Entry details

Younghusband
Author

Younghusband

Date

August 17th, 2005

Tags

Comments

8 Comments so far.
Add yours.

EP backlash

Ever since Daniel Nexon’s accusations of pseudo-science I am seeing articles related to evolutionary psychology popping up everywhere. Some connectivist authour from Slate critiqued EP earlier this week, leading Fraysters to equate EP with Social Darwinism.

Huh!? WTF!? Okay, I am sorry to be the one to tell you this, but everybody is not equal! An Evolutionary Psychology FAQ from UCSB defends the Social Darwinism accusation

[T]he evolutionary psychology theoretical framework strongly suggests that all individuals possess essentially identical adaptations, cognitive or otherwise. However, social hierarchies appear to be ubiquitous in both human and non-human social groups. How do they arise if all individuals possess the same capabilities? These capabilities can be degraded or enhanced by age, sex, access to social and material resources, injury, disease, birth defects, etc.—the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. The fact that social hierarchies exist, and that evolutionary theory may help explain why, in no way justifies their existence, nor does it validate any particular ranking of individuals. Evolutionary psychology is not a moral framework! It is a framework for understanding human nature.

In other words, humans are born as humans with all the same little biological switches deep within our brains. Society is responsible for switching these in an incalculable number of possible combinations which makes us who we are, and unique in our own way.

Steven Pinker’s book The Blank Slate does a brilliant job in describing how modern media denies scientific findings which don’t jive with our post-modern notions of poltical correctness and “how things should be.” This is science for all my Realist homies out there, form follows function for the human psyche.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and I forgot to give a verbal bitch-slap to the Slate authour who said

Buller goes so far as to note an eerie resemblance between EP and intelligent design, which also treats human nature as fixed and complete.

OMFWTFBBQ!! Proponents of Evolutionary Psychology are the BIGGEST supporters of evolutionary theory! What kind of leftard scare-tactic is noting the resemblance between EP and intelligent design!? They are completely different! Talk about political agendas in the media! Christ!! * backs away from computer in angry frustration *

EDIT #2: I know this is supposed to be a current affairs blog, and am sorry for the off-rail post.

Comments to this entry

Kenneth
August 17, 2005
8:42 pm
_"Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. *Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others.* Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is "inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been brought up properly."_
mark safranski
August 17, 2005
10:36 pm
I'm not a biologist or a psychologist and I can't credibly evaluate what or which claims put forth by EP should be taken seriously obut I'd really like to hear from anyone on the opposing side how human psychology could *not* be a product of evolution ?

How exactly is human behavior exempt from this influence when all other species are not ?
ron Patterson
August 17, 2005
10:57 pm
This is current affairs. one of the greatest problems in the WEst is the radical lefts attempts to suppress Science. Any findings or theory that does not match their world view is attacked. Many paleontologists came under attack as racist, whem they simply asked a question, was it possible that modern humans evoled in area outside Africa. Even though the modern criteria for"race" did not apply.After all science nature is to question beliefs. It was "proved " that one of these scientist was racist because he was born in the South. As it seems to be turning out more finds seem to support the "Pan genesis" theory :that modern humans may have arisen in Asia about the same time as they did in Africa. But to late some careers were damaged.
It is amazing that neo-marxist analysis is almost the only "school" of thought being taught in University history departments. Once in graduate school I mentioned that Ithought Marx had nothing on Adam Smith that Marx had borrowed Smiths ideas and reworked them. You would have thought that I had suggested that the world was flat.
I am not some University hating knee jerk right winger. i just abhore the miseducation that has become so common place.
Very good topic. The war of ideas is the war we must not lose.
Mutantfrog
August 18, 2005
6:17 am
There may be some cases of the radical Left attempting to suppress science, but at least in the United States, science really has to worry about assault from the Right. The real danger is that stuff like Intelligent Design isn't considered radical Right-it's pretty much mainstream for Evangelical Christians.

