #128

do you know the difference between the theory of evo and evo psych? do you understand why the fundie seabeyond Apr 2014 #131

You don't. Vashta Nerada Apr 2014 #134

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

Yeah, I'm not fighting against women's issues. Vashta Nerada Apr 2014 #135

just about every thread that comes up. and no... i am not gonna point out what you are well aware seabeyond Apr 2014 #137

Provide links. Vashta Nerada Apr 2014 #138

No. It is not a personal attack. And I did not create this op for you and seabeyond Apr 2014 #139

So you've got nothing. Vashta Nerada Apr 2014 #140

Every thread on women's issue. Have a good night seabeyond Apr 2014 #141

You may want to have a jury look at this too, then. Sheldon Cooper Apr 2014 #142

You're confusing evolution with evo-psych. n/t kcr Apr 2014 #149

It's the favorite pseudoscience of our time... Democracyinkind Apr 2014 #126

"It's an appealing fallacy, though." they are here in the thread, well invested in their evo psych seabeyond Apr 2014 #132

well stated. nt La Lioness Priyanka Apr 2014 #150

I've always had questions Shankapotomus Apr 2014 #143

How do you know cooperation was not the start and with a hierarchy and power over seabeyond Apr 2014 #144

I always get pegged when I Shankapotomus Apr 2014 #145

You are fun. I enjoyed reading your post but... seabeyond Apr 2014 #147

No worries Shankapotomus Apr 2014 #148

The most dangerous lies DonCoquixote Apr 2014 #152

Just a reminder; MRA's are considered HATE groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center ismnotwasm Apr 2014 #155

ah, what is it with all the hate. does it really simply boil down to a two yr old tantrum cause he seabeyond Apr 2014 #156