Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How evolutionary psychology went viral

thenation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 56 posts

Re: How evolutionary psychology went viral

#11

Post by mudil »

Psychological differences between men and women are real because they were shaped by "eons" of evolution. And as it relates to ever present discussions on HN about women in tech, the reason women are not in tech is because they are not interested in tech as much as men. For whatever reason they simply are not. (Yes, not all women, but when it comes to evolution it is percentages and chances that are discussed. So, for all practical purposes, women are not interested in tech.) Can we increase percentage of women in tech? Probably. Should we do it? Sure. But at the end of the day, women, mostly, are not going to be into tech.

(And, please, don't think that we can change evolution in 10 or 20 years. Or even 1000. Or even 10,000. We are talking millions of years for changes to occur.)

Re: How evolutionary psychology went viral

#12

Post by larksimian »

ksk wrote: post #8
jbhatab wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to have to disagree here. I think that the tests necessary to prove psych are incredible difficult, but I can still use limited sets of data to verify things. Evolutionary psych is the philosophy that matches up the best with what I have seen in this world. This isn't scientific, but if I don't have another philosophy to go off of then I will at least reference that model for ideas on how people will behave…

>but I can still use limited sets of data to verify things. Such as? >This isn't scientific, but if I don't have another philosophy to go off of then I will at least reference that model for ideas on how people will behave. I don't understand your point. If you say it's not scientific, what exactly are you "verifying" ?

He's verifying his ability to use the terminology of science to justify and legitimate his personal biases about other human beings and the way the world works. Limited sets of data aka personal anecdotes. The plural of anecdote and all that.

Unfortunately, as science becomes the hegemonic source of authority in our world, pseudo-science becomes the preferred language for demagoguery and bullshit.

The greatest crime of the modern scientific community(in some disciplines at least) is to viciously betray the skeptical roots of scientific thought by ignoring the value of understanding and admitting what we DO NOT know.

My personal bias is that a shitty model with 0 statistical validity should not be treated as gospel because 'It's the best we've got.' I believe that it is better to accept ignorance and act with according caution in some areas of life. But then again I have no scientific justification for that, anymore than people do for the reverse.

Re: How evolutionary psychology went viral

#14

Post by daveloyall »

NB I haven't read the article; I try to keep it tech related at work.

NB I'm male, white, 31 years old, born poor, raised isolated, computers brought me out of poverty, and people--specifically women--brought me out of isolation.

Geeks are my original people, my first clan. I believed that The (dial up, text based) Internet was the great equalizer--that it was a medium which made it impossible to see race or sex or creed or weight or shape, that each entity could only be judge by its character, choice of moniker, and actions. The people you'd fall in love with were the ones that would create amazing things and share them... Remember?

Ok, I've set the stage, now I've gotta ask...

I gotta ask the people who say that women are different from men: are you trolling? Was there some great internet convention that I missed at which it was agreed by consensus to all act like idiots for a few years for some greater good?

Seriously, what am I missing?

You do know that women are people, right? Like, half the people, 3.5 billion women.

[Update: Thus far the responses have indicated that I probably haven't asked the right question. In my country, the question as to whether or not a given entity "is a person" is an important, well known, well discussed question and the answer always carries a great number of implications. Pardon me, I'll try to improve the question, but it's unlikely that I'll make any progress on the timescale of days. These things are hard.]

[Update: I should not have said "the people who say that men and women are different" when I meant to say "the people who use 'men and women are different' as a euphemism for something more insidious".]

Re: How evolutionary psychology went viral

#15

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jbhatab wrote: post #4
api wrote: post #3

Most evo-psych is pretty weak stuff, basically a lot of dubious and untestable just-so rationalizations for various prejudices and apparent human tendencies. A good chunk of it is full-on woo-woo nonsense. Sometimes I get the (rather cynical) sense that there's an inverse relationship between the merit of an idea and its virality.

I'm going to have to disagree here. I think that the tests necessary to prove psych are incredible difficult, but I can still use limited sets of data to verify things. Evolutionary psych is the philosophy that matches up the best with what I have seen in this world. This isn't scientific, but if I don't have another philosophy to go off of then I will at least reference that model for ideas on how people will behave…

> This isn't scientific, but if I don't have another philosophy to go off of... (emphasis added).

