What does Yea Forums think of evolutionary psychology? Is it a viable methodology for analysing human behaviour?

Promoted by the alt-right to justify their biases

Mostly incremental and (generally) uncharismatic field specific papers in widely read journals. Sound study design, professional statistical analysis using easily justifiable tests ethically without intent to misrepresent outcomes.
I hate to be a STEMfag but you find it most in hard science. Biomedical research too unless you're looking at work related to american pharma/device interests which are embarrassingly common.

>generally shitty way of analyzing behavior.
Do you have a better way? Some other theory of how behavior arises other than evolution?

That’s because you’re looking for a “why” where one doesn’t exist.

Yes, retard: Society.

Pure pseudoscience

loads of theories bro.
see: philosophy, sociology, other parts of psychology, game theory, economics, anthropology, marketing, holy shit a million ways of thinking about the question you posed.

>how behavior arises other than evolution?
I've rarely read any evolutionary psych that does this. It tends to be
>conclusions I wish to draw
>let's go pick some cherries
If we'd had this stuff during the Middle ages we'd have lots of badly researched magazine articles with titles like 'Servitude: why evolution proves peasants owe you 10% of their crop' and 'how a study of primitive brain structure shows why aristocrats and priests shouldn't work'

Look into Hinduism and Buddhism's conceptions of reality. They beat modern scientists, who only now realized the importance of consciousness, to those questions and answers thousands of years ago. Reality is a cosmic dream, in which ego-consciousness leaves you thinking that you're a character in the dream rather than the whole dream itself.

and did these not come from evolution originally? Seeing as humans are animals?

Even if they did all "come from evolution," that doesn't mean you can fully understand them from an evolutionary perspective. I say this as a brother STEMfag and materialist.
This perspective is actually really common among people with an entrylevel understanding of evolution.

Of course some things are features of biology, we are biological beings
but evolutionary psychology is short sighted, and likes to attribute many culturally defined phenomena to biology, when it is not appropriate to do so
also to imply that we are 'bound' by our biology is fallacious.
For example think about the historically prevalent practice of chastity among priests and such. There is nothing more contrary to our biology than that, yet it is very common
in addition, technology for completely changing our biology isn't far off

Attached: 1552137705387.jpg (674x505, 118K)

>Reality is a cosmic dream, in which ego-consciousness leaves you thinking that you're a character in the dream rather than the whole dream itself.
Prove it

Actually it's a trap which the left has led nationalists down so that they think they have to justify their existence empirically to the entire world

They kind of do

youll get the rope

Ah yes of course, the mythical society, which sprang into being magically and was foisted upon us from nowhere and was totally NOT created by humans that are bound by their evolutionary traits.

Fag.

stop encouraging him please.

how do you explain variations in culture?

Geographic separation, culture is a local manifestation of the group.

Easy. The slavery system of classical antiquity was down to evolution, then we evolved so we got the feudal system, then we evolved some more into monarchical absolutism, then we evolved some more into early modern capitalism, then we evolved into modern capitalism. This is why the English look like troglodytes - they haven't evolved out of monarchy yet

Justify why ;)

Do you think modern humans have a radically different biological make-up to humans of the, say, 1600s? Yet people in the 1600s had radically different customs and behaviour to us, even concerning biological matters such as sex. Almost like biology plays a secondary role to that of social influence.

Yes it works quite well but it's not the only viewpoint out there and it wouldn't be wise to get a ton of evo psych books and consequently only view the world from that perspective. It deserves as much voice as anything else.

bullets in your head will be the justification

The only robust methodology for analyzing human behavior is phenomenology. Everything else is behaviorism which has some pragmatic functioning but is philosophically broken because it excludes subjective interiority which is what human life fundamentally is.

Attached: 1971406_897760030321961_1795818474_n.jpg (1080x1080, 152K)

Society existing as a result of the bounds of human biology =/= society doesn’t ever change.

