Can we have a thread on evolutionary psychology? It seems almost all social sciences operate from the perspective that humans are a 'blank slate', that all behaviour is learned. Evolutionary psychology is a hard science approach to psychology that posits otherwise.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_WrKno972U
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU3Bwyo8crQ
>>1373600
>It seems almost all social sciences operate from the perspective that humans are a 'blank slate', that all behaviour is learned.
No.
>Evolutionary psychology is a hard science approach to psychology that posits otherwise.
>Hard science;
Nigga, it's based on literally unprovable speculations.
>>1373605
How are they unDISprovable?
You can find a behaviour, make a hypothesis based from that behaviour, and if it can't be disproved through fossil/ DNA analysis, it becomes a theory.
>>1373605
>Nigga, it's based on literally unprovable speculations.
You mean like the whole social sciences field?
Jokes aside, they have discovered specific genes associated with specific behaviours. You are blatantly wrong, and there's mountains of evidence to say so. Evolutionary psychology is the only real scientific approach to the human mind.
>>1373609
Bad bait.
>>1373609
>make a hypothesis based from that behaviour, and if it can't be disproved through fossil/ DNA analysis, it becomes a theory.
See? It remains at hypothesis and "you can't really prove one way or another" level.
Another good video explaining the how genetics affects human behaviour:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA
>>1373612
>Jokes aside, they have discovered specific genes associated with specific behaviours.
Do you know the warrior gene thing(shortened gene that promotes aggression)?
They made an experiment.
Took a bunch of reformed criminals, a biker gang, and a bunch of buddhist monks. The criminals had ZERO warrior genes, the bikers had half, and the monks ALL had.
That's because there is no single gene for intelligence, for criminals, or for anything.
Everything is formed by such a complex interaction of multiple genes, epigenetics, upbringing, etc., it's not even funny.
https://aeon.co/essays/the-selfish-gene-is-a-great-meme-too-bad-it-s-so-wrong
>Evolutionary psychology is the only real scientific approach to the human mind.
That's neurology. Ev. psych is a joke.
>>1373641
you are moving the goalposts from ev.psych to behavioural genetics, which no one disagrees with. That's a somewhat related, but different field of study(for one, one is a subset of psychology that touches biology, another is a field of biology that deals with behaviour). If you wanna concentrate on that, sure, it's a fascinant subject, but say so in that case.
>>1373644
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology
no reason a field can't be.
>>1373654
>you are moving the goalposts from ev.psych to behavioural genetics
It really isn't. Behavioural genetics states that specific genes cause behaviour. Evolutionary psychologists state that these genes developed due to evolutionary pressures. They go hand in hand.
Where do you think these genes that influence behaviour come from? Did they magically appear? They come from the process of evolution, as does everything about humans.
>>1373658
>Evolutionary psychologists have addressed many of their critics (see, for example, books by Segerstråle (2000), Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond,[158] Barkow (2005), Missing the Revolution: Darwinism for Social Scientists,[159] and Alcock (2001), The Triumph of Sociobiology.[160]). Among their rebuttals are that some criticisms are straw men, are based on an incorrect nature versus nurture dichotomy, are based on misunderstandings of the discipline, etc.[146][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167] Robert Kurzban suggested that "...critics of the field, when they err, are not slightly missing the mark. Their confusion is deep and profound. It’s not like they are marksmen who can’t quite hit the center of the target; they’re holding the gun backwards."[168]
>>1373654
>humans are somehow magically different from animals and human behaviour is somehow not affected by evolution
>we are some super special animal that is born with no innate tendencies
>>1373662
>Behavioural genetics states that specific genes cause behaviour.
It's more complicated than that, which resulted in the field subdividing to take on the issue in multiple, complex, mutually supporting ways.
Read the fucking article.
>Evolutionary psychologists state that these genes developed due to evolutionary pressures.
Specific behaviours. And it just doesn't state that, it seek to give explanations for those behaviours. And some of those explanations are dubious at best.
Also, you entire post is an illicit major fallacy.
>>1373658
Of course the establishment of social sciences is going to criticse it.....
They are obsessed with the idea of a 'blank slate'.
>>1373673
>>1373686
>>1373683
1. Genetics cause some behaviour.
2. Genetics developed due to evolution.
3. Some behaviour has an evolutionary purpose.
>>1373692
actually, not even that.
>>1373696
>>1373600
>It seems almost all social sciences operate from the perspective that humans are a 'blank slate'
Because that better fits the Cultural Marxist agenda.
Don't buy into it; genetics are real, chromosomes are real, hormones are real, sexual dimorphism is real, etc.
>>1373701
But it's not a fallacy.
ALL genetics are a result of evolution, and some of it affects behavior.
