Why Evolutionary Psychology is Pseudoscience

[Howell]

I have lately been bumping up against a lot of arguments pro evo-psych on this forum, so today I wanted to make explicit the problems I see with it and the negative consequences that come with accepting it. Anyone who seriously wants to study the social sciences needs to understand this. If you cannot, you invariably will fail to understand social phenomena on a scientific level.

Let's start with the obvious:

By the most rudimentary scientific qualifications, and yes, even positivist ones, there is ZERO evidence to support ANY evo-psych claim. So we might stop there and reject it out of its pure unfalsifiability alone.

But no reactionary ideologues will do so, because evolutionary psychology is accepted as "scientific" ONLY BECAUSE it is the logical extension of a presumption which is assumed to be scientific UNCRITICALLY: That because there are no gods, and there is no soul, the essential basis of human expression in our society (which, of course, to the bourgeois ideologue, is the 'habitat' of man since 150,000 B.C., whether he acknowledges this stupidity or not), must have been wrought from the ontological difference between man and other animals. That means that - in trying to understand the sexual practices, acts, 'behaviors' of men and women, the scientific means to qualify them are JUXTAPOSED to other animals, since, you know, "humans are animalz guyz". Bear in mind that the hard-wired practices of animals are well-established to be born out of instinct and physical reflexes as response to certain environs.

This basic failure to scientifically understand the social dimension is what sustains evolutionary psychology, among other variants of postmodern survivalism in our society - like notions of animal rights - (which you don't need to be a scientist to spontaneously think - out of ideological impulse, many people conceive human identity like that out of pure conventional stupidity and ignorance proving it is IDEOLOGICAL and not scientific), this BASIC STUPIDITY ossifies historically specific conditions into the essential meaning of what it means to be a human instead of a tortoise. A human is distinct form a tortoise, thus, because "females" (this ridiculous survivalist language they use) want less "aggressive" (ditto, such passive, causal wording like "aggressive" which insinuates so much more on a pathological level) men to coddle with while wanting to fuck more "aggressive" men. The stupidity here is not that this is untrue in our society (so the "data" they find to confirm this is WORTHLESS in establishing their hypothesis that it is an evolutionary strategy), but that the processes and the dimension behind this is theoretically untouched, it is assumed as innate; as a given, and therefore what they call "theory" are just-so stories which justify such behaviors in pseudo-evolutionary terms (i.e., all women who didn't do this died and were not able to pass on their characteristics, presumably). And yes, it is literally that stupid.

You literally only need to ask one question to destroy evolutionary psychology: What is the evolutionary basis of the epistemology which gives evolutionary psychologists the right to 'passively', as neutral observers, qualify human behavior? Are they themselves not human? Consciousness of "human ecology", of our evolutionary psychology gives us what in practical terms, in other words? NOTHING! And why? Because it is a thoroughly anti-democratic discourse which qualifies "other" humans in terms that insinuate they are not capable of controlling (but somehow, the evolutionary psychologists have some magical wisdom that allows them to see past their own 'instincts' in favor of the holy god of pseudoscience).

Surely there is an "evolutionary" reason for science itself, including THEIR specific science, no? Surely there is an evolutionary reason for the predominance and popularity of evolutionary psychology itself, no? The inability to justify an epistemology in evolutionary terms, ALONE is what makes evolutionary psychology obviously BULLSHIT.

Oh, but there are plenty of other reasons, mind you. That's just the common sense reason. ONLY those who understand a historical, materialistic critique of ideology can approach this 'hidden space' scientifically, because this space is the SOCIAL dimension, the HISTORICAL dimension and will elaborate on this "hidden space", which is INSISTED on being unknowable, ideologically designated, that allows evolutionary psychologists to freely act as totally free rational agents in qualifying human behavior.

Every SINGLE field I call pseudoscience has ZERO sufficient data which properly controls for necessary variables. And why? Because of their IDEOLOGICAL INSISTENCE on the MYSTERY of the core, essential basis of what it means to be human. The evolutionary psychologists CONSTANTLY tell us theirs is a "new field" and that they are "working towards something'. THEY ARE AMPLY FULL OF SHIT.

So many of their studies use "data" to support, for example, that white people are inherently more attractive across cultures, that rape, war has a biological basis, nay, that crime is a genetic predisposition, that women are inherently, psychologically suited to their gender roles, that even 'toy preferences' are innate between sexes. I can give you AT LEAST 10 studies for EACH of these claims, all with their own data sets, excluding the last example (of toy preferences, I can give more than one even there, though).

This transparently ideological attempt to reduce the social to the biological is one of the many worrisome symptoms which mark the decline of our democratic standards, increased technocratization of our societies, the rise of a kind of neofeudalism, and how we are more and more disconnected from the high sciences.

"Science" for most is nothing more than a mystical cult that which only the high priests have access to. It is like pre-hellenistic mysticism that ordains truth for a select group of holy men with special access, you cannot even JUSTIFY scientific methodology and assess it on rational terms, you simply OBEY.

A true scientist recognizes that it is POSSIBLE (even if very unlikely) that a beggar can be more correct and more methodologically rigorous and valid than some greatly acclaimed scientist. What makes it or breaks it IS NOT identity, it is NOT power, it is NOT the symbolic order, BUT THE ACTUAL science in question approached ON THEORETICAL TERMS. ANY PERSON can do this, if they correctly grasp scientific practice correctly.

WHY is evolutionary psychology taken seriously? It has to do with the EPISTEMOLOGICAL BASIS OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY and the PREMISE which sustains it.

I have yet to see a single claim made by evolutionary psychologists which has even an iota of actual evidence behind it. What constitutes evidence? Simple, what constitutes evidence is demonstrating a CAUSAL BASIS between an observed behavior (and certainly, they can collect data for such behaviors) and the notion that this behavior is genetic, innate, and a product of natural selection.

No claim has been able to live up to this credential - instead, the idea that human behavior IN ITS HISTORIC specifiality is innate, that is, those behaviors that are not reflexes or instincts, was developed through processes of natural selection.

We know this because VIRTUALLY EVERY significant evolutionary psychologist has juxtaposed their doctrine with previous notions of a 'soul', and straw-men about 'tabula rasa' as a means to sustain their superstitious creed.

Evolutionary psychology rests upon the implicit, unquestioned assumption that (because of twin studies, etc.) the core, essential basis of what it means to be a human is in our DNA, and is innate, committing the ultimate ontological error of juxtaposing the human species to other species in differentiating the SPECIFIALITIES of historical qualities.