Just because we wear difference clothes doesn’t make people fundamentally different. We’ve been doodling dicks on walls for 2500 years now.

That's "why" they use they simultaneously use teleological explanations for literally everything, right? Evolution designed us so that...we evolved X because of Y...etc.

And what even is this mystical entity named evolution in the first place? What is it - a person, a force, a program? What are we referencing? Where do I find it? All I see is people taking attributes of the human Mind and attributing them onto some external, invented construct to explain the cause of anything that is already of ourselves.

Let's take a statement:

Morality, including conscience and empathy, "evolved" for group survival to flourish.

1) You've never observed anything besides moral behavior, you're speaking with quite literally not a single observation to back up your claim.

2) By saying "for", you've connected a present reality (is) to a teleological objective (ought), without any explanation of "why" evolution did this, or even the slightest explanation of "how". How, exactly, did humans originally not have empathy or conscience or any moral sense, and then later have it? Was it "zapped" into them by evolution? Is that how she does it? You might say, "people who were more moral grouped with others better and therefore survived and passed on kin", but saying this requires the behavior to have already been there. Your claim is that it wasn't: and you need to demonstrate now, how exactly morality went from "not being there" to "now being there".

3) As soon as teleology is evoked, you cannot escape the fact that you're speaking about a mental entity: it knows thing, and has an objective, which it somehow knows of, and how to reach it. Evolution has to be some kind of force or entity which "holds" moral laws within itself that it later "doles out" to its creatures in order to assist them with it's desired objective for them: namely, their survival.

4) Everything is evolutionary, including everything that opposes it. My morality is merely evolutionary-wiring, but if I had an instinct for violence, it's ALSO evolutionary wiring. If I'm a pacifist and won't fight, evolution really designed me hard: if I'm an overaggressive Chad who spends his weekends in bar brawls knocking out anyone who he feels gives him a reason to, he too is simply the handiwork of heavy evolutionary wiring.

5) Maslow's hierarchy seemingly stops at the ground level. Everything is for survival. Why? What's survival for? Survival. Why are there musicians, and music? Brain loves recognizing patterns. Survival. What about storytelling? Why does that exist, why do we love it? Tribes learned to communicate information more efficiently. Survival. Fasting? Survival. Rinse and repeat, for everything.

Take the pantheism pill like the guy above said regarding consciousness and reality, and if you're new to that idea start with some comfy Alan Watts.

(Also, take the damn Lloyd Pye pill already and accept that humanity is an extraterrestrial species brought to Earth by a higher civilization)

Aw muffin :3

Evolution is just the accumulation of genetic mutations and natural selection over the years

Take some psychedelics, if you don't want to take the longer route of sober spiritual practise that eventually leads up to ego-loss. The former will allow you to see it immediately; the latter is the patient and proper path.

academic.oup.com/nc/article/2017/1/nix016/3916730

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4906025/

Neuroscience and psychology have already starting formally studying psychedelics now, which relate to ego and consciousness, so read more papers like the above if you want to first, and then read into Hinduism and Buddhist scriptures for the same explanations from mystics themselves, rather than medics.

>Dude, trust me

Enlightenment is a spook

too quick and spontaneous to be evolution, also multiple cultures exist in the same place sometimes for centuries.
lmao
guys I have been on this website for more than a decade now and sometimes I still can't even fucking tell whether y'all are fucking with me or if I'm answering earnest questions lmao.

Evolutionary psychology is not simply the position that humans are products of evolution; that's self-evident enough. It is instead a complete framework through which human behaviour(eg gender) is analysed. The problem with evolutionary psychology is that it seeks to provide a biological answer to what is fundamentally a philosophical question. This is why it can be used to justify almost anything. Women like tall men because they're good protectors; women like short men because, as hunter gatherers, being shorter and needing less sustenance would increase chance of survivability, women wear alluring clothes to attract mates; women wear modest clothing because they are the selectors, etc.

Meaningless gibberish.

uh no

Women universally like tall men actually, there are no women anywhere on earth that prefer short men, so your example there doesn't make any sense.

