It may be difficult to quantify evolutionary psychology, but that does not
mean it is pseudoscience. Like string theory that's also difficult to
quantify, the scientific method is also applicable to evolutionary

I support the view as expressed in
"Just as Darwin's theory of natural selection was almost immediately
perverted to justify cruel bigotry (Social Darwinism, eugenics), so
evolutionary psychology is readily twisted to buttress prejudice. This does
not make evolutionary psychology wrong, any more than the brutality of
Social Darwinism made evolutionary theory wrong, but it does suggest that
claims rooted in it should be assessed very carefully, both by those
reading them and those writing them."

On 13 February 2018 at 23:07, uǝlƃ ☣ <> wrote:

> I remain fascinated by the neoreactionaries (most of whom have ceded their
> soap boxes to their alt-right offspring).  And Google's tendency to promote
> fringe garbage (
> suggestions/) landed Jordan Peterson in my Youtube recommendations awhile
> back.  Based on the videos Youtube recommended, he sounded like a typical
> right-wing pseudo-intellectual.  But when I noticed Sam Harris taking him
> seriously, I thought I'd look a little closer.  Sure enough, the majority
> of his online lectures spout fairly reasonable (albeit justificationist)
> rhetoric ... a lot like Harris and fellow right-wing flirt Jonathan Haidt,
> both of whom appeal to our xenophobic friends for differing reasons.
> I'm reminded of the argument I made on this list some time ago that,
> although I believe open source is necessary for pretty much all things, it
> *facilitates* nefarious action by obscurity.  Because your library (e.g.
> RSA backdoors or JavaScript cryptocurrency miners) has so much code in it,
> and is just one library in a gamut of libraries you invoke, there's
> absolutely no way you can *trust* that stack ... even if it's FOSS and gets
> lots of eyeballs.
> Peterson, Harris, and Haidt, rely on the overt reasonability of 90% of
> what they say in order to Trojan Horse the racist or otherwise questionable
> content of the other 10%.  Sure, they make a *technical* effort to weight
> their assertions.  And that's laudable.  (Slate Star Codex and Alexander's
> ilk do this well with their "epistemic status" rating, displayed fairly
> prominently most of the time.)  But this raises the reason I'm posting this
> to FriAM.  The quote from the Alternet article is (should be) provocative:
> new-intellectual-has-some-truly-pitiable-ideas-about-masculinity
> "Devotees of the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology are fond of this
> particular maneuver: locate some behavior in the more ancient branches of
> the tree of life and project it forward across eons to explain little
> Johnny pulling little Susie’s pigtails, or the collapse of Lehman Brothers,
> or the Holocaust, or whatever. In any case, I like to imagine the
> diaphanous, energy-based extraterrestrials in their invisible starships, so
> unutterably alien that they gaze upon man and lobster and can’t tell them
> apart."
> In particular re: Peterson, I've actually *used* (although mostly
> jokingly) the alpha- beta-male (false) dichotomy at cocktail parties ... to
> justify why I, as a proud beta male, am a wallflower.  But now, I'm worried
> that (like the many memes I learned from my libertarian friends) it's not
> merely a useful fiction, but complete garbage:
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe
> FRIAM-COMIC by Dr. Strangelove
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
FRIAM-COMIC by Dr. Strangelove

Reply via email to