Ah, here's an article about Peterson that touches on the evolutionary psych
angle,
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/19/jordan-peterson-and-fascist-mysticism/
but what's a little pseudo-science among fascist mystics?
-- rec --
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 1:43 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> Well, again ca
Well, again caveat my ignorance, many of these evolutionary justifications seem
to ignore any possible eusocial effects. The idea of transgenders showing a
predisposition to hair dressing BEGS us to make a spitball eusocial (or at
least semiotic) evolutionary argument ... you know, the benefits
I thought of that factoid when looking over some of Peterson's remarks. If
this is generally true in the population, is it because of nature vs. nurture?
I anecdotally had the experience it was true, and that (just now) made me go
look to see if there was any research on it.
Lady Gaga's inte
Weird paper! Right off the bat, I'm not surprised by the inference that people
who entertain the idea of being a different gender would test with higher IQs.
But I *am* surprised by their abilities to draw! Surely the authors
cherry-picked the good ones and the rest were as crappy as my own a
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.2164-0947.1967.tb02279.x/abstract
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfis
Ah! OK. I take it that you're not looking at any of Peterson's videos, then
... only at the commentary about his videos/lectures/book, etc.
I also hear you when you say you haven't seen evidence that Peterson is an
evolutionary psychologist (because his Wikipedia page or whatever doesn't
ment
I'm not finding any pseudo-scientific arguments in the stuff I'm looking
at. It's just typical conservative rhetoric: my rights, my rights! the
marxists, the marxists! all to defend the established order at any cost. I
guess this article,
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/rights-favorit
I'm confused by your use of "again". This all smacks of pseudoscience, similar
to the anti-vaxxers and the hyped claims of chemicals like reseveratrol or bee
pollen. Perhaps you're using a focused definition of "pseudoscience"? For me,
it's basically any claim dressed up in the trappings of s
Here's another take on Jordan Peterson from The Medium by a guy who also
got the recommendation from YouTube. Sounds like Peterson's campaign
against the Canadian civil rights legislation was a bunch of hooey, too.
https://medium.com/s/story/a-field-guide-to-jordan-petersons-political-arguments-31
That's a great way to phrase the question. It highlights, I think, that
evolutionary _psychology_ is a bit strange. It's much stranger than, say, the
article Roger posted, which refers to evolutionary anthropology. In this
question, there are 2 concrete things: 1) the extent to which poly[and
An observation, if this thread is not totally abandoned.
Last Thursday night I had a conversation with Brigham Young. (I am a
huge fan of and explorer of altered states of consciousness, so take
that statement as denoting an experience that my mind turned into a
visual/audio metaphor.) One of the
Both the Lena image and the Utah Teapot have their own wikipedia pages.
I was working with the image processing group at USC when they started using
the Lena image as their standard test image. Before that they had been using
what they all called the “girl image” which was probably from the 50’
I appreciate and second Ed's observaions here. While my own role as an
instructor during this period was very limited. I was first a student
*among* CS majors (I was a Physics/Math major with a CS minor) in the
70's when it was all pretty new by some measure and the participation by
women was hi
I found the email with David’s question for me re the Lena image.
I don’t think the Lena image had anything significant to do with the decline in
the percentage of women going into CS. It was a very limited group of people
that actually dealt with or even saw the image. And they were almost all
Jordan Peterson doesn't list evolutionary psychology anywhere in his
wikipedia article. He paints himself as much more of the Carl Jung variety
psychologizer, which makes sense since his PhD is in Clinical Psychology.
Then he tacks on Soren Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich as influences, which
puts hi
On 02/23/2018 07:12 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I think one is an evolutionary psychologist if and only if one thinks that
> knowledge of human evolutionary history has something to contribute to our
> understanding of contemporary human behavior. So, yes, you may call me an
> evolutionary psyc
-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 7:28 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
OK. So if you're not sure how to make a case *like* the one Pet
OK. So if you're not sure how to make a case *like* the one Peterson makes, and
I'm allowed to call you an evolutionary psychologist, then I can say, at least,
Peterson's argument is unjustified. ... or at least not well enough justified,
even in the domain in which he works.
Combined with fin
[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 6:09 PM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
OK. It's good to have you respond directly to the physiology stuff. Thanks.
Yes, I tried to respond to your causal
OK. It's good to have you respond directly to the physiology stuff. Thanks.
Yes, I tried to respond to your causal model question. My response is
basically that any causal analysis should target the parts on the "critical
path" ... the bottlenecks ... the "rate limiters" ... whatever your lan
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
Hm. To be clear, I'm not only talking about the testes and adrenals. I'm
talking about the parts of the system that are modulated by testosterone as
well ... which, given that testosterone partly determines our gend
Hm. To be clear, I'm not only talking about the testes and adrenals. I'm
talking about the parts of the system that are modulated by testosterone as
well ... which, given that testosterone partly determines our gender-associated
traits, seems like a "behavior of the individual organism". So,
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 3:31 PM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
That
That's not at all the distinction I'm making (never mind "precisely"). 8^) All
3 of us are talking about selecting for behavior. The difference is that I'm
claiming "expressing and responding to testosterone" is a behavior.