If you're getting a degree in Liberal Arts, evo psych is one of the edgier choices. That doesn't mean that the field or its evangelists have produced anything of value - or indeed anything at all.

As with its humbler, uglier sister discipline of Psychology, at least 50% of all studies performed in the name of "evolutionary" psychology are pieces of badly written fanfiction. Great field to enter if you want to leech grant money for the rest of your life without ever having to do anything.

Cringe

Every trait can be considered evolutionarily beneficial hence why the evolutionists had to add the biased mutation epicycle to their theory

I gave you two reputable scientific studies, and if you won't read them, you clearly aren't even interested in science in the first place.

okay pseud. how about the fact that small penises were preferable to large ones in some ancient societies? What's your evolutionary explanation for that?

I said that it can be used to justify anything and gave two examples. The evolutionary justification for women liking tall men is no less valid than the justification for them liking short men, whether or not it conforms to reality.

Not to women

dude he's going to posthoc everything, he made or joined this thread to defend evpsych and isn't hearing any of the obvious and blatant criticisms.
Don't even bother. It's just going to devolve into him claiming you are butthurt or something. This is my last post because obviously we are not having a conversation here.

>is no less valid
>whether or not it conforms to reality.
It would actually be exactly whether it conforms to reality or not that makes it valid.

>tfw to intelligent to defend my points
yeah i think it should be your last post

you type like a retard, because you are a retard
neck yourself seething reddit fag.

Excellent takedown, it's telling that they haven't even bothered addressing your individual points.

I doubt you even have the capacity to understand scientific writing

This is woke, my dude.

Perhaps he's wondering why someone would shoot a man before hanging him?

Great argument. I've given you two papers, read them or be silent.

it's not even worth addressing he's a fucking imbecile

He literally doesn't understand how evolutionary theory works. The 'telos' is simply whatever ends up reproducing. It is a literal tautology that the traits that on average the organisms have helped them reproduce, or didnt impede them enough to be a problem.

Yeah and your links do not assert what you are saying, if you could actually read what you've posted you would see this lol

/thread

Not really something can conform to reality but have an incorrect explanation despite being rational in your mind

You have completely missed the point. My point was that the evolutionary explanation for women liking short men that I gave is internally consistent with the evopsych interpretative framework, as is the explanation for women liking tall men. Thus the framework is worthless.

In other words, it can be used to justify anything, even contradictory assertions. If you're really hung up on the assertions' veracity, you simply have to look at the second example I gave.

peterson is a cuck

I can't believe you're still wasting your time arguing with him when he's shown himself to be this much of a dumbass

You seriously don't understand why the same logic applied to a false fact and a true fact give different outcomes?

The entire theory of evolution hinges on looking at what traits an organism actually has, and then finding reasons why they would have evolved. There is no difference between theorizing about the evolution of the eye or the evolution of a common behavior.

you are literally making your bed with Creationists

I'm introducing you to the subject through a language you'll understand, and I told you to read into Eastern scriptures afterward for greater depth. I know you would never read into the latter on your own because they aren't written by neuroscientists, hence why I gave you the former first. Others read into mystic literature for its own sake, while your kind would never stoop to reading such "fairy tales" or whatever you think those cultural philosophies are (lol) unless it's related to "science".

I find it particularly susceptible to a much too liberal reductionism and "give me a hammer and all I'll see is nails". The fact that it also doesn't lend itself well to self-correction and is at many times unfalsifiable, is also a problem. I don't fully reject it though. Just grains of salt.

EP from the outset went far beyond hyper-adaptionism. If There was a scale of how adaptionist somebody was and you had - say - Gould as a 2, Dawkins as an 8 and C.G. Williams as a 9, then "Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer" by Cosimides and Tooby, which served as the template for the discipline would rate as roughly 20 billion.