The dimension that makes people take evolutionary psychology seriously IS 100% IDEOLOGICAL. The only evidence we need of this is the fact that NONE of these fields have ANY empirical evidence to their favor, as opposed to other theories - people take them seriously because the premises that which they are based upon are UNQUESTIONABLY assumed to be scientific.

There is no difference between phrenology and evolutionary psychology, or arguments about how IQ is innate. All of these are pseudosciences that were developed to fill in gaps which the 'natural' sciences cannot fill. Evolutionary psychology is contingent upon various empirical assumptions - NONE OF WHICH have even been CLOSE to be proven.

Evolutionary psychology is LITERALLY no different from any other mythology. NOTHING about this field has produced ANYTHING of scientific worth.

Even if we are dogmatic, 100% evolutionary psychologists, even if we are genetic determinists, humans and the social/historical domain IS STILL not understood scientifically - because there is a FUNDAMENTAL space of "spirit" that THEY WILL ALL admit they do not know and will never know.

HENCE, the reason why it is so popular to supplement - for example - neuroscience with eastern spiritualism and mysticism, and the same goes for quantum physics. For example? If we are our genes, if we are nothing more than our brains, IF WE WERE GIVEN TOTAL CONSCIOUSNESS of our neurological processes and genetic composition IN RELATION to our identity, our behavior, and our consciousness, could we change their expression? THAT is the paradox cognitivists have not, and will never be able to answer UNLESS they learn to start their analysis from a radical position of ideological criticism. That is because bourgeois ideology CANNOT approach the social domain scientifically. ONLY by starting with the attitude of OPPOSING the existing order can the social domain be systemically qualified in a scientific way. Those who are burdened with reproducing a social order which necessitates a lack of consciousness of it in its entirety, CANNOT understand it in a scientific way.

Howell

 

[Howell]

Basically, my argument is that the social reproduces the biological, and not the other way around. Biological processes can only be expressed insofar as they are subordinate to social processes. The extent to which some "social" behavior is always going to be the same by merit of biology is a question that evolutionary psychologists fail to properly answer, because they lack a meaningful conception of the social.

THEY LACK THE MEANINGFUL THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS TO QUESTION RELATIVE FACTORS, INSTEAD DISMISSING THEM AS A GIVEN.

Biological processes are INVOLVED in the expression of human behavior, BUT THEY DO NOT DETERMINE IT. It's also a false dichotomy to assume that "culture" and "biology" are somehow two factors which "both play a part". Instead, through biological processes are social behaviors expressed. Without the latter, THERE IS NO FORMER. You can try to say that humans are biologically predisposed to be social in general, but that is not a point of controversy, and the NATURE of the social is not determined biologically, just the predisposition to be a part of a social totality.

If evolutionary processes were responsible for human created structures and present day behaviors, then variations in human created structures and behavior throughout history would have their basis biologically. But they don't. What biological, evolutionary changes had led to capitalism? Why did it take 200 thousand years? It is a FALSE ARGUMENT to claim that "Well, capitalism involves biological processes" - yes, and it involves the existence of two hands and two feet. That doesn't make a difference, and anyone capable of the most elementary form of logic can conceive this fact - it doesn't explain ACTUAL CHANGES in "behavior" and "structures", because the biological reality REMAINS CONSTANT.

 

[Drck]

I'm not sure if I even understand your point, if any (...?)

I'm not trying to be for or against any sides, rather have some questions: You claim that what evolutionary psychology says is stupid, there is no evidence, they are full of shit and so forth. Ok, no problem - but what evidence or rational explanation do you have that offers better explanation, perhaps disputes the evolutionary psychology claims...? What theory can you offer to explain human behavior, and which facts is it based on?

" "Science" for most is nothing more than a mystical cult that which only the high priests have access to"
>>>> Well, true science is in essence just an observation of nature, formulating some hypothesis, trying to prove or disprove these hypothesis, and eventually form some final theory...

In a nutshell, for instance a scientist observe how apple falls down to the ground from the tree, and based on that observation he formulates simple hypothesis. The null hypothesis is "not all objects fall to the ground" and alternative hypothesis is "all objects fall to the ground" (see null and alternative hypothesis explanation). Then based on the resulting hypothesis he formulates some theory. The scientific approach (which is unfortunately not always followed by today's scientists) is that he is NOT trying to prove that all the object fall to the ground, rather he is trying to prove that at least some objects don't fall to the ground, and ideally he will perform lots of experiments and collect lots of evidence attempting to prove just that, the null hypothesis: "not all objects fall to the ground". If he fails to prove that claim, he basically confirms the alternative hypothesis: "all objects fall to the ground". Based on this (true) statement he can then develop some theory, in this case theory of gravitation (Newton). The theory may not be entirely accurate or complete, e.g. some time later another scientist comes and advances the theory further (see Einstein's theory of relativity)...

That's only a simple example because we all know that 'all objects fall to the ground' but the reality we live in could be much more difficult. For example, say that we formulate hypothesis: "There is God" and "There is no God". So either way, no matter what you are trying to prove (or disprove), you'll never come to a clear 'scientific' conclusion...

Scientist sees a planet and says that "Our planet is just a form of energy, and that unlike the Earth energy can never be created nor destroyed". Believer in God sees a planet, and he says "Our planet was created by creator, all believers will go to heavens and disbelievers to hell, and there is no other way"... Well, just try to rationally dispute that claim of believers, good luck...

... Then, perhaps one day quantum mechanics guy comes, and he will say: "Listen, God exist and at the same time he doesn't exist"... And as far as our best brains know today, quantum mechanics - in all its weirdness - was so far never disproved. In contrary, all the weirdness and bizarre behavior on atomic level is being proven true by countless experiments... So maybe we do exist - and don't exist at the same time too..??

-----------------

Well, I'm not really sure what are you trying to prove or disprove, but if you are claiming that evolutionary psychologists are wrong and stupid you should at least attempt to describe what or who is right, and what evidence there is to prove such claim...

----------------

"Basically, my argument is that the social reproduces the biological, and not the other way around."
>>>> Again, not sure if I fully understand what you are trying to say, but let's think about it:

* We know that evolution exist. How? For example, we have DNA analysis, we have carbon radioactive or other dating, we have geological knowledge about different levels of ground corresponding to different times in history. Those are at least 3 different ways that can test the age of fossils that were found in the ground independently.

