Comments on: Why Do Men Hunt and Women Shop?

By: EEA = Invariances | Evolutionary Psychology

EEA = Invariances | Evolutionary Psychology — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 14:41:45 +0000

[…] is with this in mind that here I consider briefly a post that was called to my attention last week that is otherwise an unremarkable and somewhat meandering […]

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:56:08 +0000

Carmi, if you want to have a serious discussion, why would you start out with a statement like “Why do they let Creationists have blogs here?” I am not a creationist, and I’m not quite sure who “they” are. Also, the complaint that a post on science blogs is not about science almost always accompanies the babbling of some sort of troll. Are you a troll?

You seem to be arguing that the Pleistocene was not a variable time period. You are wrong. I’m not even going to ask you for evidence that this is true, your implication is so absurd.

I am aware of the fossil record, thank you. Yes, indeed, brain size seems to have doubled in the genus Homo at the beginning of the Pleistocene (from an Australopith ancestor to Homo erectus/ergaster) and then increased subsequently. I do not think these changes are due to genetic drift. I discuss some of this here. In fact, in that post, you’ll find additional discussion of the misuse of presumptions about evolutionary context in parsing out the evolution of modern human behavior. Go read it, comment there if yo like but if you drench any more of your comments in your dripping sarcasm about creationism and non-science, it will be your last comment on this blog.

I wasn’t critiquing Evol Psych for having “just so stories.” You are reacting to some other, or more general criticism and assuming that I’m making that criticism. Cloaking evolutionary psychology in the flag of “evolution” in order to ward off criticism is not an effective argument.

Please tell me where I used the term “blank slate” which you claim I used.

Regarding the change of social behavior in uniform ways, I’m not entirely clear on what you are trying to say here. I think the problem here is that you are not thinking outside the box of gene-behavior causality and forgetting about the other things that cause behavior to manifest as it does, things that themselves are subject to evolutionary forces. The problem here is not that you are applying evolution and I am not. The problem here is that you are applying a high school understanding of evolution to a big boy problem and not seeing the big pictures.

Are you the same Carmi Turchick who has gone through great lengths to criticize Rushton for not taking into account cultural context? Or are you using someone else’s name. Or is it just a coincidence? Because your comments here seem to conflict a great deal with an understanding of the role of cultural transmission in the evolution of organisms that rely so much on learning.

Please, also, try to repeat yourself less. Thank you for your comments.

By: Carmi Turchick

Carmi Turchick — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 05:41:46 +0000

I forgot to also point out the hilarity of asserting that a species responds to variations in the environment by changing its social behavior in uniform ways, as Laden describes, and then asserting that therefore this social behavior has no evolved basis. The evidence he cites strongly contradicts the conclusion he takes from it. Even more damning is that his conclusion and arguments betray a view that depends on his not understanding the Theory of Evolution. The existence of variation is required for evolution to occur; it is not, as he asserts, evidence that evolution has not played a role in selecting a trait or behavior. Some humans are very short and some very tall, therefore evolution has nothing to do with our physical stature? It is the same type of assertion Laden is making by noting variations in mate selection behaviors and so on. It is obviously wrong, and cannot be believed unless one either completely fails to understand the Theory of Evolution, or rejects it. But then he also details how humans respond in fairly uniform ways to different environments by altering their social structures, and this too he asserts disproves an evolved basis. So variation disproves evolution, and uniformity disproves evolution. Heads he wins, tails we lose. There is no science here, just sophistry.

By: Carmi Turchick

Carmi Turchick — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 05:24:20 +0000

Why do they let Creationists have blogs here? This post sure is not science. So the Pleistocene varied too much for evolution to select for human behaviors? Interesting. Then it must have varied too much for evolution to have selected anything else too, since the logic of the former assertion must also apply to the later. Sadly for our Creationist, Greg Laden, there are actual fossils of some of our ancestors from this time period, and they reflect evolution selecting for changes in our ancestors. For one example, brain size doubled. Now, one might suggest that all of the observed changes were due to genetic drift (in fact Greg Laden is forced to do so or admit his notions are false), but this is really no better or more scientific than asserting that God did it.
As usual, those who criticize evolutionary psychology for having just-so-stories seek to substitute their own just-cannot-be-so-stories. It is impossible, unless the Theory of Evolution is wrong, that evolution could select for physical changes during a period of time yet could not select for changes of behavior during the same period. It is impossible for evolution to select for a species with a large brain to be born with a “blank slate” as Laden asserts. Laden should leave future posts as blank slates to avoid the continued shame and embarrassment of posting notions that are absurdly and blatantly wrong.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:33:34 +0000

EVOLVED FORAGING PSYCHOLOGY UNDERLIES SEX
DIFFERENCES IN SHOPING EXPERIENCES AND
BEHAVIORS

http://shell.newpaltz.edu/jsec/articles/volume3/issue4/KrugerV3I4.pdf

Shopping as female foraging
.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tzUBpjCcXA

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:32:57 +0000

Those damn modern women and their modern ways.

By: khan

khan — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:23:37 +0000

“Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/26/1164724/-Men-are-all-unmarriageable-slackers-now-because-feminism