The thing even the most hardcore adaptionist biologists always accept, is that it makes no sense to look at traits without undestanding their primitive states. Phylogeny matters to adaptionist thinking, because only by looking at the plesiomorphy can you compare the apomorphy and argue which advantage it confers. But to EP that is not part of what they call adaptionism. Their adaptionism is contrasted to the "phylogenetic approach", which considers common descent and thus plesiomorphic traits. It's incaple even of telling just so stories on how the ancestors of humans lost their tails, because it is incapble of considering that we had tailed ancestors. It won't tell you a just-so story on how we went from no opposable thumb, to an opposable thumb, because it considers the fact that we had ancestors without an opposable thumb to be irrelevant to any questions regarding modern thumbs.

Attached: brassica-oleracea.0.jpg (640x399, 39K)

Not very scientific in other words.

>And what even is this mystical entity named evolution in the first place? What is it - a person, a force, a program?

Evolution is the noun form of the verb "evolve". When something evolves, the process of evolution is occurring. It's not fucking complicated.

EP hypotheses generate no testable predictions of novel fact, and therefore aren't independently verifiable.

ego-death is a very real and well-known phenomena relating to psychedelics and has indeed been described by eastern religions for millenia, you need to stop living under a rock, literally just visit r/psychonauts or some other plebbit trash if you need an introduction to such elementary phenomena. or take LSD like why do you not even know about such commonplace phenomena yet, there's nothing new about them

OP has never taken a biology class in his life. Don't bother.

Evolving to what?

to whatever can reproduce in a given environment

Nice, dude! Great explanation. How does this "evolving" occur, exactly?

There's been no improvement in that aspect in billions of years

Random genetic mutations that create individuals with differing rates of reproductive success

All that proves is how fragile our sense of self is

I will explain it to you for the third and last time. Hopefully I can dumb it down for you this time.

Math is a valid interpretive framework. You will never be able to justify two contradictory mathematical assertions while remaining true to math. Evopsych is not because it CAN be used to justify contradictory assertions while still remaining true to its logic, as in the examples I gave.

If evospsych is not then neither is any of evolution, so again are you a creationist?

>Random genetic mutations
They're not random they're biased in a certain direction as admitted by the evolutionists

>By saying "for", you've connected a present reality (is) to a teleological objective (ought), without any explanation of "why" evolution did this, or even the slightest explanation of "how". How, exactly, did humans originally not have empathy or conscience or any moral sense, and then later have it? Was it "zapped" into them by evolution? Is that how she does it? You might say, "people who were more moral grouped with others better and therefore survived and passed on kin", but saying this requires the behavior to have already been there. Your claim is that it wasn't: and you need to demonstrate now, how exactly morality went from "not being there" to "now being there".

No, actually. By saying "for", people mean that the evolved trait was advantageous towards a certain faculty.
Take the Netflix movie Birdbox for example. In the movie, the world is hit with some kind of plague that infects people who look at it. The only way to stay safe from the plague is to be blind either by birth or by fold.
If all the sighted people were eventually wiped out you would be able to say that humans "evolved" to be blind "for" the purpose of surviving with the plague.

look it up you dumb fuck its not my fault you're ignorant

ITT: Yea Forums doesn't understand evolution

So no telos, then. All statements of "evolved for" are automatically invalid since the only thing here is "random mutation", and "random" and "telos" are not compatible. I just wish more of your side were unified in your views, since most of you seem to be speaking in terms of a telos that you can't be speaking of.

The mutations are random but the selection isn't random.

>4) Everything is evolutionary, including everything that opposes it. My morality is merely evolutionary-wiring, but if I had an instinct for violence, it's ALSO evolutionary wiring. If I'm a pacifist and won't fight, evolution really designed me hard: if I'm an overaggressive Chad who spends his weekends in bar brawls knocking out anyone who he feels gives him a reason to, he too is simply the handiwork of heavy evolutionary wiring.

Evolution doesn't design, it selects.

Evolution in itself is not an interpretive framework. It is simply a description of how different types of organisms came to be and has very solid evidence behind it. Evopsych is just posthoc rationalisation through a highly selective lens.

