Post: #1

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/opinio...ral&src=me

Interesting info on male/female dating/mating patterns.

Post: #2

Evo. psych is the string theory of sociology. It's a useful model that can be used to break the traditional paradigms we use to evaluate social interactions but it's hardly a science. Until you can identify the mechanism that passes on social traits it's all just conjecture. Take it all with a huge grain of salt.

Post: #3

(01-13-2013 03:40 PM)Ensam Wrote:  Evo. psych is the string theory of sociology. It's a useful model that can be used to break the traditional paradigms we use to evaluate social interactions but it's hardly a science. Until you can identify the mechanism that passes on social traits it's all just conjecture. Take it all with a huge grain of salt.

Any dogma is not good. But I would'nt diss evo psych. so fast. Especially, putting evo. psych. and sociology together in the same sentence like they're in the same branch is a statement in itself I think you're not aware of. Sociology belongs in the human science department while evo. psych belongs in the nature science department.

Post: #4

I'm not dismissing it, there are some great ideas. But they're just ideas at this point. The science just isn't there to back up a lot of the assertions. It doesn't mean they're wrong or not worth considering. It's a very difficult field to study and commend the people who are making attempts to get a handle on it. Most of the peer reviewed papers I've read are pretty reasonable about their conclusions, but the pop science versions that make it into the media are usually ridiculous. The studies that get closest to the natural sciences are the ones that track hormone levels and behaviors. But even those often times have relatively small samples and there's a lot of inference.

The only valid conclusion you can get using an evolutionary psych theory is "People who do <x> behavior have more offspring who survive to reproductive age and repeat <x> behavior than those who don't." Even that statement is incredibly tough to state with any kind of confidence. The strongest form is when they can say <xx> gene causes more of a certain hormone to be expressed which leads to behavior that increases the likelihood of reproduction and survival of offspring to reproductive age.

Post: #5

I read this earlier today and almost made a thread on it. This part in particular jumped out at me:

Quote: Recently, a third pillar appeared to fall. To back up the assumption that an enormous gap exists between men’s and women’s attitudes toward casual sex, evolutionary psychologists typically cite a classic study published in 1989. Men and women on a college campus were approached in public and propositioned with offers of casual sex by “confederates” who worked for the study. The confederate would say: “I have been noticing you around campus and I find you to be very attractive.” The confederate would then ask one of three questions: (1) “Would you go out with me tonight?” (2) “Would you come over to my apartment tonight?” or (3) “Would you go to bed with me tonight?”

Roughly equal numbers of men and women agreed to the date. But women were much less likely to agree to go to the confederate’s apartment. As for going to bed with the confederate, zero women said yes, while about 70 percent of males agreed.

Those results seemed definitive — until a few years ago, when Terri D. Conley, a psychologist at the University of Michigan, set out to re-examine what she calls “one of the largest documented sexuality gender differences,” that men have a greater interest in casual sex than women.

Ms. Conley found the methodology of the 1989 paper to be less than ideal. “No one really comes up to you in the middle of the quad and asks, ‘Will you have sex with me?’ ” she told me recently. “So there needs to be a context for it. If you ask people what they would do in a specific situation, that’s a far more accurate way of getting responses.” In her study, when men and women considered offers of casual sex from famous people, or offers from close friends whom they were told were good in bed, the gender differences in acceptance of casual-sex proposals evaporated nearly to zero.

I was literally flabbergasted when I read this last part. Try to wrap your mind around the feminist logic - instead of a controlled, experimental study that measures real world phenomena in order to demonstrate conclusive evidence, she advocates a theoretical questionnaire as a more valid tool for measurement. In other words, instead of performing an experiment observing peoples' actual behavior, the feminist logic is to ask people to tell you what they think they would do in a hypothetical situation.

In this case, instead of observing the reactions of men and women when propositioned for casual sex in the real world, she gives a survey asking women if they would sleep with certain celebrities if given the chance. And - surprise! - women indicate they would sleep with the most alpha men in society if given the chance.

And this is supposed to be conclusive evidence that men and women have identical approaches and attitudes toward casual sex.

This is what passes for scholarly work in feminist academia. You can drive a fucking truck through the logical holes. It's amazing the lengths to which they will go to ignore reality staring them in the face.

Post: #6

(01-13-2013 07:58 PM)Ensam Wrote:  I'm not dismissing it, there are some great ideas. But they're just ideas at this point.

Not true --

Studies have been done on woman's responses to men when ovulating vs. not ovulating...and on the male responses to waist-hip ratios. Among others.

While theses studies may not have been driven by "evo psych" parameters, the results confirm evo psych principles.

Often, when I do consulting, and people in business want to get all jargony and bullshitty on me, I say to them -- "What does your common sense tell you?"

In our world, common sense tells us we are at root animals who have evolved, and as animals, we respond to stimuli and have, ultimately, as our raison d'etre to pass on our genes. This is a mammalian trait.

Once we accept this fundamental fact and foundation imperative, much of behavior can be understood in that context.

Post: #7

Everyone should also remind themselves that the vast majority of all of these psych studies are done on US college kids, which tells you something about class, upbringing, and a lot about culture.

If there's one thing you can grasp about theorhetical evo psych as compared to practical evo psych, is that as you change age groups, locations, and cultures, some of the theories have to expand and contract. We already know what works in the average bar in America doesn't translate to what pops off in other countries.

WIA

Post: #8

(01-13-2013 07:58 PM)Ensam Wrote:  The only valid conclusion you can get using an evolutionary psych theory is "People who do <x> behavior have more offspring who survive to reproductive age and repeat <x> behavior than those who don't." Even that statement is incredibly tough to state with any kind of confidence. The strongest form is when they can say <xx> gene causes more of a certain hormone to be expressed which leads to behavior that increases the likelihood of reproduction and survival of offspring to reproductive age.

I see your point. But to me evolutionary psychology is very useful in other concrete areas. It can easily refute stupid statements like "men and women are the same", "pregnant women are sexy", "age doesn't matter for a woman". There is an entire actual science to back up why these statements are just false. And these have very very deep social and economic implications...