That's all right as far as it goes, but you need to consistently remember that what you're doing is not science, it's philosophy.

Re: How evolutionary psychology went viral

#16

Post by api »

larksimian wrote: post #12
ksk wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but I can still use limited sets of data to verify things. Such as? >This isn't scientific, but if I don't have another philosophy to go off of then I will at least reference that model for ideas on how people will behave. I don't understand your point. If you say it's not scientific, what exactly are you "verifying" ?

He's verifying his ability to use the terminology of science to justify and legitimate his personal biases about other human beings and the way the world works. Limited sets of data aka personal anecdotes. The plural of anecdote and all that. Unfortunately, as science becomes the hegemonic source of authority in our world, pseudo-science becomes the preferred language for demagoguery and bullshit. The greatest crime…

> Unfortunately, as science becomes the hegemonic source of authority in our world, pseudo-science becomes the preferred language for demagoguery and bullshit.

Very well put.

Re: How evolutionary psychology went viral

#17

Post by api »

daveloyall wrote: post #14

NB I haven't read the article; I try to keep it tech related at work. NB I'm male, white, 31 years old, born poor, raised isolated, computers brought me out of poverty, and people--specifically women--brought me out of isolation. Geeks are my original people, my first clan. I believed that The (dial up, text based) Internet was the great equalizer--that it was a medium which made it impossible to see race or sex or c…

Totally crazy tangent but:

I don't understand misogynistic guys who say awful things about how dumb / shallow / whatever women are and then in the next breath talk about their sexual interest in them. I mean... if I thought all those demeaning things about women, I'd have a tough time being sexually interested in one. I'd have to go asexual or gay.

Re: How evolutionary psychology went viral

#18

Post by api »

PavleMiha wrote: post #10

The author makes some really good points about the quackery in EP. But at no point are the merits of some of these theories even mentioned. Take for example the proposition that women are attracted to older men. If it was found that all current human cultures and other mammals exhibited this behavior you could begin to think that this behaviour is grounded in biology. > Evolutionary psychology does draw on empirical…

> If an explanation fit all current observations and predicted future experiments why is it not correct?

http://www.tylervigen.com

Re: How evolutionary psychology went viral

#19

Post by tejon »

mudil wrote: post #11

Psychological differences between men and women are real because they were shaped by "eons" of evolution. And as it relates to ever present discussions on HN about women in tech, the reason women are not in tech is because they are not interested in tech as much as men. For whatever reason they simply are not. (Yes, not all women, but when it comes to evolution it is percentages and chances that are discussed. So, fo…

> And as it relates to ever present discussions on HN about women in tech, the reason women are not in tech is because they are not interested in tech as much as men. For whatever reason they simply are not.

Jumping from this to "therefore evolution" is exactly as specious as jumping to "therefore culture." Actually moreso, because it's cultural by definition; the question is what sparked the culture.

The culture may, indeed, be rooted in biological predisposition toward the topics involved. It could also be rooted in biological predisposition toward shoving others out of a social club, and/or allowing oneself to be shoved out -- metaphorically or through literal physical force.

Or it could be rooted in a long history of self-serving decisions which have nothing to do with biology whatsoever, only people in power working to concentrate and maintain that power. Disqualifying half the race is quite a coup.

Yes, we have significant gender dimorphism in our hormones and neurotransmitters. It's very likely that at some level, that's relevant. But claiming it as the root cause is arbitrary non-sequitur. Causation has to be demonstrated, it can't simply be inferred.

Re: How evolutionary psychology went viral

#20

Post by briandh »

> Spencer and his followers read Darwin’s On the Origin of Species as a justification for unregulated market competition and colonization.

Please. I don't know about Spencer's unnamed "followers", but he was not quite what you would call a fan of the colonialism of his day:

> That a government cannot undertake to administer the affairs of a colony, and to support for it a judicial staff, a constabulary, a garrison, and so forth, without trespassing against the parent society, scarcely needs pointing out.

> Moreover, colonial government, properly so called, cannot be carried on without transgressing the rights of the colonists. For if, as generally happens, the colonists are dictated to by authorities sent out from the mother country, then the law of equal freedom is broken in their persons, as much as by any other kind of autocratic rule.

From Social Statics, Chapter 27, Section 1 (available at http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spencer-social-statics-185... ).

Post reply on HN