On 02/22/2018 01:39 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> I feel mildly a failur
Well, since you're talking about sneezing, and because sneezing is a
physiological process, whatever model of cause we use will have to involve the
physiological process. I'd claim that, if not identical, very close to the
exact same physiological process occurs in the body when you sneeze beca
es.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 10:39 AM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
Neither, obviously. The proximal cause of sneezing is a complex of
neuro-muscular behaviors. That complex has an untold number of
Neither, obviously. The proximal cause of sneezing is a complex of
neuro-muscular behaviors. That complex has an untold number of triggers, from
bright lights and sound to tickling. Any competent analysis of such causation
will focus on the *bottleneck*, which is the neuro-muscular complex,
ary 22, 2018 7:08 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
Nick,
Is it possible that "behavioral patterns" is similar to what I called "dominant
themes of motivation" when Glen
But, again, testosterone obviously plays more roles in our behaviors than a
behavior pattern of "tad more assertive". Do you mean animals with ZERO
testosterone are the control and those with some tiny amount are a tad more
assertive? Or do you mean the (fictitious) average person who takes a
friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:40 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
>
> Glen -
> > OK. But I believe I merely asked the question
mpson/naturaldesigns/
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
Glen
Glen -
> OK. But I believe I merely asked the question: Why talk about these vague
> behaviors like "dress for sex", when we can talk about reasonably
> well-defined things like hormones and neurotransmitters? What explanatory
> power does evopsych have that, say, evolutionary neuroscience wou
OK. But I believe I merely asked the question: Why talk about these vague
behaviors like "dress for sex", when we can talk about reasonably well-defined
things like hormones and neurotransmitters? What explanatory power does
evopsych have that, say, evolutionary neuroscience would not have?
O
No, I don't agree. I had intended to reply to Dave's (twice repeated) question
about the speed of evolution with this response. But I'll do it, here, anyway.
Remember that I'm not a biologist. So, corrections of what I say are more
than welcome. It seems to me that natural selection is mult
Glen
> No, I don't agree. I had intended to reply to Dave's (twice repeated)
> question about the speed of evolution with this response. But I'll do it,
> here, anyway. Remember that I'm not a biologist. So, corrections of what I
> say are more than welcome. It seems to me that natural sel
Glen -
> Re: artificial distinctions --
> Allergy? No. The word "allergy" implies something like an *unhealthy*, more
> than normal, immune response. My take would be that my (yes, abnormally
> high) immune response to artificial discretization is *healthy* and
> appropriate. Those of you wh
Re: artificial distinctions --
Allergy? No. The word "allergy" implies something like an *unhealthy*, more
than normal, immune response. My take would be that my (yes, abnormally high)
immune response to artificial discretization is *healthy* and appropriate.
Those of you who don't have such
/
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 10:42 AM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
I realized last night that someone might think my response is either a) moving
the goa
I realized last night that someone might think my response is either a) moving
the goal posts or b) nonsequitur, since it seems obvious that behaviors at the
organism layer are categorically different from behaviors at the organ layer.
What seems obvious is often misleading. So, I figured I'd
Freud (bad word) tried to answer the last question in "Future of an
Illusion".
Frank
Frank Wimberly
www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
Phone (505) 670-9918
On Feb 20, 2018 3:41 PM, "Prof David West" wrote:
> High heels and platform
High heels and platform shoes were originally a male fashion statement. Louis
XIV fancied himself a dancer and made skin tight, body revealing clothing de
rigueur for everyone at court just so he could show of his beautiful legs.
There are numerous cultures — some, who were able to avoid the po
On 02/20/2018 02:14 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Well, the reason we don't talk about oxytocin, or dopamine, or even
> testosterone, much, is that they aren't behaviors.
Yes, they are behaviors. When we talk about something like a hormone, we're
not really talking about the molecule, are we? Ye
us Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 2:16 PM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the pseudoscience of
On 02/20/2018 12:26 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> I doubt that Nick nor I believe that *every* thought is traceable back
> to some prehistoric evolutionary trait".
8^) I know. I'm just trolling you. But the bait I'm trying to use is
important.
> Female "display" is the one I identified here.
On 2/20/18 12:14 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> It seems to me the best way to have the conversation is to see the "women at
> the GG" topic as the exact same (pseudoscience) as the "alpha male" nonsense
> invoked by Peterson. Both you and Steve seem to have succumbed to the "every
> thought is tracable
It seems to me the best way to have the conversation is to see the "women at
the GG" topic as the exact same (pseudoscience) as the "alpha male" nonsense
invoked by Peterson. Both you and Steve seem to have succumbed to the "every
thought is tracable back to some prehistoric evolutionary trait"
icholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 10:28 AM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM]
> Since the horse isn't quite dead:
I think the horse has barely been flicked with the tip of the quirt...
or perhaps it is the wrong horse which we are flogging, or both?
