The Red Queen discussion thread

[jackflashdrive]

I read The Moral Animal back in college and fell in love with it. Over the years I've mellowed a lot on ev psych though. A lot of the data you presented is interesting, but socialization (power dynamics) can explain all of those facts just as well as ev psych can.

In psych grad school I got a real close look at how so many researchers in this field are just grinding their own axes. Ev psych is particularly squishy, though I have seen some convincing research (e.g., on the fact that homosexuality is innate for men but mostly socialized for women).

[Daddy Warbucks]

[ QUOTE ]
When I was studying psychology the couple of lectures on evolutionary psychology made me lol all over the shop. The majority (probably all actually) of it is just some convoluted idea that explains behaviour in terms of genetics in any way it can rather than being the product of scientific deduction. Not saying it's all false but it's really sketchy and in some cases ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you had a bad professor, but evolutionary psychology is the most accept form in the scientific community for base human behaviour. It has stood up to literally decades of scruntiny, and while not perfect, is closer to the truth than any other of the philosophies (that haven't fared as well).

[jackflashdrive]

Warbucks: Your statement is very incorrect. Maybe you are confusing the wide scientific acceptance of evolution or the wide acceptancec that certain human behaviors have a biological basis with evolutionary psychology. The main criticism of ev psych is both a widely shared belief among social scientists and a dagger through the heart of the theory; Namely, that any human social behavior can be explained post hoc with reference to an evolutionary 'just-so story,' and that evolutionary psychology does not therefore count as science at all because it does not follow the hypothetico-deductive scientific method.

[Daddy Warbucks]

No, i'm not confusing it at all. What would you say is the most widely accepted science for base human behaviour?

[jackflashdrive]

"What would you say is the most widely accepted science for base human behaviour? "

Biological psychology, which is as far as psychology goes in the direction of 'hard science.' Evolutionary psychology, OTOH, is as far to the 'soft science' end as psychology gets. Biopsych <> ev psych.

[kagame]

thread promises much but does not deliver

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

I just bought The Orgins of Virtue by the same author and I am very excited. What about books do you recommend? I am most interested in learning how men and women think.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting book, but is more a general overview of evolutionary psychology, evolutionary games and how they fit in. IIRC, there isn't a whole lot that deals specifically with men/women.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Wars are not fought over resources, they are fought over women. Helen comes to mind.

Feminists and other groups do not want to admit that men and women have different minds.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes, I suppose.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only way the opposite makes sense to me is if the poor guy has enough resources to sufficiently raise the child(even if its only one), she'll opt for the choice of better genetics at the sacrifice of resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think you need to think of it less as an evolutionary strategy (to marry the poor guy and have affairs with rich men). if we take as true both previously stated facts that: women are attracted to wealth and status, and women are more likely to cheat if they think their husband is a loser, then it makes sense the women married to poor men are more tempted to cheat with a rich guy than the opposite. also, just because they can have affairs with rich guys doesn't mean they would have the option of marrying rich guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Women and esp Gold-diggers don't cheat once they've found the rich, high-status male - there's too much to lose.

But a women with a loser, low-status male is willing to take a risk to trade up. Even if she never gets the HSM, she/her child may get $$/gifts from him in the future and her genes are still passed on, and the child is raised by both 'parents,' one genetic and one presumed but not genetic.

I.e. Travis Henry has 9 kids with 9 different women. Ask yourself, were those women dating higher or lower status males [prior/at the time/subsequent] than an NFL starting running back? Who would you guess has 'more attractive' genes, however you wish to describe that status?

[jeffnc]

My opinion is: Although sexual evolution is probably still occurring, in general evolution and natural selection no longer matter, meaning we are probably "devolving" (as Devo would say (hence their name)). The needs of the many are provided by the brains of the few. Virtually anyone in a developed country can survive and have offspring, requiring neither intelligence, nor survival skills, nor even particularly good disease resistance to do so.