Powered By Motherfucken Jamesonne
I can’t figure out who originally made this thing, but it is linked to here. And I love the Free Space: Is a male undergrad who can’t get laid.
Who posted this? Comrade Major Meltdown?!?! Where is the eloquent language? Where’s the pizazz? I’m not sure if I can take this. I only like to read people who are gimmicky. Give us a little more “fuck” and “shit” and then maybe I’ll really start reading what you say.
Fuck, fuck, fuck. This shit was all over UC Berkeley in the not so distant past. The profs and grad students were just about stroking themselves under the tables as they discussed all the physical attributes men looked for in women. Yeah, you’re right d00ds, women don’t care about what men look like AT ALL.
Go fuck yourself David Buss. Pinker too.
There is always some new bullshit discipline that seems to only exist to keep the status quo going. Eugenics and Functional Psychology were some old ones. I am sure something new will come after EP.
The only upside is that people who get degrees in this crap find their degrees useless once society has outed their major as a support system for oppression. Once it gets called out and taken away something new crops up to take its place though. *sigh*
Hi Nails! Hi left you a message on the jesus pig thread. Your rich friend banned me for being too radical!
I see I’m not the only regular commenter you’ve chased off over there with your judgemental and controlling ways. *sigh*
Sorry everyone, whether it’s opressive or not facts are facts and Evo Psych is the truth!! BAM!
OMG! Do you mean nature doesn’t follow the moral codes of humanity!!!?? Get over it.
Bullshit is the correct name for the discipline of Evolutionary Psychology. If I wanted “just-so” stories, I would read a novel.
Wow, is this really what Evol. psych is? Jesus. I assumed evolutionary psych was about the evolution of intelligence itself not just-so bullshit about why boobs are hot and men are in charge. That’ll teach me to take the psychologists seriously…
Come back when your balls drop, anonymous 1 and 2.
Just because something doesnt fit with our man-made ideals doesn’t mean it’s can’t be true. Some of the spaces above are obviously rediculous but a lot of what comes out of Evo Psych studies are supported by fact and just make sense.
The anons might have a point if psychologists could explain psychological processes the same way biologists explain biological processes, but they can’t. They are trying to untangle the evolutionary origin of something that they do not know the mechanism of. They can’t explain *what* evolved in their stories, just that something did related to the behavior of people now (something in their brains, somewhere). They cannot prove that that the behavior inducing process is nature rather than nurture because of that. They don’t know the selection pressures of the alleged evolution or what it evolved from, a very close ancestor isn’t available for this kind of comparison. An in depth look at the social structures that EP says caused the evolution are not available for study either.
I mean, try to picture a biologist saying something evolved without any of that information. It would be laughable. I am trying to picture one insisting that *something* evolved without knowing what it is, but insisting it does something, and then claiming to know the selection pressures that lead to it, and not knowing what came beforehand for a meaningful comparison. Yet, when it upholds a woman hating status quo plenty of morons are eager to swallow something this silly.
This was originally made by livejournal user “sabotabby”, with “apperception” and “zingerella”.
More like ‘Evolutionary Psychology Is A Load Of Steaming Bullshit BINGO’ is a load of steaming bullshit. ALL of these things are explainable from an evolutionary standpoint, and can be tested (or at least rationalized) in a plausible manner. Remain ignorant if you want, but your unwillingness to understand this properly is no reason to call bullshit.
I completely agree.
“and can be tested (or at least rationalized)in a plausible manner. Remain ignorant if you want…”
Hahaha. Don’t “remain ignorant” if there is no way to test your hypothesis. Rationalize your way to enlightenment! As long as it’s “plausible.” After all, rationalizing is practically as good as testing!
Way to take that statement out of context, Isabel. Evolutionary Psychology hypotheses can and have been tested, verified, and even falsified (Imagine that!) using verifiable data, and testable predictions. Don’t take my word for it though: http://www.thepsychfiles.com/?s=evolutionary+psychology
I don’t understand why the author/ most others here are enraged at the field of evolutionary psychology and paint it as some misogynistic, anti-woman crockery.
Evolutionary psychology says nothing negative about women, or men for that matter, whatsoever. YOU, offended reader, drew most of these very misogynistic conclusions yourself.
The field doesn’t support the “naturalistic fallacy” – that what is natural is what is right. YOU may have made that judgment. It just explains possible insights into the origins of how humans behave today – not to justify it.
The field may be limited, but evolutionary psychology is just as much “bullshit” as evolutionary biology. Or do you not believe in evolution? Listen… human beings evolved from apes and other moronic creatures…. GET THIS…. not only did our hands, feet, and eyes come from adaptations spanning hundreds of years, but so did our brains and behavior. The field exists, period, even if you claim its much harder to verify its claims.