>5) Maslow's hierarchy seemingly stops at the ground level. Everything is for survival. Why? What's survival for? Survival. Why are there musicians, and music? Brain loves recognizing patterns. Survival. What about storytelling? Why does that exist, why do we love it? Tribes learned to communicate information more efficiently. Survival. Fasting? Survival. Rinse and repeat, for everything.

I don't see your point, does the truth depress you or something? Need a time out?

culture evolves too

evopsych is literally just evolution applied to behavior

no its the interpretation of behaviour through an evolutionary lens. how can you be this retarded?

No, evolutionary psychology, the subject of this thread, claims that modern human behaviors are explainable through appeals to evolutionary wirings that favored certain outcomes. We have our present behaviors because it was evolutionarily advantageous to have them. I gave you an example of morality. The evolutionary explanation of morality is that we evolved it to aid group survival. This means it wasn't always there, and that it only came "into" us to fulfill the objective of "group survival". That's the format of a typical evopsych claim, and you can find more examples in this thread such as "women evolved to love tall men because they can protect them", which always entails that 1) a behavior was not always there 2) that it entered 3) it entered not merely randomly but for a specific end. You can't appeal to morality if you're claiming to speak for the origin of morality, and therefore its source. I already mentioned above that you can say "moral individuals cooperated better with others and therefore survived and passed on", but that's not what evopsych says, which claims morality is only there in the first place because it was beneficial for group reason. It seeks to answer the question of origin, while providing no actual explanation for it, and only appealing to what is already here. Morality has to already be there for you to speak of moral behavior; if you want to assert that it wasn't always there, and dare tackle the question of how it came to be there, you need to find a way to coherently explain the development of a reality from "entirely nonexistent" to "existent". And good luck with that.

What you're describing is no different than basic natural selection: what survives, is what survives. It doesn't have to be beneficial, it just has to be whatever happened to survive, for whatever reason. Anyone can accept that. Evopsych is a very different ballgame, trying to step behind what is already here and provide explanations for it's being here in the first place.

and paleontology is the interpretation of fossils through evolutionary lens, it's just that none calls it "evopaleontology" because there aren't another dozen branches of pseudoscientific paleontologies, unlike in psychology.

You're actually fucking dense dude. If you wanna get that fucking nitpicky about it then you can say "for" is a metaphorical term. Nature is a war where some people make it and some people don't. Organism which mutate advantageous traits end up winning, so people use the word "for" when describing the way in which the evolved trait was advantageous. Stop making it more complicated than that when it's not.

>he evolutionary explanation of morality is that we evolved it to aid group survival.
You're already wrong, and have no idea what you're talking about. Genes are selected, not groups

God youre fucking stupid

Doesn't depress me at all, because I can recognize nonsense where I find it. Then again, I'm speaking to someone who thinks "consciousness is synaptic firing" so what's even the point? Your field is not even taken seriously, and will be thrown out entirely once scientific materialism has been discarded (which is happening as we speak), so I'm not sure why you think you have any kind of "upper ground".

Groups working together increases the suriviablity of the individual, therefore genes that favor group cooperation are more easily passed on.

>it entered not merely randomly but for a specific end
No
you fucking moron

It entered randomly, then it led to reproduction, so it exists now

How fucking idiotic can you be

>Organism which mutate advantageous traits end up winning
It's the other way round
The organism survives so all of its traits are considered advantageous after the fact by humans

You literally don't understand how evolution works on a basic level and think you can criticize complex applications of the theory.

And your replacement is UNIRONICALLY 'TAKE SHROOMS DUDE'.

Genuinely one of the dumbest posters i have ever seen on this board

he asked what the evolutionary explanation for humans "fasting" is, when supposedly everything is "for survival"?