1. Is it possible that female hominids, specifically "modern women",
are responding to their own instinctual responses
Hm. It's the same link. And your email program didn't mess it up because I
just clicked on it in your response and it worked. Perhaps there's a problem
with https? Whatever, here is the full article:
https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/how-to-not-beat-cancer-d0e9571e8792
ofessor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of ? u???
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 9:06 AM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the pseudoscience of ev
Since the horse isn't quite dead:
Women must have the right to bare their arms without comment
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/19/women-right-bare-arms-canada-prime-minister-kim-campbell
"I look at that photo now and see someone who was actually really shy and
uncomfortable in
I'm not a psychologist but I currently work in the field of AI deep
learning and this is modeled on the human brain, so let me comment on
Dave's question from my insight I developed working in this field.
In addition to the evospych component of human behavior, the human brain
also works like a "s
Another question for Nick
-- does evolutionary psychology hold that every psychological behavior is
explainable, at least in principle, or are some behaviors / some psychological
states outside the purview of evospych? For example, is the an evolutionary
explanation for the observed behavior t
Excellent contribution! Thanks, Nick.
Of course, your arguments, in this letter, are primarily academic. So, they
won't grip the populace in the way Peterson's have (unless you launch a
marketing campaign like he did, of course). But I found the biased sample
argument plausible as something
Some questions for Nick and one for Ed Angel
Peterson's "alpha male" silliness seemed to have prompted this thread
but I wonder if a different example might advance the discussion more
productively, especially since, I suspect, most everyone on the list
would dismiss Peterson as inane.
The example
Nobody's talking about debunking an entire domain. As Nick argues in the 1st
paper and the quote from the Wikipedia page argues, it makes the most sense to
treat particular hypotheses.
So I asked for testable hypotheses involving the alpha male concept and, in
particular, Peterson's evolutionar
IMO it's going to be difficult to debunk evolutionary psychology. It is a
valid part of the medley of components of psychology and sociology. But is
it the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? No, certainly not.
There is much more to human behavior than evolutionary psychology.
What's
But your point *did* come through. Peterson's (and many people's) conception
of the "alpha male" (or "alpha female" for Frank), has become second nature.
It's everywhere in our culture. And it is ripe for a debunking that is
complete enough to GRIP the populace. Dave's debunking is right, I
dnesday, February 14, 2018 12:24 PM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
Having skimmed your paper, I think the wikipedia quote is adequate and more
appropriate simply because it's shorter:
>From
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C
Exactly! So, it seems most reasonable to assume that the style of the clothing
one wears to an awards ceremony, including how much skin is exposed, has more
to do with cultural and clique norms than a "desire to be desired", whatever
that may mean.
On 02/15/2018 08:16 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
gt; >From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> >Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 4:46 PM
> >To: FriAM
> >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
> >
> >Your questions seem to assume that the only reason to expose one&#
n Globes program, which
>seems correct to me.
>
>Frank
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
>Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 4:46 PM
>To: FriAM
>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology
link.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Pieter
> Steenekamp
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 14, 2018 9:20 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subj
Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
This is not particularly relevant to Dave's essay but was stimulated by his
questions about physical attraction between genders. I was puzzled while
watching the Golden Globes (for a few minutes) by
4:46 PM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
Your questions seem to assume that the only reason to expose one's body is to
be desired. I know that *I* don't wear shorts in the summer so that I'll be
desired by the women (or men) in my ne
Your questions seem to assume that the only reason to expose one's body is to
be desired. I know that *I* don't wear shorts in the summer so that I'll be
desired by the women (or men) in my neighborhood. 8^) One reason I try to
expose my arms even when I'm cold is in order to increase my cold
This is not particularly relevant to Dave's essay but was stimulated by his
questions about physical attraction between genders. I was puzzled while
watching the Golden Globes (for a few minutes) by the apparent conflict
between the themes of "Me Too" and "Time's Up"(?) and the very provocative
di
Until this week I was blissfully unaware of Jordan Petersen. Two hours
of YouTube research later my beta male mellow has been well and truly
harshed. Be that as it may, the area of "evolutionary psychology" is
interesting and I would like to respond to Nick's request to discuss
it further.
I apolog
Having skimmed your paper, I think the wikipedia quote is adequate and more
appropriate simply because it's shorter:
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology#Testability
> Leda Cosmides argued in an interview:
>
> "Those who have a professional knowledge of e
r Steenekamp
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 9:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
It may be difficult to quantify evolutionary psychology, but that does not mean
it is pseudoscience. Like string theory
On 02/14/2018 08:20 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> 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 psychology.
But is it really
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
psychology.
I support the view as expressed in
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution
73 matches
Mail list logo
