[ 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.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 3.32 MB, 250x257, 1424988457925.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7112408 No.7112408 [Reply] [Original]

>evolutionary psychology

>> No.7112412

Well the human organism adapts and subsequently changes. The human brain is an organ which has (and will) change within time. The human 'mind' is the expression of the brain, and you will find that the psychological analysis will change in adherence to understanding the changing mind.

How is this euphoric?

>> No.7112430

>>7112412
Except that's not what evolutionary psychology actually does. It starts off with a human trait, let's say a foot fetish, and goes "Okay. If this exists, there MUST be an evolutionary advantage to it. Let's conjecture as to what that advantage is!" Then they come up with a theoretical reason that makes sense, say "here's why people have foot fetishes." and go on their merry way.

It's not scientific in the slightest. My favorite part about taking physical anthropology for a gen ed was the professor ranting for a whole class about how shitty evolutionary psychology is and how little people in the field actually understand human evolution. Sometimes human traits develop and evolve neutrally. Not everything we do serves some evolutionary advantage. Is it possible men like larger breasts because it means the woman is more fertile? Maybe. Is there any actual evidence to back that up? No. Is it just as likely men like larger breasts for cultural reasons, and that it's nto even scientifically accurate that men DO like larger breasts? Yes.

>> No.7112431

>>7112412
It's not science. Just a bunch of "just so" stories that can't be falsified.

>> No.7112432

>>7112408
>not using a biological theory as an explanation for human behavior
>muh animal behavior is fine, but humans are of special

>> No.7112442

Retards come asking for what the benefit of doing x, thinking y, liking z, and once they get some explanation that is totally unfounded but plausible they're content.

It's essentially like any religion, just that it uses evolutionary at the beginning.

Unless we're talking evolutionary psychology as in comparative cognition between species or stuff like that.

>> No.7112446

>>7112430
>evolutionary advantage

Not necessarily advantage. It's just that the mental trait (yes I am referring to behavioral patterns derived from the physical construction of the brain as triats) was selected for over time.

>anthropology

You're already lost.

>Is it possible men like larger breasts because it means the woman is more fertile? Maybe. Is there any actual evidence to back that up? No.
>Is there any actual evidence to back that up
>Men like indicators of female fertility
>Large breasts are indicators of female fertility
>Men like large large breasts
>not evidence

>Is it just as likely men like larger breasts for cultural reasons
>men like large breasts across all cultures, therefore it is specific to one culture

Gtfo cancer

Anthropology is a joke. Liberals have turned the discipline into a political tool, and you have bitten their propaganda hook line and sinker.

>inb4 lebaitfish.jpeg

>> No.7112450

>>7112442
No we are talking about denying responsibility for certain social actions because someone claimed in the stone age people were hard-wired to act a certain way

>> No.7112453

>>7112446

You have no idea how evolution works. You have no idea how anthropology works. You have no idea how science works. You probably have no idea how breasts work. Go rant elsewhere.

>> No.7112456
File: 79 KB, 500x461, 1425415332744.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7112456

>>7112446
>I am referring to behavioral patterns derived from the physical construction of the brain as traits

>> No.7112460

>>7112456
Thanks for fixing my typo.

>>7112453

You have no idea how to explain how evolution works.

Anthropology works by sitting in the middle of a culture, influencing the culture as a result, and then writing some bullshit about how this culture is fundamentally different than every other culture because humans are special.

>> No.7112461

>>7112446
>It's just that the mental trait (yes I am referring to behavioral patterns derived from the physical construction of the brain as triats) was selected for over time.
That's all well and good in theory. But there's no plausible way to say that a trait a (say liking ice-cream) is obvious in the physical charactersitics of the brain.

At best you can say humans have very large cortexes compared to body size and that we have a (compared to other apes and such) large percentage of the brain comprised out of the prefrontal cortex. But the causal chain between one trait and a physical observable property in the brain is so large, and in the case of evolutionary psychology so unfounded, it's nothing but speculation.

>> No.7112470

>>7112461
>no plausible way to say that a trait a (say liking ice-cream) is obvious

Agreed, to a certain extent.

But I could just as easily argue that the human predisposition for sugar is predicted by the vast neural requisites for glucose for optimal functioning. There is no specific structure in the brain that uses glucose, but glucose (concentrated ice cream) is very important for continued neural function, and is indicative of a meta-trait(?).

>> No.7112479

>>7112470
How come you don't like semen then? You can use the protein.

>> No.7112484

>>7112479

Where do you think procedural oral sex came from?

Surely it can't just be a social bonding exercise, right? The advantages must be doubled.

