Evolutionary Psychology is a Meme

[Kujo Jotaro]

No substance, no evidence, just pontification. Every claim just boils down to something that sounds somewhat plausible within the cult of science framework, but strips man of his humanity. It's assumptions of human nature and action if followed to their logical conclusions would lead you to be a completely amoral actor; to them the inner life isn't real, or I should say every emotion is nothing more than an expedient twinge of the mind with a telos towards social cohesion. If you adopt this worldview attempting to faithfully follow it you will turn into a hyper-cynic, every interaction will be viewed through a dehumanizing and soul robbing lens.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

amoral

It's less about morality and more about selfishness. And it really depends on what aspects of behaviour you attribute to it. Like we have racial groups with massive differences in their behaviour even if we give them different tools and upbringings.

Nihilism is more the idea that completely dehumanises others.

 

[Troonos]

You clearly have a fast life strategy and an evolutionary mismatch.

 

[Kujo Jotaro]

It's less about morality and more about selfishness. And it really depends on what aspects of behaviour you attribute to it. Like we have racial groups with massive differences in their behaviour even if we give them different tools and upbringings.

Nihilism is more the idea that completely dehumanises others.

I could care less about the racial aspect, in fact often it's explicitly deemphasized by the same types of people who promulgate this shit(wignats are not the people I'm referring to). Nihilism is the natural conclusion of this line of thought, but a lot of people are probably attracted to it from a presupposed nihilism that they may or may not be aware of.

You clearly have a fast life strategy and an evolutionary mismatch.

All I do is snort coke and rail hookers, my life couldn't be any slower meng.

 

[God of Nothing]

yes everyone is exactly the same
except in all the ways ethnic groups are different from each other

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

It's just a bunch of unfalsifiable nonsense like any "soft science". These same people who buy into evolutionary psychology would go into a rage about what anthropologists, psychologists or economists say on the same topics if their findings don't fit their personal politics or ideology.

They just like evolutionary psychology because they can pick and choose things to make themselves feel better for poor life choices and a shitty personality.

That's all there is to it.

 

[Spud]

every interaction will be viewed through a dehumanizing and soul robbing lens.

The fuck are you smoking. You'll start doing this a few days in working retail.

 

[David Brown]

An organism is genetic information expressed in an environment. For example, a fertilized cow egg placed into a stainless steel container and shot into the sun will never become a cow. A fertilized cow egg placed into a healthy female cow's womb may one day become a cow. I think this is a reasonable definition. Both genetics AND environment are essential to the development and outcome of every organism. One can't reasonable say that one matters more than the other. Both genes and environment can and will make or break the outcome of an organism.

That being said: if it is accepted that natural selection can explain changes in a population's gene pool, and if it is accepted that an organism's genetics can have an affect on that organism's behavior by modifying the organism's brain, and if a group of organisms together can exhibit observable and measurable patterns of behavior, why wouldn't natural selective effects cause changes in a population's behavior or even in an individual organism's behavior?

Is biology simply not real? Is an organism not affected by the genetic information that is the blueprint for its every cell, every protein, and every enzyme? Could you explain to us what aspect, dimension, or physical part or property of a human being is untouched by his genetics?

 

[im5!XxhO]

They just like evolutionary psychology because they can pick and choose things to make themselves feel better for poor life choices and a shitty personality.

I am by no means deep into the subject, but that has also been my impression. In the interviews I have seen, it always seemed like they make up arguments for whatever outcome they like. And what is their to stop them? It's not like we can prove the opposite in any way that is more reliably than average social science statistical manipulation.

 

[DJ Grelle]

The way of yeast is not the way of animal and man.
There are plenty of animals that do not breed in captivity.

 

[God of Nothing]

I am by no means deep into the subject, but that has also been my impression. In the interviews I have seen, it always seemed like they make up arguments for whatever outcome they like. And what is their to stop them? It's not like we can prove the opposite in any way that is more reliably than average social science statistical manipulation.

you ever try proposing an arugment against rather than just thinking they're wrong because you don't like what they have to say?

 

[I'm Retarded?]

