/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10550252
yes

Kind of. It's clearly a good idea to look at our psychology from an evolutionary perspective, but the field itself, and more specifically the people that make it up are bullshit.

Evolutionary Psychology basically became the freebie PhD thesis, so there are just piles upon piles of garbage trying to cash in. Take any subject in human behavior and "analyze it through an evolutionary lense." and you got your research topic. You don't even really have to be creative and your entire piece of work is basically one big literature review.

>>10550252
probably, still much less so than gender studies, though

>>10550252
Not on the face of it. Most of the obviously retarded "evopsych" claims (such as: girls like pink because as cavewomen they used to be berry-pickers) don't actually come from professionals in the field but from fedora-tier fanboys on reddit and lesswrong.
Also to a certain extent this: >>10550316

>>10550316
If the data is right then what's the harm?

>>10550316
This is why I quit. Best decision I ever made.

>>10550450
Do girls even innately like pink, though? I’d think that’d be impossible to actually verify without performing extremely unethical experiments like human isolation zoos.

>>10552558
I doubt it's innate. The concept of pink for girls and blue for boys only started in the 20th century.

>>10550261
\thread

>>10550252
all of psychology is pseudoscience

>>10550252
It's still evolving.

>>10550252
It isn't inherently a pseudoscience. However, evolutionary psychologists are heavily prone to pseudoscience.

>>10550252
It's kind of like sociology and other social sciences. It's not that whole idea is bullshit nor that it can't be treated in a scientific manner, but the people working on it are pseudoscientists and their approaches are rudimentary and laughable.

>>10550467
I think you're misunderstanding him. The point is the field relies almost entirely on interpretation of data. You can't really be wrong, it just has to make sense. The entire field is basically what Feynman is ridiculing here
https://youtu.be/E383eEA54DE?t=184

yes because your psychology is the result of divine providence or magic dust or something

Evolution isn't even a science, it's historical science. Just fill in the blanks and hope for the best.

>>10552702
>isn't even a science, it's historical science
why are you so fucking retarded

>>10552702
There is no imaginary division between observational science and historical science. That’s a myth perpetuated by creationists and only creationists. There’s observation and that is it.

>>10552732
>>10552748
>something that happened in the past and was never observed is the same thing as carefully observed and documented experiments
El oh el

>>10552762
>something that happened in the past and was never observed is the same thing as carefully observed and documented experiments

Wrong. Something that happened in the past can be determined to have occurred by making “observations” and “documented experiments” in the present.

>El oh el

Not an argument. Spew more creationist lies from before the world switched to DVD from VHS.

>>10552777
How do I check these trips if they've only happened in the past?

>>10550252
Creationism of the mind is a pseudoscience.

>>10552833
>Human intelligence varies for generic factors

>Therefore races exist

Nope. Non sequitor.

>>10552833
Rational retroactivist time traveling simulation AI hypergod here.

Can confirm that I can create minds of any degree of complexity.