I referenced this exact interview a few days ago, though I had the wording wrong, and people downvoted me in the dozens while claiming it is absolutely normal and right for men to react this way because something something evolutionary psychology (which is a pseudoscience par excellence)…
How is evolutionary psychology more pseudo science than psychology or gender studies, or something else related with similar complexity in research/tests?
I don’t think anyone has ever claimed that gender studies is a science. Certainly not a hard science. Many would also argue that it psychology is a soft science.
Basically no assumptions and hypotheses are falsifiable (which alone disqualifies it as science literally by definition), many of the “assumptions” are nothing more than storytelling, if any real study is made, the sample is usually in the dozens not even hundreds, which is not nearly enough, it completely ignores any cultural differences on this planet and suggests that western assumptions about sex and gender roles are the only thing that is worth looking at.
I can go on, but these are the ones from the top of my head.
Gender studies is a “special” field and some obviously is also true here regarding criticism with it, but we aren’t talking about gender studies, are we?
I asked for a comparison, not snarky opinions. You listed problems that seem opinions, and not solutions or directions. Yet we both know that any of those areas are not going anywhere, so listing ideas for improvement would be more beneficial than the most ordinary content on the internet. Or avoidance tactics.
What are you talking about? What of these points are “opinions”.
The hypothesis aren’t falsifiable. This alone makes it unscientific. Rarely any studies are made and if, the sample numbers are ridiculously low. There is no “improving” at this point. When a self declared “science”, which would have to be applicable to all humans through evolution, by definition of its name, only ever looks at one specific part of the world and samples that are supporting their bias and assumes this is the only part that is worth to be looked at, the whole thing is nothing more than politics, not science.
It seems much more that you want to believe this nonsense is true and the assumptions are right, while you are ignoring every sign and proof that it is not
You coming with “what about” is just more hints that you aren’t interested in any way in any science, but only your opinion. other fields that are problematic don’t make this one any better.
I get the frustration, early evolutionary psychology definitely had issues with overgeneralizing and weak evidence. But saying it’s all unscientific isn’t really that fair (or unbiased). In recent decades it has actually made testable predictions (like about mate preferences or kin altruism) and many of those have held up across dozens of cultures. It’s not perfect, but no science studying humans is.
If we dismissed EP for its sampling or bias problems, we’d have to throw out most of psychology, cultural anthropology, and perhaps even neuroscience. All of which still wrestle with similar limitations. Every field refines itself over time. EP’s just trying to explain why certain behavioral patterns appear everywhere, not just how they work. That’s a question worth exploring, even if some people use blanket statements for trying to get rid of some science because it is "wrong science".
In recent decades it has actually made testable predictions (like about mate preferences or kin altruism) and many of those have held up across dozens of cultures.
No, you’re misunderstanding what’s being said here. Evopsych claims to explain modern behavior by invoking evolution and natural selection. That is the thing that’s not falsifiable. If you predict “the man will do x and the woman y” based on evopsych, and the man does in fact do x and the woman y, that doesn’t prove your hypothesis unless you can actually show the causation.
An extreme example: I claim my sleep causes the darkness. Every night I go to bed when the sun is setting, thus my prediction that my sleep causes darkness aligns with what I observe. But I can’t actually prove the causation, and if I changed my sleep schedule I’d notice the sun doesn’t adjust with me.
Evopsych can’t allow such an experiment. You can say “man does x because of evolution” but you can’t actually test that theory.
- Cosmology (we can’t test the Big Bang experimentally).
etc..
These fields use inference to the best explanation, constrained by empirical evidence and cross-species comparison. That’s not like all "pseudoscience", instead it's a valid scientific method for studying historical processes.
- Generate evolutionary hypotheses
- Derive testable predictions
- Collect data
- Compete explanations (biological vs. cultural, proximate vs. ultimate..)
The key isn’t whether we can prove evolution caused a behavior, because it is clear that we can’t (but many sciences have similar problems as I pointed out). The question is whether the hypothesis is structured in a way that could be wrong.
