[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 67 KB, 728x546, ev psych.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6588143 No.6588143[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Why does /lit/ always shit on evolutionary psychology? If one subscribes to the evolution theory and acknowledges that humanity doesn't exist in a magical vacuum, isn't it only reasonable to suggest human behaviour was formed according to patterns determined by evolution?

Also, what are some good books on evolutionary psychology?

>> No.6588147

>evolution
>psychology
>>>/sci/

>> No.6588150

>>6588147
/sci/ would disagree.

>> No.6588154

>>6588150
well shit me not this is a literature and philosophy board not a board for subjects STEM fags don't like

>> No.6588158

>>6588143
I agree with this.
Evolution has to take Psychology in to account.
Physiology itself can not describe Evolution.
Psychology has to be taken in to account.

>> No.6588159

>>6588143
If our minds are best described as evolutionary selected traits, then the scientific method that researches such traits is also such a trait, and bears no relation to truth, only to survival.

>> No.6588162

>>6588154
>psychology
>STEM

>> No.6588163

>>6588143
>Also, what are some good books on evolutionary psychology

Sex at Dawn is pretty good if you're interested in sexuality from an evolutionary psychologist's perspective.

>> No.6588166

>>6588159
This seems like a purely egocentric, reductionist view. Why can't it be a function of evolution and truth?

>> No.6588170

>>6588162
>psychology
>literature

>> No.6588174

>>6588162
So wait, does this mean that the psychological concept of IQ is not actually scientific?

>> No.6588186

>>6588166
>egocentric
Wot?
>reductionist
of course evopsych is reductionist.
>Why can't it be a function of evolution and truth?
Where would that additional element of truth come from if minds are reduced to advantages in survival and reproduction?

>> No.6588212

>>6588163
Not OP, but I do want to read a book like that. However, I'm not too reassured by the reviews that particular one has received from relevant academics.

>> No.6588225

Provides ammunition for right wing (appropriated) racist and Eugenicist Ideologies. Also like anon said it's reductionist as fuck.

>> No.6588235

>>6588225

>I-it's racist

Lmao

>> No.6588286

Because the nature of existing things must be understood as the creation of a higher Mind, else existence would be incomprehensible to any particular mind.
The nature of the human psyche cannot be understood by some ill-defined notion of "survival of the fittest". The human psyche must be understood to be the principle by which the creator Mind comes to reflexively love itself.

The problem with evolutionary psychology is that it is an Anglo tradition, and I say this as an Englishman. Psychology is a Greek term and if you want to understand it you have to start with the Greeks. Englishmen have no idea what the word psyche or mind means. Literally. Go read Hume or Locke, they have no idea what the mind is and so they confuse mind with sense impression, with imagination, with memory, with all sorts of things. They have no idea what the mind is. So when an evolutionary psychologist says that I love Kate because Kate's boobs are the best boobs for my potential child, that isn't a principle of psychology (of the mind), it's a principal of biology. Englishmen think that psychology means treating the brain as a machine and then reverse-engineering the machine.

>> No.6588292

>>6588286
We also have this vague notion of the subconscious mind and the unconscious mind. These are oxymorons. When people talk about the subconscious or unconscious minds they are actually talking about the body.

>> No.6588302

Evopsych has gained plenty of credibility in recent years. Maybe 20% of the reaction against it is concern for reductionism, misplaced anyway because no good academic proponent of evopsych is seriously going to ignore other variables, and the other 80% is vague fear of right wingers.

Look at Kevin McDonald's Culture of Critique. Perfectly interesting hypothesis. Well-received academically. Lots of good reviews from established, major figures in psychology. And then the backlash against it being antisemitic begins, and immediately a train of fellow psychologists begin distancing themselves and spitting three times whenever they mention his name in correspondence. This shit is in internal memos regarding his tenure and position, departmental stances on him, etc. All because the ADL flapped their gums about "new antisemitism," like they do every five minutes.

>> No.6588480

/lit/ hates it because they hate to see anything that suggests that women may live even slightly easier lives than men in any way.

>> No.6588495

>>6588143

It's so subjective that you could spin anything about any behavior to justify your own pre- conceived notions or promote a particular agenda.

>> No.6588546

Seems more like pseudo-science than a hard science to me. But because it's "science" people take that to mean it's 110% can't-do-any-wrong correct.

What's even worse are the Literary Darwinists who tried to start a revolution in literary criticism with their reductionist take on literature. The whole thing was pretty much a joke in its attempt to "dethrone" those evil postmodern feminists.

And we got really reductionist or absurd takes on classic literature. Homer's epics are all about acquiring status to get more mates. Jane Austen is all about mate selection. Hamlet's indecision was actually about the potential for Claudius and Gertrude to spawn more children of a similar genetic code.

>> No.6588552

>>6588225
>I don't like the results of the study so the study is wrong.
kek cuck harder

>> No.6588562

>>6588212
I'm not really aware of the reviews. Care to link me to some if you've got the time?

>> No.6588571

>>6588159
But truth would be advantageous for survival (e.g. is this a good material for weapon making? )

>> No.6588573
File: 40 KB, 433x480, image(30).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6588573

>>6588143
well, the trend is that everything is justified by its consequences, according to some functionalist view, typically for breeding and the survival of the children until they themselves produce children able to breed.

and when the biologists are not able to find a function to some capacity, some feature of some animal, they say **not everything is justified by its consequences, some skills or mutations can appear at random and kept or not**

>> No.6588578

Because evopsych (like Autistrian economics) is usually just an exercise in building plausible stories. No study necessary.

>> No.6588804

>>6588286
That whole post is like you walked away from the argument banging a tambourine to distract yourself and everyone else from the fact you have no idea what you're talking about.

Also the theory of natural selection isn't "ill-defined", it's an established theory backed up by substantial evidence.

>> No.6588837
File: 932 KB, 253x197, 1427797768401.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6588837

>>6588546
>And we got really reductionist or absurd takes on classic literature. Homer's epics are all about acquiring status to get more mates. Jane Austen is all about mate selection. Hamlet's indecision was actually about the potential for Claudius and Gertrude to spawn more children of a similar genetic code.

Wow...