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

41–50 of 56 posts

Re: How evolutionary psychology went viral

#41

Post by jev »

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…

Here's the simplest and most convincing argument I've heard to not dismiss evo psych.

The development of male features in foetuses is triggered by a massive release of testosterone. The second stage of gendered differentiation, puberty, is similarly driven by the release of sex hormones in both men and women. Noticeably, adolescent boys with a malfunctioning endocrine system do not display typical male features (lowered voice, facial hair, etc), lesser tendency to masculine psychology (like risk taking and aggression), and don't develop sex drive (straight or gay) unless they start taking injections for life. It should be uncontroversial to say that sex and gender differences, both physiological and psychological, are tied to hormones.

Next up, the brain: the most complex and expensive organ we have, a complex system of feedback loops, again driven and regulated by secretions of hormones and peptides and so on. To say that evolutionary psychology is false and just anecdotes, you'd have to argue that, despite all the other visible changes that sex hormones make, somehow, the brain is entirely unaffected by all of that. That gender is mostly (or as some claim, entirely) a social construct, determined by something as subtle as a tone of voice or the presence of 'patriarchal gender roles'. Even though studies show children and teenagers are more affected by their peers' behaviours and attitudes than their parents'. Even though there is no culture where gender roles are truly swapped, and the 'Norwegian Gender Paradox' remains true.

Not only does the science show nature plays a significant role in the "nature vs nurture" debate on sex and gender, but policies based on denying it have failed to work.

I'm not an evo psychologist, or a biologist either. But it seems a lot more reasonable to me than what's coming from the supposed equality camp.

Re: How evolutionary psychology went viral

#43

Post by daveloyall »

lamb87 wrote: post #37
daveloyall wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, nothing in the universe is more similar to man than woman. Both men and women are sentient (self-aware, conscious). You know, human. :)

I don't think you can find a lot of sane individuals who believe women aren't humans.

Yet, you find individuals and groups who don't treat them like humans.

...oh! Ipso facto: they aren't sane. :)

Re: How evolutionary psychology went viral

#44

Post by daveloyall »

enoch_r wrote: post #27
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…

> I gotta ask the people who say that women are different from men: [...] You do know that women are people, right? Like, half the people, 3.5 billion women. Let's examine two claims: 1. "Group A is genetically predisposed to different behavior than Group B, to which I belong." 2. "Group A is culturally predisposed to different behavior than Group B, to which I belong." You claim that making statement (1) indicates t…

I think I more or less understand what you are getting at. You're saying that my question was silly because it's not necessary to think that women aren't people in order to think that they ARE different than men.

Okay.

As I've indicated in a few places so far, I don't think I expressed my question as I'd intended to.

enoch_r, you seem like a methodical sort of person, maybe you can help me think this through.

I've jotted down some notes.

1. Basically I want to address internet misogynists, including but not limited to those that don't believe they are one. (I would like to exclude those who believe they are wrong and do it anyway. That's a whole 'nother conversation that might as well be had over a bottle.)

2. I believe that being a person is basically an excuse to get away with a lot of stuff, and an entitlement to receive the benefit of the doubt a lot.

3. I believe that one effective way to communicate is to present your own point in unfavorable terms. It's polite, saves a ton of time, and reminds yourself to avoid being defensive. Sometimes people even help you improve your point!

4. I believe that point 2 is true, most people believe it, and everybody benefits from it, and you're usually not aware that you're benefiting from it. But most people probably phrase it in more favorable terms. "The Golden Rule" is pretty catchy.

5. There's a comment here which states:

> I don't think you can find a lot of sane individuals who believe women aren't humans.

...I believe that it's tragically easy to find otherwise sane individuals who don't really, in their heart of hearts, in their innermost thoughts, believe that women are people in the same way that they believe that they themselves are people. I can't imagine that misogyny would be so common otherwise...

6. To the group described in 1., with 5. in mind: You know they are. Knock it off!

Re: How evolutionary psychology went viral

#45

Post by tim333 »

azakai wrote: post #24

> But EP has not gotten us any closer to understanding “human nature.” Instead, its provocations about gender have distracted us from what is truly interesting—and radical—about Darwin. Several EP scholars argue that human nature was fixed in the Pleistocene Era, that modern culture is merely a flimsy cover for our cave-dweller minds. But a great deal of evidence suggests that evolution occurs at a much faster rate t…

>to say "EP has not gotten us any closer to understanding “human nature”" is a joke.

Indeed. I've seldom come across a model that has given me more understanding of human nature. There are a lot of other dubious bits in the article and its a bit of a job to wade through 4200 words of it. I think part of the issue is that on a quick googling the authors fields appear to be Film Studies, the History of Art and Comparative Literature. Evolutionary psychology is a fundamentally a science subject and I'm not sure they really get it.

