22
Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things
(youtu.be)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
22 points (75.0% liked)
Skeptic
1334 readers
1 users here now
A community for Scientific Skepticism:
Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism, sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.
Do not confuse this with General Skepticism, Philosophical Skepticism, or Denialism.
Things we like:
- Civility
- Thoughtful discussion based on evidence and facts
- Humor
Things we don't like:
- Personal attacks or disrespectful attitude
- Wild speculation on events with no evidence
- Low-effort comments and posts
Other communities of interest:
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -David Hume
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It should not form 100% of an encyclopedia article about anyone. And they aren't notable, it seems as if tue one editor who's been running that page since last year added every possible article they found through Google.
It would be worth including his seminal work such as his 1990 paper on th evolution of language (worth a read)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/natural-language-and-natural-selection/CDD84686D58AF70E3D2CB48486D7940B
No one is above criticism but an encyclopedia is meant to be comprehensive.
Well now we're just being silly. You can't seriously believe that animal behaviour has no evolutionary component? You believe in souls instead?
Well that's not CFI that's Skeptical Enquirer and it's an article from Massimo Pigliucci and the headline is subject to Betteridges law of headlines.
Please don't spam, I'd rather hear you articulate your reasons rather than resorting to other people to do the work for you.
(Although all those articles follow the same formula: find some garbage evopsych publications => conclude the whole premise is nonsense)
Evolutionary psychology is as scientific as phrenology.
That is rather unwarranted given its still an active field and is the only accepted explanation for the origin of animal behaviour.
This is not true. Ethology is the general study of animal behavior. Evolutionary Psychology is specific to human behavior and is not the only approach to studying it either. Sociobiology an example of a less criticized field studying human behavior based on evolution.
Most of the field focuses on primates because, unsurprisingly, that's where we find most of psychology. It is wrong to say it has nothing to do with animals.
And botany is the study of plants? Every field in biology overlaps with evolution.
That's not a challenge to the premise of evopsych. If anything it sort of supports it.
It was in response to your claim that Evolutionary Psychology is the "the only accepted explanation for the origin of animal behaviour." If you want to make that claim you need to support it with some kind of reference.
Well it doesn't refute that.
Well ok, perhaps "only accepted explanation" was claiming too much given that a large proportion of the population believe in souls or pure blank-slatism for human behavior.
For the non-human animals though, it certainly isn't controversial to say evolution is the only explanation for the origin of behaviour. What else could it be?
there’s a lot to unpack here. firstly, there is more to human behavior than genetics/evolution, hence nature vs nurture. in other words our human experience determines our behavior in addition to genetics.
Secondly, that’s not the only claim or assumption of Evolutionary Psychology. There is lots of other stuff besides that statement that is controversial at best.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology
Careful you almost misquoted me there
It's a jolly good thing I was talking about non-human animals then.
It's a common fallacy to suppose that because an behavioural adaption has a genetic basis that therefore having the genes determines the behaviour.
https://areomagazine.com/2019/08/20/seven-key-misconceptions-about-evolutionary-psychology/
Misconception #3 in the above.
Evolutionary Psychologists make claims, some of which yes are clearly lacking in explanatory power, evidence and predictions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology
Yes I'm familiar with Wikipedia, if I'm just going to be talking to a search engine here I'm not terribly invested in continuing.
Phrenology wwas an active field until it wasn't.
Evolutionary psychology does start with a reasonable starting point, that some behaviors are passed genetically, but then uses that to give excuses to things that are primarily learned or discourged through social and environmental pressures. It takes something that is reasonable to speculate about as part of being biological but then twists it into justifications for racism and sexism by painting with broad brushes.
And that's the entire premise, evolution affects behaviour as well as physical attributes. The brain is not insulated against evolutionary pressures.
And that's where the (well earned) criticism comes from. As I said, loads of garbage is printed with "just so" stories. That does not make the premise invalid.
That's the same as saying darwinism is garbage because it led to eugenics.
Quantum mechanics isn't a garbage field because Deepak Shopra thinks it can cure baldness.
Evolutionary psychology at its core twists the concept of genetic inheritence into justifications for racism and sexism, like phrenology before it. These two examples are people taking existing science and misapplying them to things they don't have anything to do with.
That is not evopysch "at its core".
Again, you may as well describe darwinism as racist at its core.
Misapplying science doesn't make the science wrong.
As someone without skin in this game, I have a clarifying question and you seem willing to discuss. Why is phrenology junk science and evopsych not? What separates the two, for you?
The premises that underpin any science is what separates it from a pseudoscience. Phrenology posits that random bumps on your skull predict mental abilities and behaviours, why? What mechanism could possibly be responsible for such a correlation. It was based on a theory that the brain was a group of muscles and like all muscles if you worked it it got bigger. Easily shown that this wasn't the case.