>> No.7112492
File: 134 KB, 446x400, laughingwhores.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7112492

>>7112460
>>7112446

>He doesn't understand that physical Anthropology is a biological science that encompasses primatology, human evolution, forensics, etc.

>> No.7112493

>>7112484
Wait, are you joking or are you retarded? I just can't tell anymore on /sci/

>> No.7112498

>>7112492
>Anthropology is a biological science

dropped

>> No.7112499

>>7112450
This is important too. It places huge emphasis on wiring and completely ignores culture.

>men have higher sex drives. it's more natural for men to be promiscuous

It hasn't been "natural" for men to be promiscuous for hundreds of thousands of years at the very least.

>> No.7112503
File: 444 KB, 465x455, 1422038194032.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7112503

>>7112498
>He doesn't understand Physical Anthropology is different from Cultural Anthropology

>> No.7112510

>>7112503
>a
Granted.

What then is the difference between the two, if any? What makes one the "Physical" study of human culture rather than the "Cultural" study of human culture?

Are you measuring the skulls of various Asiatic ethnic groups?

>> No.7112513

>>7112499
>It hasn't been "natural" for men to be promiscuous for hundreds of thousands of years at the very least.
The whole joke is that we don't know how people behaved in those times when there were no written records or only official ones that don't describe everyday life. We just assume stuff, but every description of society 10000 years ago is guesswork

>> No.7112527

>>7112510
Anthropology has 4 areas: Cultural Anth, Physical Anth, Biological Anth, and Archaeology. Cultural is what you're thinking of. Physical deals with evolutionary science with a focus on humans. Any studies of Australopithecus, homo erectus, etc, are done by physical Anthropologists. They analyze skulls for forensic science, they study DNA, etc. Biological has some overlap with physical, but is mostly involved in the medical field these days. Archaeology is archaeology.

And yes. Physical Anthropologists would measure the skulls of various Asiatic ethnic groups.

>> No.7112533

>>7112513

Well, I think that we can extrapolate the rate of change in human behavior from that of the behavior of other animals.

In addition, we see male promiscuity in other mammalian species. It would be incorrect to assume that we are so fundamentally dissimilar in this regard.

Consider also the basic facts of human reproduction. Compare a human male and female. The male can sire 365 children in a year with 365 women. A woman can have 1 child with one man in that same time.

This reproductive variance predicts the sexual dimorphism we see in humans today. Natural selection will select for the genetic material of those males who reproduce the most. It so follows that it has in the past, and so therefore promiscuity of human males in the distant past can easily be assumed.

Again, we see the same thing in other mammals.

>> No.7112536

>>7112527
Oh, so you're basically Nazis.

I understand what you mean now.

>> No.7112547

>>7112536
>we shouldn't study the real physical differences between populations because that's not politically correct!

You should take a moment and look up the difference between "positive" and "normative" claims.

>> No.7112550

>>7112547
You could almost say that it's Politically Incorrect.

>> No.7112559

>>7112533
>we see male promiscuity in other mammalian species. It would be incorrect to assume we are so fundamentally dissimilar

That's a ridiculously fallacious claim. Every species of ape alive today has a different mating pattern. Gibbons are monogamous, Orangutans are asocial, but mate infrequently and with one partner per season. Gorillas are polygamous, and female Chimps and Bonobos are exactly as promiscuous as males.

And, once again, you're completely neglecting culture. Human culture is as important as human biology. Pair-bonding, at least long enough to raise a child, is not a hard thing to imagine, especially considering the amount of time human beings tend to remain infatuated with one another.

>> No.7112562

>>7112431
How is evo psych not falsifiable? You might as well say that evolution is a "just so" story and join the creationists.

>> No.7112563

>>7112550
You're a troll, right?

>> No.7112567

>>7112559
>other mammalian species obviously means all mammalian species

>Human culture is as important as human biology

Not in the slightest. Culture is derived from biology and geology.

>who was Genghis Khan, and how many women did he impregnate

>> No.7112568

>>7112562
>How is evo psych not falsifiable?

There's no way to prove "why" we evolved some trait one way or the other.

>> No.7112569

>>7112567
Pardon me

Geography.

>> No.7112570

>>7112533
>Well, I think that we can extrapolate the rate of change in human behavior from that of the behavior of other animals.
No we can't. Because we have culture and technology, our behavior is mainly determined by culture and upbringing. Humans don't need random mutations to change, cultural evolution replaced biological. You can't extrapolate anything but extremely general principles from other mammals. One can't even extrapolate our current behavior from knowledge about the romans.

