I believe that a large portion of people who think feminism and ev-psych conflict are making some form of the mistake Eliezer describes in The Evolutionary Cognitive Boundary.
When someone says, “People do X to signal Y”, I tend to hear, “People do X when they consciously or subconsciously expect it to signal Y”, not, “Evolution built people to do X as an adaptation that executes given such-and-such circumstances, because in the ancestral environment, X signaled Y.”....
....All that should matter for saying “The parent truly cares about the child” is that the grief in the parent’s mind is cognitively real and unconditional and not even subconsciously for the sake of any ulterior motive....
.....Of course the emotional circuitry is ultimately there for evolutionary-historical reasons. But only conscious or subconscious computations can gloom up my day; natural selection is an alien thing whose ‘decisions’ can’t be the target of my cynicism or admiration.
To be more explicit, many feminists probably get upset at many of the ideas that ev-psych proposes because, if one does not keep the evolutionary-cognitive boundary in mind, those theories make women (and men too, come to think of it) look like calculating, manipulative sociopaths.
For instance, if an evolutionary psychologist says “Evolution caused women to be attracted to certain types of men in order to increase the odds of them obtaining good genes and support for their children,” someone who isn’t keeping the EvCog Boundary in mind will probably hear “Women are cold, calculating, conniving monsters who manipulate men and string them along so they can get good genes for their kids and then trap men into raising them.”
Now, that’s obvious nonsense. The vast majority of women are not manipulating anyone, they are not making some secret calculations about how to obtain good genes for their kids, and are not trying to trap men. They are just executing adaptations. The attraction they feel is totally genuine and sincere. It is natural selection that did all the cruel, amoral calculation. No one should be held personally responsible for the actions an amoral natural force took when it designed them.
And just to be clear, I’m certainly not claiming that all women are attracted to certain types of men or anything like that. It was just the first relevant ev-psych theory that came to mind.
It doesn’t help, of course, that there are large groups of men who are dedicated to insulting and condemning women; and that these men have realized that holding women personally responsible for the “motives” that natural selection had when it “designed” them is a great way to give their unpleasantness a scientific veneer. That’s basically what Roissy (or Heartiste, as I think he’s called now) does. For instance, that whole “cuckolding is the same as rape” nonsense of his is based on the (dead wrong) belief that people consciously desire to spread their genes.
It doesn’t help, of course, that there are large groups of men who are dedicated to insulting and condemning women; and that these men have realized that holding women personally responsible for the “motives” that natural selection had when it “designed” them is a great way to give their unpleasantness a scientific veneer. That’s basically what Roissy (or Heartiste, as I think he’s called now) does. For instance, that whole “cuckolding is the same as rape” nonsense of his is based on the (dead wrong) belief that people consciously desire to spread their genes.
Your comment is mostly correct, except this is a total stawman of Roissy’s position.
Your comment is mostly correct, except this is a total stawman of Roissy’s position.
I was under the impression that Roissy’s position was:
People want to spread their genes.
People want to choose who they spread their genes with through sexual reproduction in order to increase the odds that the other person’s genes will be good.
Rape is bad because if it successfully impregnates the victim it causes them to spread genes that they don’t want to spread.
Cuckoldry also results in an individual spreading genes they don’t want to spread.
Therefore, cuckoldry is as bad as rape.
Have I gotten this incorrect in some fashion?
Now, of course I don’t deny that cuckoldry is a truly awful thing to do to someone. But that particular chain of reasoning as to why it is awful is really, really bad.
I haven’t read Roissy, but Robin Hanson’s argument for why cuckoldry is as bad as rape was based on a survey of men showing that most would rather be raped than cuckolded.
Furthermore, the fact that Roissy isn’t interested in having children shows that he’s not confusing evolution’s motives with those of humans.
Being cuckolded (in this context) means unknowingly raising not-your-genetic-offspring while believing it is your own. A male partner’s infidelity can’t cuckold a woman.