When evol. psych. explains why men like to “spread their seed,” etc… it doesn’t justify polyamory. Just like when it explains why women sleep with a genetically-superior man, then fools a provider-man to raising it, it doesn’t justify the rampant cheating that happens in this country either. It may explain a whole fucking lot though.
It’s safe to say that every single person who has commented here, save perhaps one, does not even have one iota of knowledge about evolutionary psychology or its external validity as a field.
I do no think that there is enough data to support that women seek providing men after they conseive. Data suggests that progesterone (which increases during gestation) contributes to women prefering nurturing and femine-like characters. The conclusion that they prefer to switch to a more providing male is a horrible assumption. For example many female primates form nurserys full of females during gestation as a means to relieve stress and investment. So maybe it is not whether they prefer feminine males, but rather, other females. This is what I mean when I say that we can not assume behavioral purpose without exploring every asset of the behavior.
* Fuck, I meant hundreds of millions of years. Damn that there’s no edit feature here.
Evolutionary psychology COULD be a real field, and of course humans evolved, but as it’s current;y “practiced” it tends to make a bunch of arm-waving theories about stereotypes. In studying crickets, or any other non-primate animal (primates – don’t get me started on what constitutes ‘data’), we would never accept the level of evidence evolutionary psychology’s use to characterize male female differences. If evolutionary psychologists would use real data (tough to get but that’s science motherfuckers) to compare the sexes then maybe we would get real insights but the crap they serve up deserves exactly this kind of treatment. VoiceofReason – I am an evolutionary biologist and trust me most evolutionary biologists think evolutionary psych is crap – use real data or don’t play.
A lot of what evolutionary psych has to offer to the science community needs to be further supported with more data. Some of the conclusions that they have drawn have really evident experimental flaws, but so does a lot of science. I think in time this will be a really revealing and interesting field.
Mac: Evolutionary Psychology IS a real field of science. Like any other scientific field, it has its strengths and enervations. Also like any other scientific field however, it uses observable facts, testable predictions, repeatability, and outside verification in order to verify and even falsify various hypotheses (again, imagine that!). So-called ‘Just-so’ reasoning is used more often by the general public then people who actually know what they’re doing, ‘real data’ IS used by those who are professionals in this field, and the correct conclusions made often do give valuable insight into many facets of human behavior. With regard to your other evolutionary biologist mates, perhaps they should gain more knowledge about Evolutionary Psychology before simply giving just-so assessments of its validity…
This is one of the best posts you have written in a while… (No offense to previous efforts which are fine)
And not a curse word to be found? I am not sure if I should be disappointed for the lack of raw language considering the reality of the situation or cheer for the omnipotent humanity of it?
Tip of the hat to you!
I find it humororous that there seem to be so many people that internalize this discipline of science as a sort of personal attack and insult to women, when it has nothing to do with that. It does what all sciences do: uses evidence to support its claims, and explain trends, patterns, causes and effects in nature. And actually, manifestations of this science’s observations can be seen everwhere. It’s more plausible of a scientific theory than the big bang theory in my opinion, because we can actually see it at work in our day to day lives. You just need to open your mind and see things objectively instead of subjectively. People who are so emotionally against evolutionary psychology to the point that the have to discredit it with obsene language, and put it down because it contradicts their beliefs, resemble fanatical “christians” who are against evolution. Don’t they?
“GET THIS…. not only did our hands, feet, and eyes come from adaptations spanning hundreds of years, but so did our brains and behavior.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Bravo for putting it in layman terms that even the most ignorant of readers on this thread can understand.
Ouch. This card is so dumb it hurts. More or less creationist level objections.
*Anonymous: Because I couldn’t think of a cool name.*
Our body adaptations map onto the brain adaptations. If humans were to grow another sensory organ, then the brain would reflect that in its structure.
A brain changes over the course of a lifetime according, also, to the way it is treated. The unused areas atrophy. The abused areas harden. In this bullshit called evo psych is pretend scientists talking about how the female brain isn’t made for spatial reasoning. Sure it is, just like most brains. M and F brains are the same. If anything, the male brain is simper, due to it doesn’t have to oversee the cooking of a fetus ever. It just doesn’t have that part. Essentially, all men who wish to have DNA descendants also wish they were female. What, dude? You wouldn’t spare your own wife a third pregnancy by doing it yourself if you could?
I say that, and dudes go GULP. Because they wish they were women. How terrifying to realize! lmfao.
The whole “big boobs feed babies!” dealio is retarded. Any size boob feeds babies. Perverts gotta perv. And twist the facts in an attempt to say that nature, Mother Nature, SAID it was ok if I act like a fucking sicko! She SAID! Wahhhh.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 40 other followers