Could you explain to us what aspect, dimension, or physical part or property of a human being is untouched by his genetics?

the expected retort here would be the conscious mind, although you could argue that consciousness is subject to physiology in some indefinable degree due to its influence by sense perception. I think the more poignant argument is that since the source of consciousness has not been conclusively identified or explained, nor the path between body and mind and action conclusively mapped, it's impossible to say to what degree physiology influences human behavior. therefore, any assertion that this or that part of a human's body or environment is the direct cause of this or that behavioral trait is, more or less, baseless speculation.

Is biology simply not real?

while I wouldn't dismiss the study of biology out of hand, it's important to understand its limitations. all human sciences are necessarily the result of observation and conjecture. the only thing that separates a "hard" science from a "soft" science is the ability to replicably test that conjecture against an observation. but this puts biology somewhere in the gray area between hard and soft, as not all biological phenomena are directly observable or verifiable. we presume living things to be subject to rigid laws like objects studied in physics, but most organisms are an intensely complex collection of systems upon systems that do not act independently and are impossible to decode in real time. for example, while the mechanism of cancer is generally understood, a "cure" remains elusive due to the impossible difficulty of proactively identifying precancerous cells or predicting the body's failure to dispose of them. cancer is something that can only really be identified after it has already happened, and at that point, understanding how it specifically came to manifest is not just academic but conjectural. that's not to say the conjecture is baseless, but conjecture it remains. and this is the foundation that supports any higher study of the organism, such as psychology, evolutionary biology, etc. by the time you reach up to say, this one behavioral trait is the result of this evolutionary adaptation, you've climbed a very rickety tower indeed. it's an idea that is built in haste out of the need to generate an explanation for the mysteries of existence, and one that is trivial to knock down from a philosophical standpoint.

 

[spergetti & NEETballs]

We're biological constructs, literally everything about us is downstream from biology. Evolutionary pressures definitely shape our psychology, though I agree that "evolutionary psychology" is often used by people to work backwards to find an excuse for why their life sucks/the opposite sex doesn't like them/etc.

 

[David Brown]

it's impossible to say to what degree physiology influences human behavior.

?????
What's your explanation for the Phineas Gage case? That railroad spike accident and his behavioral changes are just a coincidence? How do you explain behavior changes in people that smoke meth? What's going on in split brain experiments if not material changes in someone's brain modifying their perceptions and behavior?

Just to be clear and skip some time-wasting introductions, I don't believe pure materialism is enough to explain human (or any) behavior, but biology cannot reasonably be ignored in human behavior. Both material conditions and woefully understudied factors which would be regarded as "parapsychological" are contributing factors to what happens in the universe. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that consciousness originates or is entirely dependent on the material human brain (Pam Reynolds 1991 case shows this) but the material conditions of the brain really obviously influence human behavior and perception.

 

[Otterly]

It’s an odd field. Some things are probably true, but nothings really proveable by its very nature. I dont think all of its bollocks I just think it’s a field that attracts a lot of people who want to use muh science to back up their own opinions.
I do think some of it is pretty spot on. For example women and anxiety. Women are more anxious. That makes a lot of sense of your bringing up babies in a dangerous environment. A mother who doesn’t give a shit is getting that baby eaten by something. One who is watchful and aware and actively worrying about dangers is more likely to have kids survive.
A lot of it sounds reasonable, the thing is none of it is prove able - you can’t experiment psychologically on the dead
We are very influenced by our biology. That’s a mental and physical influence. Nothing drove that home for me more than the changes I experienced around pregnancy and birth. You can literally feel hormones changing how you think.

 

[I'm Retarded?]

What's your explanation for the Phineas Gage case? That railroad spike accident and his behavioral changes are just a coincidence? How do you explain behavior changes in people that smoke meth? What's going on in split brain experiments if not material changes in someone's brain modifying their perceptions and behavior?