So say that we dig out different fossils, i.e. bones from different layers in the ground, and we apply DNA analysis, carbon dating and geoscience knowledge. We then come to a conclusion that all these independent analysis point to different times in history, say 200,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago, and 20,000 years ago. We found out that all of these bones belong to human ancestors that lived at different times. We also found different tools and weapons scattered around these bones, different art, and we can even see some significant differences in DNA. So, if we put it in simple timeline we can see:

* 200,000 years ago: quite robust bones and skull, very simple tools, only simple paintings. Conclusion: Very primitive, not so smart
* 100,000 years ago: less robust bones, more advanced tools, art much better. Conclusion: More advanced, smarter
* 30,000 years ago: modern skull, quite advanced tools, complex art, and even elaborated symbols representing language. Conclusion: Quite advanced (in comparison to the older ones), quite intelligent

So it is rather obvious that we can see some clear lineage in human evolution. As our ancestors were evolving they were gaining and developing advanced skills and knowledge... we were also gaining more social behavior and cognitive abilities... Based on DNA analysis, we also know that thanks to mutation of some genes we could develop advanced sounds (that eventually lead to fluent speech) and with it development of more cognitive skills such as abstract thinking, counting, advanced communicating...

Because of all these 'new features' our more recent ancestors were also able to socialize more - they had better weapons, better protective skills, better abilities to built larger communities... While our distant ancestors lived in only small groups, say 50-150 individuals, our more recent ancestors built cities, larger communities in which thousands and today hundreds of thousands could live... They were able to organize themselves on much better level... Today we can travel around the world within days, impossible for our grandma's. Today we can connect to anyone and anywhere on Earth within minutes through the internet, quite impossible just 3-4 decades ago... Evolution...??

So the rational conclusion is that thanks to genetic mutation (which is biological changes) we were eventually able to develop more advanced social skills... Claiming that we were social first and that somehow lead to genetic or biological changes is less intuitive, as for example there are many animal species that are also quite social - yet their sociability does not really significantly effect their biology... their genes are not modified, their anatomical features are not changing just because there is some form of communication...

Based on the above, we can then sort of differ the social dynamic of our ancestors and compare it to today. The 'original' humans some 200,000 years ago were rather quite primitive, unable to talk because the mutation didn't kick in yet... These groups were physically dominated by the typical 'alpha' male (similarly as in other related species today). As the time goes and we move on the timeline to recent past, we gained the ability to speak thanks to certain genetic mutations some 50-70,000 years ago. Thanks to those mutations we were able to advance our abilities in many areas, we were able to develop new skills such as advanced art, counting, writing... We became more civilized, and today the power is usually no longer centralized to 'one alpha male' only but rather spread among different members... Society that we know today is only an extension of those primitive skills that are fairly recent...

Loooong topic, three books could be written just to summarize this one topic...

 

[Seventh_Sky]

I enjoy reading the articles on GirlsChase because the majority of them are written by clear, rational minds and they make sense.

Yours is charged with more emotion and CAPS LOCK than it was any form of logic or reason. Sadly it didn't make any sense.

Welcome to the modern world and enjoy watching the continued rise of science and technology.

 

[Howell]

So basically we’ve got Drck over here responding as though I was talking about evolutionary biology instead of psychology, while playing preschool teacher and willfully ignoring anything of substance or controversy, while on the other hand we’ve got some guy with 2 posts who thinks that because what I wrote is not the kind of thing he’s used to it must therefore be irrational. Lovely. Please, more of this everyone.

 

[Thedoctor]

Howell,

I find some of your posts interesting, but I do first want to mention a couple things that I think might help you if you're actually looking to have a meaningful discussion about this or any other topic. Try not to take any of this personally:

1) Your obviously an educated and smart guy, but I think you've forgotten your audience in this case. I'm sure there are guys here that can easily read these posts, but there are also a lot that can't. Maybe English isn't their first language or maybe they're just not overly proficient in English to begin with. It doesn't mean that they wouldn't have meaningful points to make if they could understand what you're saying. This isn't an academic debate occurring on a university campus. It's a seduction forum with guys from all walks of life. You could afford to "dumb down the language" for us mere mortals.

2) The tone of your post doesn't make it seem like you even want to hear any viewpoints that conflict with yours. At no point, do you ask for other people's opinion on the matter. It kind of seems like a long rant. If that's your intention, then why are you getting upset at the responses you got?

3) Unless I missed something, you don't really offer up any evidence to support why they are wrong and you're right. At this point, I'm still not trying to argue your viewpoint, but it would help to offer up some evidence as to why they're wrong instead of basically calling Evolutionary Psychology dumb and leaving it at that. I understand that your commenting on their methods of gathering evidence, but you don't even really dive into any examples or offer any alternatives that could help prove/disprove the theories.

These are just some pointers if you want to start a thread of healthy debate, and not just a place to go on a tirade.

Typically, I don't engage on topics I'm not that familiar on, but I'm already here so why not:

Would you not agree that evolution plays at least a small role in psychology? There are a ton of links between certain behaviours in humans and genetics. If behavioural genetics can offer some legitimate evidence to support that some behaviours are ingrained in the individual (one good example would be the twin study), then why is it so much of a stretch to believe that certain psychological traits can also be susceptible to evolution? Again, I'm not here to dispute the manner of testing or gathering evidence in terms of evolutionary psychology. I'm asking you if it's only the manner of testing that is in question, or also what they're trying to prove? Do you think they are 100% wrong?

-John

 

[Drck]

As I said, I'm not trying to take any sides, rather trying to figure out what is your point at first place as your text is not exactly clear, you don't really offer any facts, arguments or rational explanation, yet it appears that you have quite strong opinion about it.

To understand this issue, IMO we also need to look little bit deeper into biology and genetics, we need to understand how the brain developed over time, what led to the complex cognitive functioning, and how DNA mutations influenced our ability to speak, communicate and think, because without it we simply wouldn't know anything about psychology...

In simplest terms, we can conceptually compare our brains to computer - if there is no underlying well functioning hardware, the software - no matter how great it is - simply won't function... You need to have well designed hardware first before you even install some software... The same way, we need to look first on underlying biology and genetics that gave us the ability to think and speak even on primitive kevels, before we even consider more complex cognitive functioning... Brain is more complex than computer, but the true "hardware" blueprint is rather stored in DNA code, and that one doesn't change that easily...

I'm not saying that this is wright or wrong, thus is simply rational conclusion based on what science says today...

 

[Howell]

John --

1) Agreed, I definitely do risk being misunderstood. However, since this is the Advanced section, more rigorous analysis seems appropriate.

