Steven Pinker explains the cognitive biases we all suffer from and how they can short-circuit rational thinking and lead us into believing stupid things. Skip to 12:15 to bypass the preamble.
Steven Pinker explains the cognitive biases we all suffer from and how they can short-circuit rational thinking and lead us into believing stupid things. Skip to 12:15 to bypass the preamble.
Oh my, what happened to rationalwiki? Reading that you wouldn’t have the first clue about who Pinker is or what contributions he’s made. It’s just a list of quote articles from critics of varying levels of note.
His work on linguistics and cognition is seminal. I would heartily recommend “the language instinct” and “rationality”.
On evo-pysch, lots of garbage gets published because the tabloids love “women enjoy shopping because science” stories, and the field itself suffers from charlatans that grift in it. The principle behind it, namely that animal behaviour is subject to evolutionary forces, however is of course true.
Sorry… you don’t think printing what notable critics of Pinker say about him is relevant? Is his so-called science above criticism? Is the racism much of his so-called science is based upon also beyond criticism?
And no, evo psych is garbage because it’s garbage. Or at least mostly garbage.
Let’s start with the Center for Inquiry. I hope, as someone posting in a skeptic community, you consider them a valid source: https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2006/03/22164612/p23.pdf
But in case you don’t, here’s more, from numerous sources and of varying degrees of complexity:
https://philpapers.org/rec/ESMIEP-2
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10113342/
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/04/09/i-almost-felt-pity-for-evolutionary-psychology/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201412/how-valid-is-evolutionary-psychology
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?
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.
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.