Re: How evolutionary psychology went viral

#46

Post by mudil »

tejon wrote: post #19
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…

Your logic is just a wishful thinking. According to you, men must have been excluded from nursing, public relations, or hospitality services because they are not members of "the club." And this is not only in US, but in societies across the world, from Sweden to Sri Lanka, despite massive efforts in many corners of the world to make sure that men and women are the same.

Re: How evolutionary psychology went viral

#47

Post by jbhatab »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #15
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…

> 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.

Of course, but I have built a strong enough of a model that I'm willing to bet decisions on what I know. It usually pans out well and has only gotten refined as time goes on.

Re: How evolutionary psychology went viral

#48

Post by arandr »

kijin wrote: post #39
arandr wrote: post #33

Is there any reason most evolutionary psychology articles talk about gender? Is there not any other element of human society that has both a biological and a behavioral component to study? Aside from their hyperfocus on a specific part of what they claim to be their subject of interest, my main problem with evolutionary psychologists is that they keep the "evolutionary" part of their argument (too often) to a vaguely…

The greatest factors that determine the course of evolution are (1) how likely you are to get laid and (2) how likely your offspring are to get laid. Since it's already difficult enough to produce falsifiable conjectures about an aspect of human psychology (sex/gender) that is directly related to those factors, it's not surprising that most EP researchers haven't even bothered to branch out into less closely related…

I think there's a debate to be had as to the relative importance of sexual selection (how likely you are to get laid) versus plain old selection (how likely you are to not die) or competition (how likely you are to have to share your food), especially over the timeframes being considered.

I agree that current EP research seems unlikely to ever manage to produce falsifiable conjectures (let alone actual hypotheses and experiments) on e.g. suicidality, social competition, or other subjects related to selection, but those questions are also interesting (even more interesting, I would say, that the question of whether women evolved to wear high heels). I would like to see an "evolutionary psychology" article linking studies of depression with, for example, studies of the effect of loneliness on the behavior of non-human social animals, or theorizing as to how depression continues to exist despite being on the face of it a negative trait for the purposes of reproduction and survival. As an added help there have been studies on genetic and metabolic associations to depression, whereas near as I can tell exactly zero molecular biologists are interested in the high heel connection.

Re: How evolutionary psychology went viral

#49

Post by tokenadult »

I recall that we have discussed the Ray Baumeister speech, "Is There Anything Good about Men?"[1] as a direct submission to Hacker News before. Baumeister is one of several psychologists who sometimes hypothesizes from an evolutionary psychology perspective. The "Evolutionary Psychology Primer" by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby[2] is often taken to be the definitive discussion of what evolutionary psychology is as an intellectual movement. An article from American Psychologist in 2010, "Evolutionary Psychology: Controversies, Questions, Prospects, and Limitations"[3] by young women (perhaps that's significant here) who had recently finished graduate study in evolutionary psychology argues that evolutionary psychology has important contributions to make to psychology research in general. Every psychologist I know is sure that human beings originated from a process of biological evolution, but I don't meet a lot of working psychologists who describe themselves as evolutionary psychologists. The Wikipedia articles on evolutionary psychology seem to be beset by edit wars between supporters and critics of that perspective, rather than combining both points of view in one balanced article with lots of good references.

A psychologist with a contrasting point of view is Janet Hyde,[4] a psychologist well trained in human behavior genetics. She has published papers suggesting that most supposed innate gender differences between men and women are shaped mostly by culture rather than by biological inheritance.

See what you think after reading some of the key documents. I'm still making up my mind.

[1] http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

[2] http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/primer.html

[3] http://www.dianafleischman.com/epap.pdf

[4] http://psych.wisc.edu/faculty-hyde.htm

http://www.apa.org/research/action/difference.aspx

Re: How evolutionary psychology went viral

#50

Post by tim333 »

kijin wrote: post #36
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? In order for anything to count as a "future experiment" with respect to something that takes as long as evolution does, the predicted phenomena would have to occur at least thousands of years from now, and you would have to control for all the socio-economic-cultural-political differences between now and then. Whi…

>The only thing EP has going for it, on the other hand, is a bunch of surveys, small-N experiments, and beloved-by-Cosmopolitan stereotypes about the contemporary courting behavior of affluent, predominantly white college students.

There is other evidence also. EP for example would suggest males would tend to massacre their neighbours and grab their females as this would be a genetic benefit. To study that experimentally you could look at the historic record of conquests and the genetic results, study uncontacted human societies, the stuff ISIS is doing now, chimp studies such as those recently in the news (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/science/lethal-violence-in...) and such like. You could also run MRIs on people brains to try to understand the mechanisms and so on. It's not college surveys and just so stories.

Indeed the fact that ISIS massacring the Yazidi's and rounding up women fits the evolutionary chimp style raiding hypothesis better than the loving God hypothesis is significant and might discourage the guys from doing if they realised that. Then maybe the massacres could stop through scientific enlightenment rather than us reluctantly having to go bomb them. Again it's more than Cosmo type stuff.

Post reply on HN