A bit like chiropractry positing that all diseases are due to the bones/spine being out of alignment.
What's the premise behind evopsych? Evolution. Where does animal behavior originate from? Is it entirely spontaneous? The brain, like every other organ, is subject to evolutionary pressures. Natural selection will produce behaviour that increases survivability, and that's it.
In your mind, how do you think a phrenologist would respond to that explanation?
I couldn't possibly speculate. Is this hypothetical phrenologist the sort of scientist who adjusts their position based on new evidence?
I guess what I'm getting at is: Is there a way you can explain why evopsych is a valid science where phrenology is not, without relying on an argument that a phrenologist would also make? That's a tough set of criteria, but I think it's required.
The premise upon which it was based was later shown to be false.
Right! So accepted "science" can become pseudoscience once further discoveries are made. I think we all agree on that. The question being debated in this thread, I think, is whether evopsych will also eventually be found to be a pseudoscience. To be clear, I am not proposing we try and guess the future, but to look at the state of the science now and extrapolate that as best we can into the future.
I am a complete lay(wo)man here, so I'm not casting aspersions either way. I would need to do a lot more research for that. I see the other arguments devolving into semantics and rhetoric though instead of focusing on that core conceit.
So you feel any confidence in evopsych as a science? Why or why not? And if those same arguments could be applied to phrenology prior to its official debunking, how valid is that confidence?
Respectfully, the point of contention appears to be between the several users who have already concluded it is a pseudoscience and myself who has not.
The fundamental premise on which it lies is evolution by natural selection. Yes, the possibility exists that may one day be falsified but....its pragmatic to continue as if that is unlikely.
That is most welcome.
The premises are fairly robust, and I've not seen a convincing argument against them. Nothing is certain so I wouldn't describe myself as ideologically married to it.
That all works for me. Again, I have no opinion on evopsych itself because I just genuinely know nothing about it. Might read up a bit on the sources from the opposing narratives in the thread if I get time. I don't think you in particular are approaching it from an unscientific or unethical point of view, but it could just be a bit of guilt by association with individuals who are using the topic nefariously. It's not very fair, but it is common and I kinda understand why.
Thank you, I am happy to share some links for further reading if you are interested.
Sure thing, always happy to add to my reading list.
Well an easy intro is misconceptions in evopsych
https://areomagazine.com/2019/08/20/seven-key-misconceptions-about-evolutionary-psychology/
Which dispatches pretty much all the strawman objections.
Then I'd recommend the followup
Predicting new findings. https://areomagazine.com/2020/10/20/evolutionary-psychology-predictively-powerful-or-riddled-with-just-so-stories/
Contemporary essays that don't shy away from the awkward past.
They are not. They are, however, platforming a virulent racist, as my Rationalwiki link at the top shows.
I've seen you enough Squid to know you're not approaching this in bad faith either, as much as just reacting to what is likely exactly what you say. This is a tough situation because I don't feel that either of you are racist/reactive respectively as much as just sharing info you feel is important. Platforming is weird and nuanced and I do think the other commentor is trying to separate the racist prof from the ideology itself, which could be applied in a non-racist manner. I still think that platforming is open to criticism even if the intent is noble, so that's a valid bone to pick.
Again though, no skin in this game and I have not personally research any of the science or people involved. I just don't want to see what could be a productive argument on a science turn into the rhetoric/semantics debate that online discussions inevitably turn into.
Edit: And also, I'm not trying to approach this from a high and mighty perspective. I just know it's easy to get lost in it when you're passionate. A brief glance at my history would tell you I'm by no means immune to a good internet argument.
How can you separate him from what he says when he is saying it from a racist lens? Even if evolutionary psychiatry is valid science, they are having it presented by a racist (and also a climate change denier).
I think that's a valid take I'd like to see discussion on. For me, I think it's not black and white. Just because of cultural context in the time they lived, I'm certain almost every scientist before 1900 was a raging homophobe and likely racist to boot. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if Darwin and Mendel had problematic beliefs in this same regard. We take the ideas and iterate on them in non-problematic ways to validate the underlying assumptions. Is this guy in the same sort of bucket? Hell if I know.
Don't let me get started in what Isaac Newton used to believe. It ought to be a crime that we still teach his laws of motion in school.
Pinker didn't live before 1900. He's alive in 2024 and he's a racist and climate change denier who OP expects to tell us about science.
Of course, and I agree with that (on faith, because I genuinely don't know who the guy is yet). I've met enough people who are incredibly talented with fucked up views to know that intellect and morality are not as entwined as we might hope. Death of the author, applied to science.