But I imagine most mothers would be horrified to discover, ten years after the fact, that their newborn was stolen and replaced with someone else’s, and the child they’ve devoted so much to is not actually their genetic offspring. A brief bout of Google indicates that hospital baby swaps can spark multimillion dollar lawsuits, sometimes successful...
For instance, if an evolutionary psychologist says “Evolution caused women to be attracted to certain types of men in order to increase the odds of them obtaining good genes and support for their children,” someone who isn’t keeping the EvCog Boundary in mind will probably hear “Women are cold, calculating, conniving monsters who manipulate men and string them along so they can get good genes for their kids and then trap men into raising them.”
Well, more like “women are secretly obsessed with kids”, give the stereotypes involved.
I believe that a large portion of people who think feminism and ev-psych conflict are making some form of the mistake Eliezer describes in The Evolutionary Cognitive Boundary.
To be more explicit, many feminists probably get upset at many of the ideas that ev-psych proposes because, if one does not keep the evolutionary-cognitive boundary in mind, those theories make women (and men too, come to think of it) look like calculating, manipulative sociopaths.
For instance, if an evolutionary psychologist says “Evolution caused women to be attracted to certain types of men in order to increase the odds of them obtaining good genes and support for their children,” someone who isn’t keeping the EvCog Boundary in mind will probably hear “Women are cold, calculating, conniving monsters who manipulate men and string them along so they can get good genes for their kids and then trap men into raising them.”
Now, that’s obvious nonsense. The vast majority of women are not manipulating anyone, they are not making some secret calculations about how to obtain good genes for their kids, and are not trying to trap men. They are just executing adaptations. The attraction they feel is totally genuine and sincere. It is natural selection that did all the cruel, amoral calculation. No one should be held personally responsible for the actions an amoral natural force took when it designed them.
And just to be clear, I’m certainly not claiming that all women are attracted to certain types of men or anything like that. It was just the first relevant ev-psych theory that came to mind.
It doesn’t help, of course, that there are large groups of men who are dedicated to insulting and condemning women; and that these men have realized that holding women personally responsible for the “motives” that natural selection had when it “designed” them is a great way to give their unpleasantness a scientific veneer. That’s basically what Roissy (or Heartiste, as I think he’s called now) does. For instance, that whole “cuckolding is the same as rape” nonsense of his is based on the (dead wrong) belief that people consciously desire to spread their genes.
Your comment is mostly correct, except this is a total stawman of Roissy’s position.
I was under the impression that Roissy’s position was:
People want to spread their genes.
People want to choose who they spread their genes with through sexual reproduction in order to increase the odds that the other person’s genes will be good.
Rape is bad because if it successfully impregnates the victim it causes them to spread genes that they don’t want to spread.
Cuckoldry also results in an individual spreading genes they don’t want to spread.
Therefore, cuckoldry is as bad as rape.
Have I gotten this incorrect in some fashion?
Now, of course I don’t deny that cuckoldry is a truly awful thing to do to someone. But that particular chain of reasoning as to why it is awful is really, really bad.
I haven’t read Roissy, but Robin Hanson’s argument for why cuckoldry is as bad as rape was based on a survey of men showing that most would rather be raped than cuckolded.
Furthermore, the fact that Roissy isn’t interested in having children shows that he’s not confusing evolution’s motives with those of humans.
And I guess most women would rather be cuckolded than be raped. So?
Being cuckolded (in this context) means unknowingly raising not-your-genetic-offspring while believing it is your own. A male partner’s infidelity can’t cuckold a woman.
But I imagine most mothers would be horrified to discover, ten years after the fact, that their newborn was stolen and replaced with someone else’s, and the child they’ve devoted so much to is not actually their genetic offspring. A brief bout of Google indicates that hospital baby swaps can spark multimillion dollar lawsuits, sometimes successful...
Well, more like “women are secretly obsessed with kids”, give the stereotypes involved.