Bill Kahn wrote: > It would seem that in the University of Minnesota > Departments of Psychology and Educational Psychology, > evolutionary theory can be optional or even irrelevant > to the work done.
It might *seem* to Mr. Kahn that evolutionary theory is optional or irrelevant at the U, but in reality the details may be more complex. Evolutionary Psychology is now a widely accepted subfield in Psychology, although many evolutionary interpretations can be very difficult to confirm and are amenable to "just so" explanations, meaning that it's very easy to develop post hoc explanations for phenomenon which don't lend themselves to experimental validation. Perhaps Mr. Kahn can suggest a series of experiments in which we can validate his hypothesis about rape. I would agree that evolutionary theory has had very little impact on Educational Psychology. Education in general has a bias towards pluralism and shies away from explanations dealing with genetics and evolution. > I went to a symposium a few years back on the East Bank > titled "Mind and Emotion" in which one professor presented > what was basically a diatribe against any who would suggest > an evolutionary basis for behavior; specifically, it rings > in my head still, she said "biology has no place in the > study of psychology." Of course, she was the only one who > said anything like that, was of a certain age, and was quite > possibly drunk, or was quite emotional at any rate. I find > that, perhaps in the guise of political correctness, the > role of evolution in forming behavior may be deemphasized in > these departments and perhaps others on the Minneapolis U of M > campus; they don't seem to have a problem with it in St. Paul > (ahh, St. Paul). What is ringing in Mr. Kahn's head may be a selective memory of what was said by one of a number of symposium participants. In such events it is common to include conflicting viewpoints. The description of the symposium seems to offer a perspective more compatible with Mr. Kahn's views: http://www1.umn.edu/sesqui/resources/conference.html#emotion > Atherton can say the case is overstated for rape as an evolutionary > adaptation or the direct result of another such adaptation > for mating as the book that I cited describes, but given my > experience of his department I would discount it when he does. I'm not sure what Mr. Kahn's experience of my Department is, but if it is limited to this symposium then I doubt that it is representative. This particular symposium was not sponsored by my department, it was sponsored by the College of Liberal Arts, Department of Psychology, Center for Cognitive Sciences, College of Education and Human Development, Institute of Child Development, Department of Psychiatry. You would have to understand some of the academic politics at the U to realize why Educational Psychology is, for the most part, outside of this loop; at least in the case of this symposium. > That's what I "think," "believe," and it's pretty much my > "opinion." I can't argue with any authority on how feminists > handle statisics and leave that to him, a former feminist and > a statistian, Interesting how your words are sometimes distorted: I never claimed to be a statistian. I have only a rudimentary understanding of statistics (although it is probably more of an understanding than that held by many graduate students). > I "think." Rhetoric, jargon, semantics aside; rape is not > a nice subject or experience, but I still think a complete > understanding of it is important in determining ways to deal > with all it's forms. Even if it were "all about power" as > the majority of folks here emphasize, what does that mean, > anyway? Are we talking about asserting dominance in a social > group when we say it is about "power?" Doesn't that have > an evolutionary basis too? Unless you are a Creationist, it is reasonable to assume that all life and behavior has an evolutionary basis. That's the problem with evolutionary examinations, they're not very well constrained. I happen to have a lot of "beliefs" about the evolutionary basses of human behavior, but that's about all that they amount to, "beliefs," and I would be very cautious about using them to establish social or legal policies. Is the implication that because rape is a "natural" phenomenon that we should be more lenient on criminal rapists? WizardMarks wrote: > WM: I think you are exceptionally misanthropic in your > statements, which is your right. However, ascribing it > to the feminists creates an untruth. Well if Humanists have an optimistic view of human nature then I guess it follows that those of us who have a more "realistic" or existential view can be categorized as misanthropic, however I don't see how it follows from my believing that Feminists have lobbied to change rape laws and that they may have influenced the statistical recording of rapes that my viewpoint is necessarily misanthropic. As I stated, "correctness" on this issue is often a litmus test and many people have been persecuted for failing it. Because of my focus on individual rights I strongly supported Feminism in the 60s and 70s and my views we well aligned with what was then called "radical feminism," but times changed and many Feminists became more interested in lobbying for preferences than equality. I gave up completely when people began arguing that rationality was an oppressive feature of the patriarchy and that logical consistency was not a necessary component of political discourse. > WM: The victims probably don't experience sexual arousal. > That rapists do is meaningless. If it were such a strong > motivator, all men would be rapists. Ah, the problem with "just so" hypothesizing. ;-) Hunger is a pretty strong motivator, yet not everyone becomes a killer when they're starving. I'd suggests that there are other contributing factors. Regardless, your logical implication is not necessarily true. > Two points about the "power" exercised in rape: it's not > 'power,' so much as 'power over.' In my estimation that's > a long winded way of saying bullying. (Or in today's > parlance, extreme bullying.) I don't see much difference between "power" and "power over," but I would agree that having control and inflicting pain is an important factor. > The FBI profilers give the information that serial killers are > "sexually aroused" when killing. Killing certainly qualifies as > power over in the ultimate extreme. Serial killers and serial > rapists seem cut from the same cloth. I agree, but a lack of empathy is also an important factor. > For the victims, none of this palaver is worth doodely. I don't agree. Understanding the psyche of the attacker can be a powerful tool. Or you can get lucky and have just read the right book and be able to talk the person out of killing you. Years ago, when I helped teach rape classes, it was empathized that thinking smart could save your life. I haven't read anything to contradict that. > What the adult victim feels is that some despicable creature > really wants to be a monster and will stop at nothing. The > victims are also scared witless since the SOB could kill them > as well as rape them. He could also further torture them, > then kill them. Whether the rapist has his sexual feelings > engaged is immaterial. Again, I disagree. Knowledge is power. > Rape is not entirely lizard brain behavior, it has the overlay > of bullying. Theoretically, at least, animals, not having eaten > of the fruit-of-the-tree-of-knowledge-of-good-and-evil, do not > feel violated, tortured, horrified, frightened, disgusted, offended, > or any other emotions victims express having felt. I guess I don't know enough about the prevalence of rape in the animal kingdom to know what animals feel. Maybe Mr. Kahn can give us an evolutionary viewpoint. > I'd be willing to bet that rapists feel rageful and, as bullies, > want to find a victim for their rage. Bullies do not set up fair > arguments/fights with the persons they're angry with. They're too > cowardly for that. They want a substitute, one who is not as strong, > as big, and who can be caught off guard. I think that this perspective is too narrow. I read a quote from an authority on rape recently that stated that if you didn't want to be raped just gain 300 pounds; that most rapists are interested in the taking what they cannot obtain. > I would also say that all those instances in which males, in > particular, engage is pinching fannies, feeling up girls and > women furtively and not so furtively, calling women and girls > by disgusting names and slang for body parts are also bullying > and done just because, in this society, it has been acceptable > behavior for males. That rather enlarges the number of potential > rapists because these are all bullying behaviors, even if > all men are not rapists. Not all men are cads. In fact most men are not cads. Many feminists have forgotten that one of major tenets of Feminism was sexual freedom, not victimization. The demonization of sexual relations has been an unintended consequence of the Feminism movement. I don't think that I'll outlive the New Puritanism, but I hope that my children will. I think that we should all keep in mind that rapists represent a very small abnormal proportion of the population, unless of course you believe that rape is an evolutionary imperative. Michael Atherton Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