2) Sometimes a more emotionally charged tone is appropriate. It’s not that I’m not open to rational arguments or elaboration, but that I feel a moral obligation to be angry (even though I’m not). It’s also a good way of separating the chaff from the wheat. My audience are those who have some background knowledge of evolutionary psychology, its findings, and its function – if my goal was to educate the uninitiated I would simply post a reading list.

3) Evolutionary psychology is an attempt to explain psychological facts as evolutionary adaptations; most scientists, bourgeois or not, are somewhat suspicious of it, since they recognize that it has few, if any, testable predictions - I would go as far as calling most of these hypotheses etiological myths, stories about how certain traits might have been selected for. And, of course, most evolutionary psychologists have no real concept of culture and cultural change so, lo and behold, whenever they discover some universal psychological trait, it just happens to coincide with their values.

What the evolutionary psychologists fail to understand is that human social formations evolve independently of biological evolution. They eternalize the bourgeois way of life, assuming that it's the only way we've ever lived and the only way we ever will life.

For example, they make arguments that women are more attracted to wealthy men because of their evolutionary development. I mean… come on.

I am very interested in the idea of drawing a connection between evolutionary biology and the study of the mind, but it has yet to be done well.

Much of this EP material abstracts current notions about human psychology into atemporal universals, and unquestionably has an ideological bent.

I’m however not in favor of total relativism – it’s obvious that biology plays a role in human behavior. However, when it comes to understanding social change we can’t simply reduce the social to the biological, as we would then fall prey of implicitly justifying our present circumstances.

The problem arises when we aren’t just talking about the propensity for humans to have two thumbs, but when we’re talking about our behavior.

And if you look at how EPs talk about human behavior, it’s universally in terms of biological determinism. I’ve yet to find an exception. The problem with biological determinism is that it’s been shown time and time again to be more constructed by society than by anything else.

E.g. In Not in Our Genes, by evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin, neurobiologist Steven Rose, and psychologist Leon Kamin.

It’s used to justify the status quo – in other words, it’s purely reactionary. And because of that I think it must be vehemently opposed.

Here’s an interview with a guy who wrote a book on this topic:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/psyching-out-evolutionary/


Drck --

How are you responding to what I said? I don't understand the controversy you’re responding to. You’re elaborating on points that are in no way controversial. I would have to be some creationist scum or just a complete idiot for your points to be relevant – which, yes, is quite insulting. And please stop saying you’re not taking sides. You are trying to take a 3rd side, that of the objective, rational observer. The moment anyone says they aren’t taking sides with anything, one should immediately suspect that they are but are trying to frame their biases as the objective measuring stick for truth.

To answer an earlier question of yours,

I think a far superior methodological approach than EP is historical materialism.

To simplify: what I'm saying in this post is that physiologically, humans do not change across historic epochs. Unless you're trying to argue that human physiology is a determining factor specifically in the particularities of one historic epoch to another, which is the argument of racists and reactionary philistines (but barely, even understanding such a thing as different historic periods is for them impossible) - we can discuss that in a different thread.

What separates humans from other apes is our ability to transform nature to our will. We literally can revolutionize the background from which the magnitude of possibility for an individual to achieve power is possible. This is not done by gifted men but by men and women attempting to fulfill their immediate ends organized as distinct groups with distinct relationships to the process of production and survival.

If humans were subject to "nature" as such, frankly we wouldn't even exist biologically since there is actually evidence to suggest that the bipedal ape arose by escaping nature with more complex means of social organization - in other words, changing the world around us. Even our notion of nature is pre-conceived in our heads: it’s as that good Hegelian Marx said: “In order to understand the anatomy of an ape, one should first understand the anatomy of a human.”

People are genetically identical where it actually counts (in this context). All that means is that genetics is not going to explain feudalism to capitalism, or slave society to asiatic society - this is a variable which remains constant throughout human history, yet humans change (independent of changes in their physiology). So our question then is, what tools will we use for understanding the social dimension? My point here is that, at the very least, an ahistorical, ideological approach like EP is obviously not the answer.

Howell

 

[Franco]

Howell,

Just to be clear on my stance, I don't think biological evolution directly affects sociological evolution. The two are certainly independent of each other. But with that being said, the point I was trying to make was that the biological aspects of human nature have a stronger HOLD over people than the sociological aspects. So when a situation comes down to making a choice that is 50% sociological and 50% biological, the biological need/desire wins out 99% of the time. If you're capable of making the sociological need a priority, then it means you are not the rule but rather the exception to it.

It's basically Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. The bottom half of the pyramid always takes precedence over the top half, so that's why it's easy for me to predict much of human behavior when given the exact circumstances for a situation (which was the entire point of my "cave man society" allegory in case you missed it).

NOTE: If we disagree on whether or not Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is accurate (at least to a high degree), then we might as well end the argument there because what follows will only be an extension of our disagreement on that factor.

- Franco

 

[Howell]

Howell,

Just to be clear on my stance, I don't think biological evolution directly affects sociological evolution. The two are certainly independent of each other. But with that being said, the point I was trying to make was that the biological aspects of human nature have a stronger HOLD over people than the sociological aspects. So when a situation comes down to making a choice that is 50% sociological and 50% biological, the biological need/desire wins out 99% of the time. If you're capable of making the sociological need a priority, then it means you are not the rule but rather the exception to it.

It's basically Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. The bottom half of the pyramid always takes precedence over the top half, so that's why it's easy for me to predict much of human behavior when given the exact circumstances for a situation (which was the entire point of my "cave man society" allegory in case you missed it).

NOTE: If we disagree on whether or not Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is accurate (at least to a high degree), then we might as well end the argument there because what follows will only be an extension of our disagreement on that factor.

- Franco

Its a strange pyramid. Its ultimate culmination of self-actualization is idealist non-sense. Some aspects at the bottom make sense. However, I get the feeling that the pyramid engages on an individual level alone and ignores the role that society plays.

Though, I do know some people who've used MHON to springboard into larger / more-societal frameworks.

If I had to simplify it, I'd probably just leave it at 2 categories: (1) Biological survival (2) Culturally induced motivations. But even then, what we actually do to survive on a biological level is a social controversy that's dependent on our culturally induced motivations (which are shaped by ideology), which are fundamentally different between epochs, social classes, etc.

Also, I'll repeat what I said earlier: It's a false dichotomy to assume that "culture" and "biology" are somehow two factors which "both play a part". Instead, through biological processes are social behaviors expressed. To talk about them being dichotomous is already effectively to reduce the "cultural" to the "biological". And then, what is considered the biological is usually selected based on what is most convenient to justify the status quo (e.g. X or Y are intrinsic aspects of "human nature" -- which is a political concept, not a biological one, btw), not recognizing the fundamentally reactionary activity being engaged in. If we are to understand the social dimension scientifically AT ALL, we must understand it in terms of historical modes of production and the waves of constructs they produce.