I'm not sure I even agree with this take btw, as much as just finding it a valid one to hold that I would disagree with. It's also fully possible I'm getting invested enough in a hypothetical to the point of being irritating. If so, I do apologize. I'm not trying to provide any sort of moral cover for someone who sounds like an overall shitty person.
Your reading comprehension is lacking.
There's no need to be impolite. You seem to basing your opposition to the premise of evopsych entirely on exames where it has been applied badly.
If you accept that behaviour is subject to evolutionary pressures then we are on the same page.
Name one time evo psych was used correctly and wasn't just reinforcing stereotypes.
Well I'm not sure what counts as "used correctly" but I can direct you to some highly cited respectable papers
Barrett and Kurzban 2006 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16802884/
Provides an intro to fundamental disagreements around the scope and the mechanisms of adaptions. Long but comprehensive.
(You should he able to find a pdf of it if you don't have journal access)
Curtis et Al 2004
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1810028/
Evidence that disgust evolved to protect from disease.
Edit:
I'll add this essay from Laith Al-Shawaf as well. It covers some of the misconceptions and changes the field has gone though over the last 20 years.
https://areomagazine.com/2019/08/20/seven-key-misconceptions-about-evolutionary-psychology/
Wow, you read those articles that you labeled as "spam" very quickly.
Or did you not read them and thus not know what they said?
Seems dishonest either way.
But I am amused by your CFI is not the Skeptical Inquirer claim when that's literally the publication put out by CFI.
Edit:
Now I know you're being dishonest. Not only does the article state their qualifications and link to where they wrote it, suggesting Stephen Jay Gould is not notable is ludicrous.
I've read two of them before and skim reading doesnt take much time. I've been reading Pharyngula for 20 years.
Spamming as a verb != spam the noun. You can spam 20 perfectly good systematic review articles.
This would be the "engaging in bad faith" flag. I'm interested to hear how you articulate the flaws in the premise behind evopysch.
Granted that was semantic.
Edit:
Genuine typo there should read "they aren't all notable", that's dyslexia for you.
You didn't answer my question.
Did you read all of those articles extremely quickly or not, and if not, how do you know what they said?
Also, calling your absolutely ludicrous claim about CFI "semantic" is pretty damn dishonest too.
What was my "ludicrous" claim about the CFI?
Ah, so you've read two of them and yet you claim you know what they all said.
Dishonest.
You dismissed my CFI link because "Well that’s not CFI that’s Skeptical Enquirer and it’s an article from Massimo Pigliucci and the headline is subject to Betteridges law of headlines."
And please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that you said "well that’s not CFI that’s Skeptical Enquirer" but that wasn't a dismissal of the article.
It's also dishonest because you mention Dr. Pigliucci as if he's some nobody who doesn't know what he's talking about rather than a biologist.
And skimmed the other two and found the same problem i mentioned earlier. Note, you aren't refuting that.
Lazy maybe.
A correction is not a dismissal.
Yes given that author concludes that evopsych has problems but isnt a pseudoscience. Sorry I thought you had read it.
It's a semantic correction. CfI puts out press releases and policy documents and this was an invited article from a third party, not unworthy of clarification.
I implied none of what you allege. Its probably more correct to describe him as primarily a philosopher than a biologist but that's not a criticism.
STOP BEING SO FUCKING DISHONEST
Sorry, you don't get to say that it is incorrect to say someone with a degree in biology who won an award for being an evolutionary biologist is not a biologist. Not if you wish to be called honest.
In fact, I would place a wager on his having more education in the biological sciences than you, considering:
TWO doctorates in biology, but let's just dismiss any criticism he might have of EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY.
Oh, I know, it wasn't a dismissal or a criticism when you responded to me with what was clearly a dismissal and criticism of that article. Give me a fucking break. I doubt you even read it so, much like the other ones you admitted you didn't read despite dishonestly claiming you knew what they said.
He's literally employed as professor of philosophy at City College New York
Maybe take a break from this?
Once again, I must remark upon your talent to insert words in place of other peoles'. At no point did I imply he wasn't a biologist, he is simply better described as primarily a philosopher given his work.
I mean he probably does? He's probably got a nicer house than me as well.
Did you read the article you posted where he concluded evopsych wasn't a pseudoscience? I'm not criticising him at all, he's actually supporting my point. I am beginning to suspect you didn't actually read it.
The use of caplocks is really helping get your point across.
I can't help you
Gladly, you've been deeply unpleasant and our time is limited.
And yet you know more about evolutionary psychology than he does. Or at least enough to not bother actually reading what he has to say about it.
Also, your obvious sealioning is not fooling anyone.