"all behaviors are for survival resources"
*points to a behavior that shuns survival resources*

if someone's a glutton, evolution made them to be. if someone's abstaining from food....uh, evolution made them so too? phew, almost revealed a flaw in our doctrine

That explanation doesn't favour a theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection

It's called an ESS you miserable imbecile, there are a variety of strategies that evolve in populations both between and within individual organisms, that create a balance.

On top of that if the environment suddenly changes drastically(such as modern civilization) then the evolved behaviors may no longer be adaptive

if the organism survived then the probability of their genes to be advantageous is much greater than not. For example, a very fast, strong and intelligent zebra may get unlucky and be eaten, and a dumb slow zebra may get lucky and end up reproducing, but on average and in the long term, the zebras which have advantageous traits will prevail.

Morality, insofar as human beings possess it, came to be as we became aware of our own and each other's vulnerability. Piagetian game theory is the foundation of morality.

what's your point? just because it's applicable to fossils does not mean it's applicable to human behaviour. humans are influenced much more by society and philosophy etc. than simply biology. the variance in cultures proves that.

Fat people exist, and many die young. They also don't reproduce as effectively. That's because evolution doesn't design, it selects. Nice try tho.

The fact you can believe in both a pseudoscientific (read: unobserved) doctrine which doesn't even correspond to basic rationality either is what I find most telling. One or the other, sure. But both? What a catch.

I'm speaking to someone who thinks "consciousness evolved", so I really don't know what worth there is in our conversation.

Yeah, and these genes just kind of created themselves from nothing and then like millions of year went by where they were just mutating by like pure, random chance the whole world of fully-formed creatures before us came to be. Our minds, which we presently communicate to eachother, and are the ones speaking about concepts like "randomness", are themselves the products of such randomness. It's okay if I've misunderstood the elements of the doctrine because it's already unobserved and already logically nonsensical.

The whole world you see is in your vision, and that means nothing can precede your eye. The sun, the sky, the trees, the grass, water, the gene mutations, and even the eye itself - are all visual and seen through the eye. You can't ever speak about a cell structure or a gene mutation or any other visual data (read: the entire world you know of) without admitting there was a fully-formed eye already in existence. And please don't show me the laughable diagrams current scientists use to demonstrate their lack of logic to the world, which I've attached, that use visual data to explain the source of vision. Oh, what a comedy! This is what we call epistimology, friends. It's great, you should try it.

Attached: 1200px-Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg.png (1200x1675, 391K)

Evolution doesn't exist and neither does race. Just because bacteria exchange plasmids and birds get bigger beaks doesn't mean it's proven.

>humans are influenced much more by society and philosophy etc. than simply biology. the variance in cultures proves that.

The vast majority of human motivations are unconscious. Plus culture and society evolved in the same way nature has. Most civilizations last a while until they fall, and then humans scratch their heads and figure out where they went wrong, and then they try again. Western civilization did not just spring into existence from the mind of some genius. It evolved into being across time.
Look up the term "collective unconscious".

based schizo poster

Take your pansypchism crackpot theories elsewhere

A war, wherein human beings somehow ended up with empathy and compassion and despising of violence and war. Maybe the doctrine doesn't work? Maybe it hasn't even been observed, and you mistakenly still consider it a "science", when it's plainly pseudoscience? Just a thought to ponder. Then again, you guys don't need empirical evidence when it matches your preconceived convictions on what reality is...

Again, if I'm talking to someone who thinks "awareness evolved", I'm just wasting my time.

human history can be read as evolution applied to ideas and institutions, there's the closest you'll ever come to make sense of it, otherwise how do YOU explain variance in cultures?

>It entered randomly, then it led to reproduction, so it exists now

You are accusing people of being pedantic when you are being pedantic. Genes randomly mutate, sure. Then outside of that there is a selection mechanism that selects out animals that are maladapted, sure. However, the very fact that there is a selection mechanism that is impartial in the distribution of variety implies a cybernetic controller. From there the natural induction is also some teleology that governs how genetic variety is to eventually develop.