>>1373600
There is a massive difference between
>all behavior is learned
and
>all social behavior is learned.
>>1373686
This has nothing to do with a blank state. Social science operates on the premise that human society is an organism in and on its own. It differentiates between the unorganic (studied by physics, chemistry), organic (biology) and superorganic (social science) world. There are master principles that apply to all three (e.g. evolution), but there are different explanations needed for their phenomena.
For example you cannot explain the height of humans with the law of gravity. Even though it is necessary and plays a part in human life. In the same way you cannot explain social behavior with genetics.
There are fruitful interdisciplinary approaches, between unorganic and organic like biochemistry, or between organic and superorganic like cognitive science. However evolutionary psychology is not one of them because it follows biological determinism and hence it is criticized.
Biological determinism is an ideology in this context and not materialistic. Social phenomena like altruism are explained away with the claim there is a gene for it (or that it does not exist in the first place). However as far as I know they have never found an altruism gene, or a suicide gene. It is an assumption, an ideal.
It gets even worse when culture comes into play, because most biologists are not even interested in culture and put it in a scientific black box. That leaves a massive hole in almost all of their theories, which often gets explained away by
>naturally humans are special and have free will.
Which is of course not an explanation at all.
Biology is right in saying there are laws that govern social behavior, but they are wrong in thinking those laws are biological. Hence why their theories get BTFO. So hard in fact that Wilson, the founder of Sociobiology, even changed his entire approach. Chomsky's universal grammar was proven wrong. Hamilton's kin selection was proven wrong. While the theories of cultural materialists starting with Herbert Spencer still persist.
>>1373806
>This has nothing to do with a blank state.
What does?
Social science?
Evolutionary psychology?
sequence of gene X -> amino acid sequence of protein Z -> description interaction with other proteins -> effect
Is the only argument that makes sense to me.
Everything else is sort of bogus and this 'evolutionary psychology' sounds bogus to me and I'll just stick to genetics, thx.
>>1373918
Evolutionary psychology is probably mostly about genetics though.
>>1373918
Evolution changes genes -> changes the make up of the protein and/or structure or deletes it -> protein and enzyme interactions change -> behaviour can change.
Not saying it's as simple as that, but evolutionary psychology does have some nuggets of truth.
>>1373600
Back in the 70s there was a guy that wrote a book called sociobiology, I was reading it at university some time ago.
While evopsych might be lacking evidence. The criticism that the guy suffered for even proposing that maybe a biological social being's behavior is related to it's biology is fucking insane.
The idea that human behavior is not at all grounded in our biology is hilarious and absurd. Sure we may not be able to understand how it works, but it's like saying circuits have no influence on the way software works.
What's the point when there's neuroscience, really?
>>1374139
The guy was E.O. Wilson and he distanced himself from his own theories and from his colleagues.
>We have no idea how it works and cannot prove anything but it must obviously work like this.
This is idealism and anti-scientific.
Social science knows very well how human behavior works. Biologists simply reject any explanation that is not a biological one. Despite not being able to explain certain phenomena and when they do, empirical data proves them wrong.
There is a difference between influence and determination. When you claim you can explain all of human behavior with biology alone, like evolutionary psychology and sociobiology do, then you plead for biological determinism.
>>1373600
>Evolutionary psychology is a hard science approach to psychology
It's not. It's the least experimental approach, and the most theoretical. It's more prescriptive, than descriptive.
>>1373662
>Evolutionary psychologists state that these genes developed due to evolutionary pressures
That's not how evolution works. Mutations are random, selection is contextual. Genes don't pop up for any reason, and most genetic mutations are harmful or neutral anyway.
>>1373600
steven pinker go to sleep.
>>1374628
>Social science knows very well how human behavior works. Biologists simply reject any explanation that is not a biological one. Despite not being able to explain certain phenomena and when they do, empirical data proves them wrong.
What? No, social scientists don't know how human behavior works. They have theories, and those theories are highly varied both within and across disciplines (psych, sociology, economics, etc.), and are often at odds with each other. Sometimes their empirical studies support their conclusions, but a lot of studies in these areas are deeply flawed and even the ones that aren't are certainly subject to the nature-nurture debate; any conclusion that supports your ideology can be drawn.
I'm not saying evolutionary psych is a be-all end-all answer to human behavior, and there's definitely some quackery in it, but it's a valid perspective so long as it doesn't get carried to extremes. They're no different than other social scientists in this respect.
Also, I wouldn't characterize E.O. Wilson as having rejected his earlier ideas; he switched from endorsing from kin section to endorsing group selection based on gene-culture coevolution. He didn't become an outright genetic denialist when it comes to behavior like Steven Jay Gould.