I'm not saying that we aren't "hard wired" to a certain extent -- we are, at a minimal degree -- but to understand the social we have to use a discourse that accounts for the vicissitudes and transformations of the domain actually being apprehended.

Howell

 

[Howell]

Reading this thread just made me worse at seduction.

Radeng

I really don't know what to tell you, man...

If you were previously justifying your behavior towards women in terms of satisfying innate biological "drives" outside of any historical context and without any real awareness of the ideological dimension of your actions, then yes, it follows that in accepting my argument you would need a more refined conception of sexuality and courtship than is typically conceived. As with learning any new social theory, you will justly feel less confident in your original paradigm at first, before you learn how to synthesize the new theory into it (or, if necessary, be prepared to supersede your old paradigm, fearlessly pursuing truth and not settling for pleasant half-truths).

Yes, learning about different paradigms may have a negative effect on areas of your life like seduction in the short term when you realize, for example, how frail and shallow your previous conceptions were, but I like to think of it like going to the gym -- take on some bigger theories (weights), and you break down muscles to build up more. In the long run you'd probably improve -- at least when it comes to your theoretical understanding of, in this case, human courtship rituals, which at least in my experience translates pretty well to the practical field.

 

[Chase]

Howell-

I agree with you, much of evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience. I used to use it in my articles from time to time (unfortunately) my first few years writing on here as explanation / justification, before I noticed it's possible to construct essentially any kind of evolutionary psychology theory for anything - it's a kind of infinite logic tree:

• We are discussing this in an online forum because humans have evolved to hash out decisions communally. It was a means of pooling group intellect so as not to risk one foolish decision dooming an individual or a group; for instance, Thag goes off hunting lions alone, when the group could have told him lions have little meat and are too dangerous to hunt.

Sounds good, but I could just as easily have made the opposite argument:

• We're getting so heated in this discussion thread because humans did not evolve to hash out decisions communally. Historically, men made their own decisions, and only some light conversation around the campfire occurred later. Humans are not used to entertaining lots of communal arguing at all hours of the day with strangers of different value systems like what we see online.

I avoid using it as much as possible. There's a certain amount of deprogramming you must do to get used to not drawing facile evopsych conclusions for arguments you want to make, however.

Unfortunately, much of psychology itself is pseudoscience, and its child disciplines are themselves pseudosciences of pseudosciences. I try to cite research when I can in articles, but sometimes I go looking for research and find a series of pieces of research on various psychological topics and they all conflict with each other. It's simply next to impossible to conduct real science in a realm where you can't (for moral reasons) do truly controlled studies. Psychology's answer is "best approximations" at these: twin studies (which are probably the closest you get to controlled), etc. All the rest is 'self-reporting' which is little better than "just tell us what we expect to hear." And most psychological studies merely look at the 'what' without even beginning to guess at the 'why'. Many of these end up having scads of reproducability errors as well; I saw a statistic recently saying as many as 40% of published papers in psychology do not produce statistically significant outcomes when reproduced.

It's the same likewise for the 'nurture' arguments (I know you're mainly opposing the "It's nature!" arguments of evopsych in this thread); these arguments are equally indefensible. "Women love iPhones because society pushes them to connect to social networks," is every bit as dubious as, "Women love iPhones because they've evolved to constantly monitor their social networks through gossip and eavesdropping."

Ultimately, the best you can do with psychology is say, "I've gone and tried X with a number of different people, and they've largely reacted by doing Y. Therefore, I can conclude that, at least when I do X, this causes other people to often do Y."

Although I do feel safer saying, after looking at large enough data sets, that, "Women want X." Whether you want to say women want X because of nature or nurture, you can still be fairly confident that, at least from everything you've seen, women do indeed want X.

So, much of Girls Chase ends up being one author saying, "Hey, here's something I've tried out a fair bit and had work fairly well. Go and give it a shot yourself and see if it works similarly for you." It's fun sometimes to speculate on WHY it works, but you'll notice guys then start to get all emotional about it ("It's because girls only want X type of men!" "It's because the desire for Y is inborn!" "It's because society conditions women to only want Z!"), and when folks are getting emotional, it's often a sign they're defending a purely speculative position.

But anyway, yeah. Nature vs. nurture. Age-old debate. Not going away anytime soon. I wish we could just say, "Hey look, it's pretty obvious that our nature drives us to build societies that fulfill certain needs in certain ways, yet as the society grows and changes we then must adapt to the quirks and qualities of it, nurturing us to behave this way or that. Therefore, we are inextricably products of both forces," but most people just want to pick a side and champion it to death. Which, just like you point out, is more about "joining a team" or "forming a religion" than it is at exploring the realities of a thing.

Chase

(also, I think Radeng was just joshing)

 

[Drck]

I don't get it. You are obviously a smart guy, but what is the point you are trying to make?

Where exactly is EP wrong, any specific examples?

If EP is wrong, what is right? And how does it relates to seduction, relationships, male and female behavior?


As far as taking sides, I could honestly care less whether EP is right or wrong. For example, as I suggested above, modern science gives us at least some explanations. At the same time, I don't believe that these explanations are complete. We know too little to make some conclusions, e.g. see work of anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff about quantum consciousness (http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/).

Assuming that this guy is right it brings another quite important factor to equation - consciousness. From certain point of view, our Universe can have or even be sort of a 'consciousness field' in which organisms including us are 'aware' of self, and we are interacting with this field through micro-tubules located in neurons. It sounds quite weird, but see the science behind it in the above link...

It's quite interesting point, if this is true we may be simply just individualized packets of this 'universal consciousness' - not even mentioning that it could easily explain why so many people believe in God, life in 'heavens' after this one, or even incarnations... When we add to the equation quantum mechanics with all its weirdness, we may even come to scientific conclusion that the world we perceive today is mere imagination of this 'quantum consciousness'...

Imagine how Newton described gravity without having a clue about space-time, yet Einstein with theory of relativity placed the gravity concept into much broader and more comprehensive perspective. He looked at the same problem like Newton, he didn't really disprove Newton's work, but he saw it from totally different point of view. We also know that Einsteins theory does not explain everything, so new discoveries can expand our understanding of gravity way further...

