Would it be more strictly accurate to say that “certain media reports on evolutionary psychology are sexist, in the sense of perpetuating harmful myths”?
Almost. Assuming “media” there can include peer reviewed high-profile scientific publications, then yes, that’s a good chunk of it. Nearly every single article I’ve read so far, peer-reviewed in a scientific journal or otherwise, that crosses the boundary between analysis of ev-psych and morality to claim that certain things are “good” or “right” (or really, almost any ev-psych-related publication of any form that makes any statement on morality) has almost always contained some form of not-like-others-ism: sexism, racism, political discrimination, etc.
Of course, I haven’t read all that many articles myself, and most were from non-scientific non-peer-reviewed publications (e.g. Phys.org, which has very amusing user comments for those who find humor in status games and stupidity masquerading as intelligence).
Basically, as soon as any claim on morality (or “right”-ness or “good”-ness or “natural”-ness) is made “because Evolutionary Psychology!”, shit hits the fan. But is anyone here really surprised by that? It might be true that some behavior arised because of Ev-Psych, just like it might be true that light is made of waves. I see a pattern-match to the student that believes he could swim in Light because it is Waves, if he could only move fast enough.
I’d like to note that there is no need in my model for researchers themselves to make any claims of goodness, merely claims of naturalism. The general publich believes the naturalistic fallacy and will make that inference on their own.
Hmm, a good point. Unfortunately, naturalism and its associated terminology are very useful when discussing evolution and ev-psych -related matters, so I don’t see any obvious solution to the problem.
I don’t want to find it now because I don’t want to spend any more time on this than absolutely necessary, but the gist of it is that a fact being sexist is a property of the mind that fact exists in, and in our current reality, some facts are sexist and should not be propagated.
By this line of reasoning, would you be willing to concede that there exists some minds among the vast space of possible human minds for which these facts you consider sexist are not sexist?
If so, would you be willing to reconsider your hypothesis that all human males not currently identifying as feminist must necessarily be subconsciously applying sexist methodologies and control schemes? Would you be willing to change your mind (on some statements made elsewhere in this thread)?
For the record, I am saying this in (perceived) full awareness of the hypocrisy of it, since I haven’t yet found a single related and relevant idea on which I should change my mind, which obviously stems from the fact that I consider my current beliefs to be the best beliefs to have, biased animal that I am. If I did find such a belief, then, doing my best to be rational, I would already be relinquishing this belief. Circular logic all over the place, but we do what we can.
Those minds exist, just not right now, in general. I expect them to exist “after the feminist Revolution,” which is to say after a long process of unlearning patriarchy occurs on the societal level.
If you’re asking whether those minds could exist entirely by accident, I suppose they could, in feral children and similar humans totally isolated from patriarchal society.
In general, the process of creating those minds looks like becoming a feminist and unlearning patriarchy over a long period of time, such that feminist cognitive processes become automatic/type I and replace patriarchal processes.
So yes, those minds exist, but besides feral children, not outside of people who have become feminist.
Almost. Assuming “media” there can include peer reviewed high-profile scientific publications, then yes, that’s a good chunk of it. Nearly every single article I’ve read so far, peer-reviewed in a scientific journal or otherwise, that crosses the boundary between analysis of ev-psych and morality to claim that certain things are “good” or “right” (or really, almost any ev-psych-related publication of any form that makes any statement on morality) has almost always contained some form of not-like-others-ism: sexism, racism, political discrimination, etc.
Of course, I haven’t read all that many articles myself, and most were from non-scientific non-peer-reviewed publications (e.g. Phys.org, which has very amusing user comments for those who find humor in status games and stupidity masquerading as intelligence).
Basically, as soon as any claim on morality (or “right”-ness or “good”-ness or “natural”-ness) is made “because Evolutionary Psychology!”, shit hits the fan. But is anyone here really surprised by that? It might be true that some behavior arised because of Ev-Psych, just like it might be true that light is made of waves. I see a pattern-match to the student that believes he could swim in Light because it is Waves, if he could only move fast enough.
I’d like to note that there is no need in my model for researchers themselves to make any claims of goodness, merely claims of naturalism. The general publich believes the naturalistic fallacy and will make that inference on their own.
Hmm, a good point. Unfortunately, naturalism and its associated terminology are very useful when discussing evolution and ev-psych -related matters, so I don’t see any obvious solution to the problem.
Stop discussing evolutionary psychology. It is a harmful meme on the same level as religion or homeopathy.
The fact that basically all current ev. psych is bad (hierachy reinforcing/status quo bias) doesn’t imply that learning true facts would be bad.
Consider the difference between: “Stop citing current ev. psych studies” and “Stop researching ev. psych.”
This thread is getting so big that it’s probable you didn’t see it, but I have a comment elsehwere in this thread on the distinction between these.
I’m not sure we agree on the right theoretical approach to the difference between sex and gender. Can you link your relevant post?
[text] (hyperlink) But remove the space between.
I don’t want to find it now because I don’t want to spend any more time on this than absolutely necessary, but the gist of it is that a fact being sexist is a property of the mind that fact exists in, and in our current reality, some facts are sexist and should not be propagated.
By this line of reasoning, would you be willing to concede that there exists some minds among the vast space of possible human minds for which these facts you consider sexist are not sexist?
If so, would you be willing to reconsider your hypothesis that all human males not currently identifying as feminist must necessarily be subconsciously applying sexist methodologies and control schemes? Would you be willing to change your mind (on some statements made elsewhere in this thread)?
For the record, I am saying this in (perceived) full awareness of the hypocrisy of it, since I haven’t yet found a single related and relevant idea on which I should change my mind, which obviously stems from the fact that I consider my current beliefs to be the best beliefs to have, biased animal that I am. If I did find such a belief, then, doing my best to be rational, I would already be relinquishing this belief. Circular logic all over the place, but we do what we can.
Those minds exist, just not right now, in general. I expect them to exist “after the feminist Revolution,” which is to say after a long process of unlearning patriarchy occurs on the societal level.
If you’re asking whether those minds could exist entirely by accident, I suppose they could, in feral children and similar humans totally isolated from patriarchal society.
In general, the process of creating those minds looks like becoming a feminist and unlearning patriarchy over a long period of time, such that feminist cognitive processes become automatic/type I and replace patriarchal processes.
So yes, those minds exist, but besides feral children, not outside of people who have become feminist.