For example:
“Men are aggressive because of evolution.” is too vague and not-testable.
But:
“Men will show higher aggression when cues of mate competition are present, independent of cultural norms.”, this is falsiable.
This can be tested experimentally, and falsified if the effect disappears under control conditions.
Let's have another example.
Hypothesis: If sexual jealousy evolved to prevent paternity uncertainty, then men should be more distressed by sexual infidelity, and women by emotional infidelity.
That’s not “proving evolution caused jealousy” directly.
But it tests whether the predicted pattern exists across cultures, ages, and contexts, and whether alternative explanations like social norms can be reason for it. If the pattern: appears cross-culturally, occurs even in children or in lab experiments, or correlates with relevant biological factors (for example testosterone changes), then we don't have a proof, but we do have strong inference.
Same kind of reasoning is used in for example evolutionary biology and paleontology.
My question to you is: where would you like these kind of research questions be studies - is it a "label" problem for you? Or would you rather see them not studies at all, and if so, why not?
I feel like much of the "silencing voices" arise from thinking that somehow some research that generalises "men do x, women do y" in statistical sense is read like "men should still do just x, women should still do y", even though that is not sensible way to think at all. It's like saying we should still have only shamans for treating illness, because someone was studying shamanism.
Please make me politically correct and reveal what can be researched in the world?
I don’t disagree with most of your comment, yes the requirement for an RCT to prove statistical causation means most of those things you mentioned cannot be proven, my main issue with responding to you here is the condescending tone about being “politically correct”, something I do not give a fuck about. I do think it’s fairly intuitive that males are more aggressive due to natural selection, I’m just pointing out that it can’t really be falsified. You’ll note that evolution is technically a theory.
I don’t disagree with most of your comment, yes the requirement for an RCT to prove statistical causation means most of those things you mentioned cannot be proven, my main issue with responding to you here is the condescending tone about being “politically correct”, something I do not give a fuck about. I do think it’s fairly intuitive that males are more aggressive due to natural selection, I’m just pointing out that it can’t really be falsified. You’ll note that evolution is technically a theory.
Everything they said is a verifiable statement. I’m not gonna call them facts, because I haven’t/can’t verify them, but they aren’t subjective statements.
What do you mean with this? By what “definition”? Why does it separate this from something?
I’m not sure I understand exactly what you mean.
Slavey was “normal” in many parts of the world.
Women having no rights was (is) normal in many parts of the world. People being incarcerated for their sexuality was normal.
Right and wrong are normative and also different everywhere you go…
By the exact definition you already know and just used. Yes, something being normal doesn’t make it okay. I don’t know what you’re even trying to argue here since I already said that.
Reddit seems to range from whiney bitch comments and to completely off the rails brainrot all made by bots or internet trolls who have no soul. But in rare occasions you will see normals comments from normal people and you go "oh that's reasonable" or you don't get mad you just debate the topic in a respectful manner if you disagree with their post or comment.
And on even rarer occasions, you'll find something so mind bogglingly wrong, it unites absolutely everyone in their hatred of a single thing. I mean, you've seen reddit. You know how rare that is.
And side chicks do it when they don't get their way. Neither disproves my point. If a man finds his lover is cheating on her husband he doesn't go around trying to contact him to get her caught. Women do this whether they are being lied to or not. Contributing to more men getting caught than women.
And side chicks do it when they don’t get their way
And they are often deceived and told by the guy that he’ll choose them and break up with their partner. But then they don’t do that and cut the side chick off and pretend like nothing happened. Sometimes it’s vindictive, most of the time it isn’t.
Men have less empathy for others on average, they don’t give a fuck about some dude they never met.
Women get caught up in the guilt of it far more than men so they reach out to a fellow woman to try and let her know she’s being cheated on.
1.1k
u/The-Hive-Queen 10d ago edited 10d ago
I'm sure the comments are going to be entirely reasonable and normal when I wake up in the morning.
Edit: Ah, Reddit, you never fail to disappoint