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.

  • snooggums@midwest.socialEnglish
    41·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • streetlights@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      33·
      5 months ago

      Evolutionary psychology does start with a reasonable starting point, that some behaviors are passed genetically,

      And that’s the entire premise, evolution affects behaviour as well as physical attributes. The brain is not insulated against evolutionary pressures.

      but then uses that to give excuses to things that are primarily learned or discourged through social and environmental 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.

      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.

      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.

      • snooggums@midwest.socialEnglish
        31·
        5 months ago

        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.

        • streetlights@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          32·
          5 months ago

          Evolutionary psychology at its core twists the concept of genetic inheritence into justifications for racism and sexism, like phrenology before it.

          That is not evopysch “at its core”.

          Again, you may as well describe darwinism as racist at its core.

          These two examples are people taking existing science and misapplying them to things they don’t have anything to do with.

          Misapplying science doesn’t make the science wrong.

          • a lil bee 🐝@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            5 months ago

            As someone without skin in this game, I have a clarifying question and you seem willing to discuss. Why is phrenology junk science and evopsych not? What separates the two, for you?

            • streetlights@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
              3·
              5 months ago

              The premises that underpin any science is what separates it from a pseudoscience. Phrenology posits that random bumps on your skull predict mental abilities and behaviours, why? What mechanism could possibly be responsible for such a correlation. It was based on a theory that the brain was a group of muscles and like all muscles if you worked it it got bigger. Easily shown that this wasn’t the case.

              A bit like chiropractry positing that all diseases are due to the bones/spine being out of alignment.

              What’s the premise behind evopsych? Evolution. Where does animal behavior originate from? Is it entirely spontaneous? The brain, like every other organ, is subject to evolutionary pressures. Natural selection will produce behaviour that increases survivability, and that’s it.

                • streetlights@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
                  2·
                  5 months ago

                  I couldn’t possibly speculate. Is this hypothetical phrenologist the sort of scientist who adjusts their position based on new evidence?

                  • a lil bee 🐝@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    3·
                    5 months ago

                    I guess what I’m getting at is: Is there a way you can explain why evopsych is a valid science where phrenology is not, without relying on an argument that a phrenologist would also make? That’s a tough set of criteria, but I think it’s required.