I'm simply saying that the same could be with the whole "evolution", biology vs. psychology and so forth as for example, according to quantum mechanics everything (past, present and future) is happening at the same moment... In one moment everything is happening as if there were no time... So maybe consciousness is not a product of evolution - but its the cause if it...?

My personal believe is that we (organisms) can perceive changes in space time, we can measure the changes by what we call time (in plain language we can see clock ticking, we can see moving objects, we are getting older), but the reality is that time itself doesn't exist; Precisely the time doesn't really move anywhere (e.g. from 1:01 pm to 1:02 pm), that the time is just an illusion of our senses... If this is true, and according to latest science it is, the logical conclusion is that no evolution is happening either... So maybe all we need is different and much broader point of view at our human evolution, at our lives, perhaps even at selves... This view doesn't really disprove what we see and describe as true, however it puts it into much different perspective...

So that's my simple explanation to "taking sides", IMO we know way too little to take any sides - we simply have to look at the same thing (evolution) differently, and if some things are proven wrong, they are simply wrong while other things are true...

 

[Howell]

But anyway, yeah. Nature vs. nurture. Age-old debate. Not going away anytime soon. I wish we could just say, "Hey look, it's pretty obvious that our nature drives us to build societies that fulfill certain needs in certain ways, yet as the society grows and changes we then must adapt to the quirks and qualities of it, nurturing us to behave this way or that. Therefore, we are inextricably products of both forces," but most people just want to pick a side and champion it to death. Which, just like you point out, is more about "joining a team" or "forming a religion" than it is at exploring the realities of a thing.

Even though you are in part agreeing with me, you are simultaneously dismissing a core part of my argument: the subservience of the biological to the social. Let’s approach this aspect of my argument step by step. I’ll start by unraveling this notion of the so-called “eternal” dichotomy between “nature” and “nurture”, then weave it into the broader context of this thread.

When one talks about nature and nurture, what is it they are referring to? Typically, with nurture, it’s that our societies influence our behavior through our rearing. And when we think about nature we think about some innate autonomous processes or structures or core traits or some such network of physiological inevitabilities.

This dichotomy arises from a failure to realize that the fact that our thoughts and our behavior can be traced to rationally explicable phenomena; can be traced to physical processes, means absolutely nothing. What can, in effect, not be traced to physical processes?

The social dimension is its own affirmative and self-sufficient one. Humans must be understood on social terms - for what distinguishes us from mice/chimps is historically worthless and uninsightful as far as the particularities of human behavior go on at a historic, particular level.

If you're going to tell us there are innate physiological structures which make inevitable certain characteristics, then you need to not only locate it, but explain to us why the content, or expression of this characteristic has greatly varied across historic epochs and different societies. Something that is innate physiologically or ordained by biological processes is done so because it establishes some kind of ecological balance - a definite trajectory path of predictable behaviors. You cannot say that "Well, what all of these societies have in common that women were submissive” because the connotations of submissiveness, how it was signified, how the behavior was expressed, and how it was articulated in the consciousness of those involved was ESSENTIALLY different. You cannot abstract behaviors here and call them essential characteristics, because something that is innate would not possibly be expressed in ways that are so varied and malleable across historic epochs.

Unlike animals, with humans, vast and complex ideological networks are at play, wherein things like sexual processes are deeply ingrained into both the consciousness and subconsciousness of men and women. No woman is actually "submissive" by nature - women have to LEARN to be submissive – they must approximate this behavior by consciously articulating it in such a way that it is justified, deemed normal, better, and so on. So you don't even need any "innate" biological processes to understand this, because anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of psycho-sexual development can understand that this is a dimension which is entirely facilitated on a social level.

And that is the crux of the problem here - for Evolutionary Psychologists, the historical - the spiritual - the social, all of these categories are just as passive and ontologically unapproachable as a natural environment.

If you actually look at the contents of their work, what these humans are adapting to is NOT simply an environment, but a mode of production.

The problem, however, is that men and women themselves constitute this mode of production, this FIELD of being – it is not some kind of autonomous, magical force that is in the background, that which men and women CONFORM to - they make it themselves.
Such is its ideological nature.

What is the practical use of Evolutionary Psychology? Surely every natural science has a practical use, but tell me, WHAT PRACTICAL USE among ANYONE does evolutionary psychology have? Neuroscience, for example, has medicinal, pharmaceutical value and gives us some insight on how to manipulate neurological processes. So what is the practical insight of Evolutionary Psychology?

It is INHERENTLY political, and NOT a natural science. The fact is, the only practical use for evolutionary psychology is and has always been reacting to and narrativizing phenomena which are either extra-biological or sufficiently unto themselves assuming the role of dictating biological processes - the only practical use that evolutionary psychologists have given us is to use this "new-found information" to impact policy-making decisions at the level of government, or the university campus, and so on.

This is what makes it a pseudo-science: largely its role has been to perpetuate the existing order and to transform things which are answerable ONLY to the social dimension into naturally ordained inevitable truths.


Now, to preemptively go into the near-inevitable comments about the “survival of the species”:

The survival of the human species and the survival of our present mode of production and conditions of life (which have not always existed) are not synonymous. Human survival has been reproduced and expressed in various different ways across history. Human survival is the basis for human society - true - but no two human societies are alike unless their conditions of life and production are alike. Biological processes reproduce chemical processes - so too do social processes reproduce biological ones.

The social is not subservient to the biological, the biological is to the social - which is why we can, and are beginning to develop new abilities to manipulate ourselves biologically while remaining human. This "ability" is not owed to any innate biological structures (even if they facilitate it), it is owed to the social dimension dictating how these biological processes are expressed.
Again, humans do not have an 'ecology' to select for - humans are arguably eusocial creatures, fully subordinate to the social dimension of life. The more an animal is social, the less it depends on innate autonomous processes - and this spectrum can be observed from a worm to a Chimpanzee. Humans have surpassed the biological and rendered it subordinate to the social - because the balance with nature that biological processes select for is gone; humans, as social creatures, can transform nature and engage in mass migrations that are not predictable as far as a physiologically ordained trajectory path (unlike other animals).

Narrowing in on the specific problem of this kind of talk about “nature” now,

These "core traits", which are often articulated through pretenses to “human nature”, are simply abstractions. Because their expression is DIFFERENT, they cannot be essential, for something that is biologically inevitable would have a definite medium of expression. These "core traits' only exist INSOFAR as there is a degree of similarity between the historic epochs in question. That is to say, just because property exists in capitalism, while also existing in ancient societies, does not mean that property is innate - it means both capitalism and ancient societies reproduce different conditions of property for largely different reasons. Marx, who I continue to quote - is correct, for to paraphrase, if the appearance of something and its actual essential function coincided, all science would be superfluous.

