You post a link to someones blog starting with them using their personal perception of arguments with people as a basis for their argument.
This is not promising.
I got bored part way through and just started skipping to the next sections and sampling paragraphs because the author is neither eloquent, concise, clear, insightful nor interesting to read and I have a life to live so I’m just grabbing a few glaring flaws.
So it starts with a nice generic attack on all of Psychology.
“Psychology Itself Is Not That Reliable”
To attack Evo-psych specifically
“Adding Evolutionary Hypotheses Increases That Unreliability”
Throw in some appeal to authority.
“Third, Many Qualified Experts Concur”
But of course anywhere the qualified experts disagree with the author the qualified experts are wrong, including the main person they point to.
“Fourth, Defenses of EvoPsych Remain Inadequate”
Wherein the author goes back to vaguely recounting vague impressions from their arguments with people without specifics.
I have no strong feelings on evopsych, I’m sort of of the opinion that it’s too easy for people to make up just-so stories unless they’re disciplined and scientific with their enquiries but the linked article is garbage. Spectacularly long winded, self-important garbage.
You post a link to someones blog starting with them using their personal perception of arguments with people as a basis for their argument.
This is not promising.
I got bored part way through and just started skipping to the next sections and sampling paragraphs because the author is neither eloquent, concise, clear, insightful nor interesting to read and I have a life to live so I’m just grabbing a few glaring flaws.
So it starts with a nice generic attack on all of Psychology.
“Psychology Itself Is Not That Reliable”
To attack Evo-psych specifically
“Adding Evolutionary Hypotheses Increases That Unreliability”
Throw in some appeal to authority.
“Third, Many Qualified Experts Concur”
But of course anywhere the qualified experts disagree with the author the qualified experts are wrong, including the main person they point to.
“Fourth, Defenses of EvoPsych Remain Inadequate”
Wherein the author goes back to vaguely recounting vague impressions from their arguments with people without specifics.
I have no strong feelings on evopsych, I’m sort of of the opinion that it’s too easy for people to make up just-so stories unless they’re disciplined and scientific with their enquiries but the linked article is garbage. Spectacularly long winded, self-important garbage.