I think you misread my post. I didn't say physiology and behavior were totally disconnected, just that it's impossible to say exactly how connected they are. for example, Phineas' behavior was visibly and radically changed, at least according to the written account, but how much of that was due to the injury specifically, and how much was the result of various factors like PTSD he might have suffered from surviving a very violent and almost certainly fatal accident, or even involuntary misrepresentations in the accounts of his behavior before and after the event, or Phineas' own reaction to the impressions others had of him. we can observe that certain physical conditions seem to precipitate behavior, but given that the consciousness itself is a black box, it's difficult to say exactly how much that physical condition has to do with any behavioral result, or even whether that link explicitly exists in any specific case.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

I am by no means deep into the subject, but that has also been my impression. In the interviews I have seen, it always seemed like they make up arguments for whatever outcome they like. And what is their to stop them? It's not like we can prove the opposite in any way that is more reliably than average social science statistical manipulation.

That’s the problem. Evolutionary biology and genetics can be falsified - scientists can make predictions based on the theory and see if it works when a fossil is found that fills in a gap. If not it’s back to the drawing board. Same with genetics, you can develop theories and then test them directly.

Evo psych just makes claims that can’t be disproved because there is no way to disprove them. It’s like a kind of secular religion without any of the good things religion offers.

We can’t do psychotherapy with a Neanderthal to see how they thought.

Does biology affect our mental health and social structures? Of course but you can’t extrapolate that into what they claim. Two siblings in the same family with the same upbringing can turn out wildly different

 

[David Brown]

PTSD he might have suffered from surviving a very violent and almost certainly fatal accident

PTSD is caused more by sustained high stress over long periods of time, not by single incidents. Construction workers get into accidents all the time, if sudden enormous changes in behavior were common due to singular incidents of accidents it would be a well known and commonly heard of phenomenon. Let's see some evidence of that happening elsewhere.

If you aren't willing to accept the Phineas Gage research due to just making up some unfounded objection to every element of evidence then no shit you'll never be able to know anything about how material conditions might affect behavior. Of course if you a priori rule out the possibility of knowledge you have to conclude no knowledge is possible lol.

Just because the knowledge isn't perfect doesn't mean we should throw out the whole field of study. Human behavior and psychology is really obviously affected by natural selection otherwise every baby would just behave totally randomly with no pattern of development. Human behavior would all be totally random and unpredictable at all times.

Two siblings in the same family with the same upbringing can turn out wildly different

Sure... But generally speaking people with similar genetic background, look, sound, smell, achieve, behave etc similarly. The bigger picture you go the more predictive these generalities become. I just don't know how someone can accept that ones genetics determine hair color, skin color, muscle distribution, height, weight, face shape, every single physical aspect... But the brain is a mystery, untouched, inscrutable. The one organ that uses more resources than any other organ proportionally by mass is magically immune to selective pressures. All people at all times just randomly turn out with a totally unpredictable set of psychology traits. The only way someone can think that is consuming massive amounts of globohomo propaganda, which, to be fair, is the typical upbringing.

 

[I'm Retarded?]

If you aren't willing to accept the Phineas Gage research due to just making up some unfounded objection to every element of evidence then no shit you'll never be able to know anything about how material conditions might affect behavior. Of course if you a priori rule out the possibility of knowledge you have to conclude no knowledge is possible lol.

Just because the knowledge isn't perfect doesn't mean we should throw out the whole field of study. Human behavior and psychology is really obviously affected by natural selection otherwise every baby would just behave totally randomly with no pattern of development. Human behavior would all be totally random and unpredictable at all times.

I wouldn't dismiss the study of biology out of hand,

Phineas' behavior was visibly and radically changed, at least according to the written account,

my kiwibrøther, I believe you have become overzealous about making your point. we are agreeing almost entirely, I am only splitting philosophical hairs for the sake of acknowledging the uncertainty inherent in the matter, which does not necessarily disprove your logic.

 

[Kujo Jotaro]

I feel like you all missed the point of my post, perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not denying biologies impact on our behavior, I'm stating I don't find it a satisfying method to explain the entirety of human psychology or action.

When you define the entirety of human action as a product of evolutionary attrition you state all moral impulses are nothing more than arbitrary reactions. Following this line of thought would lead you to believe that morality itself is arbitrary, contrived by nature as an expedient mode of operation; but again this misses the human element, and is ultimately unsatisfying to anyone who isn't a strict materialist(the vast majority of people). Further there's no end to the moral quandaries we find ourselves in that completely defy the simplistic view of evolutionary psychology.