How these “core traits” are expressed and signified are entirely different across different historic epochs. So no, there is NOTHING universal about these "qualities" unless we play with superstitious abstractions.

The survival of the species is at the basis of the social means by which this is facilitated. This includes sexuality, dietary habits, and the lived expression of life itself - dancing, art, and so on. It's not SIMPLY about survival, but what CONSTITUTES the rudimentary human existence and its basis. This varies across societies.

E.g. the direct physical stimuli necessary to get an erection, or to stimulate sex organs in general, to get the necessary chemicals to release and so on is dictated on a social level. If sex does not conform to fantasy, it just doesn't fucking work. Sex isn't about "pressing the right buttons" entirely. It’s how you do this in approximation to the conscious/subconscious articulation. Hence why people speak of "moves" - to be vulgar.

There are no "pre-social" relations that remain for humans. Lacan dealt with this precisely - the mythological notion of a pre-linguistic universe for humans assumes there is balance between humans and the world around them. But there is none, humans CHANGE their own conditions of life and survival, regularly.

My problem with "nurture" is much simpler: it is pretty much always expressed in overly-simplistic, short-sighted, and passive terms, and of course, using it dichotomously to "nature" abstracts the biological from the social, turning both into unapproachable metaphysical categories.

Howell

 

[Franco]

Howell,

You cannot say that "Well, what all of these societies have in common that women were submissive” because the connotations of submissiveness, how it was signified, how the behavior was expressed, and how it was articulated in the consciousness of those involved was ESSENTIALLY different. You cannot abstract behaviors here and call them essential characteristics, because something that is innate would not possibly be expressed in ways that are so varied and malleable across historic epochs.

I disagree with this, and I think your interpretation of "expressed in ways that are so varied" is not a valid counter-argument to the point I'm/we're making. You can interpret historic events to not have specific fundamental characteristics based on the outcome of those events... but were you actually there? Do you actually know every specific detail of how each event in history came about -- down to each individual's personal actions? Or are you making the claim that these "varied" outcomes (which you've interpreted as "varied"; I see them as "similar" and "cyclical") disqualify the human behaviors behind them as essential characteristics? And if you do disqualify them, then what absolute proof do you have to do so? If you don't have actual scientific proof... then isn't that definition of pseudoscience?

You're essentially falling into the infinite loop that Chase mentioned above, and you've essentially made the claim that historic events prove that the social dimension is its own affirmative and self-sufficient one. You're using history as your flag pole to stake your claim, but history does not record every sociological or biological process that was involved in the completion of an event. There are just "vague" summaries and their results, mostly recorded by humans themselves. There is no detailed analysis of every single human being's actions during these events, and you're attributing everyone's individual actions to a sweeping generalization of "society's" actions. Which brings me to this point:

However, I get the feeling that the pyramid engages on an individual level alone and ignores the role that society plays.

I don't think MHoN ignores society at all. I think of each individual as the pyramid itself -- a bunch of MHoN pyramids constitutes a society. And different combinations of biological and sociological processes grant each individual different levels of access to each floor of the pyramid. For example, Albert Einstein was able to access arguably the "highest" levels of the top floor of the pyramid, while most individuals are not able to. And since humans are different from animals in the sense that they have varying levels of access to the higher floors of the pyramid that animals do not, there will inevitably be differences among the wants and needs of each individual in a society. Those differences are what would essentially cause waves in any society that attempts to provide equal, "sufficient" living among everyone -- not everyone operates on the same level biologically or has the same experiences growing up sociologically. Those disparities essentially are what would prevent some sort of mass "peaceful equilibrium" from ever occurring.

NOTE: The only way we would achieve some sort of mass equilibrium is if resources of every type were infinite and accessible... but that dream is the definition of idealism.

- Franco

 

[Chase]

Howell-

My point was we don't have the tools presently to test out most of the claims for either nature or nurture.

Your rebuttal seems to rely on the assumption that lack of evidence for nature claims necessarily supports nurture claims (though correct me if I've misread and this was not your intent).

However, the reverse argument is equally easy to make: the lack of evidence for equally-abstract-and-untestable nurture claims means evolutionary psychology must be right until proven otherwise.

There are plenty of nurture-oriented theories and hypotheses out there that make perfectly good sense, just as there are plenty of nature-oriented theories and hypotheses that make perfectly good sense. "Good sense" does not a scientific argument make, however, or you'd just as likely be here touting the virtues of evolutionary psychology as socially-shaped psychology. I'm quite confident some nurture-folks are right, if only by accident, just as some evolutionary psychology / nature folks are right, if only by accident. Sadly, we're poorly equipped to test either party's claims.

Ultimately, I will caution you to not be the atheist claiming science is on his side when he says he knows there's no God. Science only deals with the testable and the provable, and it's as much pseudoscience to say "I know for a fact there is no God" as there is to say "I know for a fact there is one." All claims must be substantiated - claims of nonexistence included. Otherwise, the only claim you can rightfully make is, "I've yet to see any convincing evidence for X." Which is something we can easily say for most of both nature and nurture claims in psychology.

Chase

EDIT: Franco beat me to it!

 

[Howell]

My point was we don't have the tools presently to test out most of the claims for either nature or nurture.

Your rebuttal seems to rely on the assumption that lack of evidence for nature claims necessarily supports nurture claims (though correct me if I've misread and this was not your intent).

My rebuttal was that "nature vs nurture" is a false dichotomy to begin with and that the very concept of nature in this context is false (what humans are adapting to is not simply an environment, but a mode of production), and that this concept of nurture is equally unhelpful (simplistic, philosophically idealistic, completely open to however you want to interpret it, etc.) for actually understanding the behaviors we're trying to understand.

Also, that biological determinism, which is used time and time again to support theories of racial superiority, that it's "human nature" for certain groups of people to be poor or less intelligent, etc., is hokum, and that a scientific understanding of human behavior begins with an analysis of ideology historically.

However, the reverse argument is equally easy to make: the lack of evidence for equally-abstract-and-untestable nurture claims means evolutionary psychology must be right until proven otherwise.

Thus why we approach human behavior from a completely different methodological paradigm than EP: namely, historical materialism and its psychoanalytical offshoot structuralism (which I have been avoiding discussing in this thread because I already have enough things to sort out here).

Howell

P.S. As my goal for this thread was to establish in this forum the idea that evo-psych was pseudoscience, which now seems to be generally agreed upon, as well as because elaboration at this point will mostly consist in me endlessly repeating myself, I'm checking out of this thread. If you have any specific questions, feel free to PM me.