> It would be incorrect to assume that we are so fundamentally dissimilar in this regard.
We are fundamentally dissimilar in almost every regard in our behavior.

>> No.7112573

>>7112567
>Culture is derived from biology and geology.
And biology is derived from chemistry, so clearly biology doesn't matter, instead only chemistry matters.

>> No.7112576

>>7112568
First of all, that doesn't answer the question. Second, it's not even true. You sound like Ken Ham telling us that science can't say anything about the past.

>> No.7112587

>>7112567
Where culture comes from is irrelevant. For as long as human beings have had the capacity to pass on culture, culture has influenced biology as much as anything else.

>say culture doesn't matter
>Uses an example of someone who was able to be polygamous BECAUSE of his culture and status

Good argument, m8

>> No.7112588

>>7112570
>our behavior is mainly determined by culture and upbringing

FUCK

NO

>One can't even extrapolate our current behavior from knowledge about the romans.

You know what they say about those who don't know history.

>We are fundamentally dissimilar in almost every regard

So you don't engage in strategic reproductive behaviors. I'm not surprised.

>>7112573

Chemistry "mattes more" than biology, yes. I'll just be straight up here it does.

Hierarchy of the physical sciences.

>> No.7112594

>>7112576
>you can prove why humans think the way we do despite no physical evidence

yea okay buddy

>> No.7112598

>>7112588
Biological fatalism is almost as retarded as religious fatalism. Maybe even more retarded, actually.

>> No.7112601

>>7112587

His status within his culture didn't cause his polygamy.

It simply enabled it. We see this genetic enablement in every damn human culture on the planet. Powerful men take many wives. In cultures where they can't take more than one legal wife, they take mistresses.

There are obviously outliers, but the pattern is cross-culturally consistent.

>> No.7112602

>>7112601
>the pattern is cross-culturally consistent

Not in hunter-gatherer societies which, y'know, is what we were for most of our existence.

>> No.7112603

>>7112598
Cultural fatalism is is almost as retarded as religious fatalism. Maybe even more retarded, actually.

>> No.7112605

>>7112603
You're completely correct. It's why rational people realize humans are influenced by both. We're both biological and cultural creatures.

>> No.7112606

>>7112594
>Inductive reasoning is impossible!
OK buddy.

>> No.7112611

>>7112606
It's not reasoning. It's going "this COULD be why we do this." Which is the exact same logic that guides the creation museum.

>> No.7112614

>>7112602
Yes, especially in hunter-gatherer societies.

Many of those don't even have monogamy. They have a pluralistic communal bonding system, wherein the offspring are cared for by the group as a whole. Which is obviously a generalization, but even this example doesn't require genetic equality in terms of male reproductive capacity.

I'll bet dollars to navy beans that some of those men sire more children than other men. It is the genetic code that those more successful men pass on that is selected for over several generations.

>> No.7112640

>>7112588
>So you don't engage in strategic reproductive behaviors.
No, but in contrast to you I engage in reproductive behavior at all.

>FUCK NO
Now that's just denial

>> No.7112650

>>7112611
That's a childish strawman. Evo psych is not simply about hypothesizing. It looks for evidence and tests predictions. For example, we would expect adapted traits to be universal.

>> No.7112670

>>7112640
>not even asking females before copulating with them

Here comes the party van.

>> No.7112693

>>7112430
>>7112431
>implying casual armchair musings are the same as actual research.

As long as the research makes a testable hypothesis then tests it against research then it's valid.

If it fails to do that then it isn't.

Claiming that animals brains and behaviours aren't subject to evolutionary pressures just because you don't like casual musings that you read on internet forums is immature and very low-IQ.

That would be like dismissing chemistry or physics because you overheard some people discussing some possible reaction mechanism or particle that there isn't rigorous evidence for yet.

>> No.7112715

>>7112693
9/10 times evolutionary psychology comes up, it's "the most common theory for why we have this behavior is this reason". I'm not saying hte field itself is fruitless, and I'm definitely not saying that it's not worth pursuing.

But I am saying that the very nature of hte field make rigorous scientific analysis nearly impossible and that, once again, evolutionary psychologists are prone to ignore cultural mechanisms.

>> No.7112731

>>7112715
just admit that you get annoyed when you hear people casual musing over behaviour that may or may not have been subject to significant evolutionary selection.

You don't need to over-state your case so much.

>> No.7112740

>>7112731
No. I get annoyed when I hear academics cite evolutionary psychological research which, upon reading through myself, is full of problems.

If I tried to discredit every field casuals retardedly cite, there'd be nothing left.