As for the question of humans evolving outside of Africa: I'd be happy to see evidence that humans in fact evolved outside of Africa and then migrated there, but the notion that a single species could evolve independently and simultaneously in more than one place sounds like nothing but gibberish to me. Still, I'm not a scientist. Are there any biologists reading this?
Curzon
August 18, 2005
7:07 am
MF -- You're just wrong. Yes, both the Left and the Right assault science in their own various ways -- the Left takes on genetic engineering in food and nuclear power while the Right takes on evolution in the textbooks, abortion and birth control. The difference? The right gets more news coverage while the left is far more effective in practice. Great debate on the topic (with Pinker arguing one side) is "here.":http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html Pinker also outlines plenty of other problems with the Left's take on science as outlined by Kenneth above.

YH -- great post. Also like the Canadian-Anglo spelling of what Americans write as "author." Very sexy.

As someone who knows next to nothing about psychology and linguistics as a science, Pinker's book, which I read on YH's recommendation more than a year ago, was phenomenal and is probably one of my top ten books of all time.
Mutantfrog
August 18, 2005
10:18 am
Curzon: You seem not to understand what I mean. Our current administration, including the president himself, is genuinely hostile to the scientific process and to impartial research.

Look at what the Union of Concerned Scientists has to say:


When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government's own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies.


Most of the examples that you listed are a different matter. When left-wing environmentalists oppose GM food or nuclear power they are not, for the most part, engaging in denial of scientific facts, they are simply making a different cost/benefit analysis. There is sometimes an element of Ludditism, but being cautious about the use of new technology is not even remotely the same thing as pretending that widely recognized scientific theories are fictional.

Take nuclear power. Many environmentalists now recognize that compared to global warming it may be the lesser of two evils, whereas in the past they were more worried about the risks of radiation.

As for GM food, some people (particularly in Europe) have a kind of knee-jerk "grossout" reaction to the whole concept, but plenty of people responsibly say that more research and testing needs to be done before modified plants are allowed to grow in the wild. Reality has shown that this position may have some merit. Despite industry claims that GM plants would never be able to cross-breed with natural strains, there have been reports that this may be happening.
Curzon
August 18, 2005
11:16 am
MF, forgive me, but the mere fact that you're bringing up "such crackpots as the Union of Concerned Scientists":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists and fears about crossbreeding between natural plans and GM plants (utter poppycock) just show the dangerous amount of influence the Left has in the political debate on science. The Right is generally written off as nutty.

Various examples of "dangerous left wing buffonery:":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified#Economic_and_political_effects

In August 2002, Greenpeace persuaded Zambia to Reject free Genetically Modified Food (mostly maize) from UN's World Food Programme, leaving its 3 million famine-stricken people without any UN food aid. The Minister rejected the 21,000 tons of food per month offered, basing his decision on a "Precautionary Principle".


Better to let people starve than give them food aid, right? See also "my recent comment on this blog about asbestos.":http://www.cominganarchy.com/2005/07/26/adding-one-to-the-pile/

Dr. A. R. Wallace, you're a PhD Biologist -- when are you going to weigh in on this one?
Mutantfrog
August 18, 2005
12:38 pm
I do agree with you that the Zambia incident was absolutely ludicrous. They were shipping grain to be eaten, not seeds to be planted, so any possible worries about crossbreeding would have been irrelevant anyway. Personally I think that GM food can be a very good thing, but it is technically true that improperly modified foods could have unintended consequences, and the licensing requirements of many of the GM companies are practically Satanic. Requiring farmers to buy seeds year after year by selling them non-reproducing plants sounds to me like an inevitable famine somewhere down the line, when a poor economy leaves farmers without the necessary cash.

I understand that the Union of Concerned Scientists is a relatively left-wing advocacy group, but what about them is crackpot? The wikipedia entry you linked to certainly doesn't suggest that.

I expect Dr Wallace will weigh in eventually, but don't forget that it's still only 8.30am in his time zone.