 

[Jensen]

Interesting debate here, I am not on any side; I just want to learn every viewpoint.

the subservience of the biological to the social.

Any examples of this you could show me so I understand why you have this position?

You cannot say that "Well, what all of these societies have in common that women were submissive” because the connotations of submissiveness, how it was signified, how the behavior was expressed, and how it was articulated in the consciousness of those involved was ESSENTIALLY different. You cannot abstract behaviors here and call them essential characteristics, because something that is innate would not possibly be expressed in ways that are so varied and malleable across historic epochs.

So you are saying that(at least most) women do not have a need to be innately submissive, especially in sex? Honestly, out of everything I have learned of women(if I know anything) is this would be what I am most confident in knowing. I think if a chick feels she has to be the leader they will, I think as time moves on in western society you will see women being leaders of the family more(as more single parent households become common) but whenever a chick is in love with a man who knows what he is doing and knows how to be a strong leader she puts herself into the supporter role very easily. When a chick is in love with you they seem to show their submissiveness to you of their own accord. On the flipside you will see a few men who are fine with being submissive(if they are in love) in the relationship but most find it unnatural.

The fantasies they have that involve men usually involve them being submissive. Many veer on the extreme like there is a stat that 60% percent of women dream of being raped by a man they are attracted to. It was so prevalent that feminists termed it as a ravishment fantasy instead of what it was originally called. They did not like the implications if there were any.

Many women also hate being the dominant ones in bed. If you go to the subreddit r/deadbedrooms you will always seeing men complaining they get no sex and the little they do all share commonalities with other men who have the same problem. The woman knowing the mans inexperience boss them around, give them instructions on what to do, and they don't like that which results in deadbedrooms. In a 1985 study on bdsm 30% of men were submissive but most of those will never get those needs met unless they want to pay for a dominatrix. That is usually what happens, which is crazy. but because of supply and demand they have to. There are many more men who want to be submissive than women who want to be dominant in sex.
Most women also dream of being a housewife to a stud, while men dream of being the breadwinners to trophy wives,though the economy hardly allows it. There are so many other instances that I can think of where (as as the guy is attractive and powerful) women gravitate to being submissive. I think that is how women show their love and how they know their in love. I know there is confirmation bias and I have looked for opposing examples but whenever I find one I see the guy she is with and I see she feels the need to compensate for his lack of natural dominance, leadership, and care.
Do think all that stuff is through socialization?

the only practical use that evolutionary psychologists have given us is to use this "new-found information" to impact policy-making decisions at the level of government, or the university campus, and so on.

Do you have any examples of this?

The social is not subservient to the biological, the biological is to the social - which is why we can, and are beginning to develop new abilities to manipulate ourselves biologically while remaining human.

What specifically is this ability

How these “core traits” are expressed and signified are entirely different across different historic epochs. So no, there is NOTHING universal about these "qualities" unless we play with superstitious abstractions.

Which core traits are you talking about?

E.g. the direct physical stimuli necessary to get an erection, or to stimulate sex organs in general, to get the necessary chemicals to release and so on is dictated on a social level. If sex does not conform to fantasy, it just doesn't fucking work. Sex isn't about "pressing the right buttons" entirely. It’s how you do this in approximation to the conscious/subconscious articulation. Hence why people speak of "moves" - to be vulgar.

This honestly confuses me, an erection is dictated on a social level? Is sex and rape more on a social or a biological level? I thought it was biological, because like you said it is dictated by simulation and chemical processes.

There are no "pre-social" relations that remain for humans. Lacan dealt with this precisely - the mythological notion of a pre-linguistic universe for humans assumes there is balance between humans and the world around them. But there is none, humans CHANGE their own conditions of life and survival, regularly.

My problem with "nurture" is much simpler: it is pretty much always expressed in overly-simplistic, short-sighted, and passive terms, and of course, using it dichotomously to "nature" abstracts the biological from the social, turning both into unapproachable metaphysical categories.

Would you say we nurture our nature through evolution?

Thus why we approach human behavior from a completely different methodological paradigm than EP: namely, historical materialism and its psychoanalytical offshoot structuralism (which I have been avoiding discussing in this thread because I already have enough things to sort out here).

Man, what school do you go to, I am going to have to look up what the fuck psychoanalytical offshoot structuralism and historical materialism are and I still won't get it. Is there an educational vid? Lol, learning a lot though, so thanks.

 

[Chase]

Howell-

I do not know what these are:

historical materialism and its psychoanalytical offshoot structuralism

Though if this statement is an indication:

Also, that biological determinism, which is used time and time again to support theories of racial superiority, that it's "human nature" for certain groups of people to be poor or less intelligent, etc., is hokum, and that a scientific understanding of human behavior begins with an analysis of ideology historically.

Which can be roughly translated as "biological determinism (nature) is incorrect, and not responsible for the various outcomes of men; instead, humans are conditioned to do certain things and behave certain ways by their upbringings and influences (nurture)," then your position does seem to be as I've outlined in my reply, rebrandings / relabelings of the various terms aside: nurture is correct, nature is not.

However, because the nurture side is every bit as poorly evidenced as the nature side, you seem to be falling into the very trap you rail against: that of eager endorsement of a "side" of the debate, and villification of the other side. Just as the EP folks hoist up nature as the all-determiner and nurture as playing a piddling role, with only their arguments as evidence, you appear to be doing with "historical materialism and its psychoanalytical offshoot structuralism" (which I presume one can probably boil down to "nurture is right").

P.S. As my goal for this thread was to establish in this forum the idea that evo-psych was pseudoscience, which now seems to be generally agreed upon, I'm checking out of this thread. If you have any specific questions, feel free to PM me.

Generally not an ideal way to leave a thread - if you want to leave a check out message, it's best to leave one after others have had a chance to respond or rebut statements you've made in a previous one, otherwise it comes across somewhat hostile: "I'm right, and I'll discuss things no further." I assume that's not your intention, but it is the impression it gives.

Chase

 

[Howell]

Generally not an ideal way to leave a thread - if you want to leave a check out message, it's best to leave one after others have had a chance to respond or rebut statements you've made in a previous one, otherwise it comes across somewhat hostile: "I'm right, and I'll discuss things no further." I assume that's not your intention, but it is the impression it gives.

Yeah, not the intention -- the way things are going there are so many open threads in here and subtleties to delineate I would probably have to quit my job to find the time to address everything And most of it would just be me repeating myself anyway.

-Howell