Scientific Naturalists lack critical thinking, so they fail to see that they are indeed reconstructing a new religion in their analysis of evolution. We can observe through fossils that there is a tendency for animals to be increasingly more complex. Indeed, the biosphere is a self-organizing system that actively maximizes its entropy. This also points to us that the process is on some level intelligent:

physics.aps.org/articles/v6/46

Attached: ono.png (128x128, 12K)

Nothing visual can exist except in the eye seeing it, friend. Otherwise you speak of "sound without ears", or "sensation without skin". And that's not logical, friend. Don't make such a mistake. Reality is just a dream, a simulation, a video game, and you are the central character, bro! :) Isn't that wonderful?

You’re focusing on the semantics again. Referring to it as a war is an analogy, it isn’t a literal war. Empathy and morality help humans win this “war” because it aids in their reproduction and survival.

>if the organism survived then the probability of their genes to be advantageous is much greater than not
No it just means it survived it doesn't mean a new mutation is beneficial
The more sophisticated evolutionists claim that mutations don't have to be advantageous to be fixed and can be passed on as a package deal but then don't provide an explanation for how that could happen

Do expand on this "civilization is evolution applied to ideas and institutions" theory please. It sounds like a really empty assertion.

Also, how do you explain the existence of genes in the first place? :/

dangerously based and frighteningly redpilled schizo poster

>the very fact that there is a selection mechanism that is impartial in the distribution of variety implies a cybernetic controller
No it doesn't, just that some mutations are more suited to better survival than others

I'm not a scientific materialist you stupid fuck nice assumption
>The whole world you see is in your vision, and that means nothing can precede your eye.
The earth existed for billions of years before life could evolve onto it. Just because we can't escape the bias of our perceptions doesn't mean "nothing precedes your eye" unless you completely disregard cause-and-effect.

What is the teleology of suicide?

tribalism, patriarchy, polytheism, matriarchy, monarchism, nation-states, inbreeding, feuds, racism, socialism, capitalism, monotheism, none of these are right or wrong they're just competing or supplementing each other (like mutualistic symbiosis) and the ones which allow groups to survive, reproduce and expand prevail, that's human history.

You are rewording it just to escape the conclusion. That is all you can do. 'Survival' is and identification of the control mechanism used to modulate the variety within the system. 'some mutations are better suited for survival than others' automatically implies that some animals are more teleologically advantageous to the system's goal of self-actualization than others. There is no difference. One only tries masking the religion latent in biological reductionism by ignoring the holistic reality of the situation.

Attached: tumblr_pla7g897Bt1xlkja9o2_250.gif (250x350, 1.08M)

Alright, my mistake. And how did sexual reproduction come to be in the first place? Just happened, I guess? What about genes, in general? Remember, I'm not a theist, I'm a pantheist, so I'm not pushing you to answer "transcendant skydaddy did it". I don't hold "nature" and "species/individuals" to be separate entities like you guys do.

And somehow my reproductive organs are evolutionary, I'm nothing more than a rat in evolution's laboratory, a program (that became conscious, at some point along the way) that lives to breed, and yet I'm personally celibate? And find sex quite revolting? And many people on this board echo my sentiments, or are trying to? And all over the world, people practising them? All my emotions are evolutionary too, of course. What is sadness? Why did it evolve? What about poetry? And music, though it shocks an evolutionist, isn't just "pattern recognition", which they'd understand if they heard it. Also doesn't explain why music exists at all. What function is it serving?

Also I've already explained that everything visual is in the eye; if you speak of something visual, you speak of the eye. The sun, stars, moon, genes, cells, and the eye itself. Darwin recognized this when it came to flowers, and wrote about it, but for some reason didn't realize it applied to literally everything he has ever seen, including the eye itself. Reality is quite literally just a dream of yours, a simulation or a video-game, and is non-dual. Just as in a video game you both have a screen-perspective which is identical to that environment itself, so is it the case for this reality you live in. You and your environment are one. Look at your outer environment right now, and realize it to be yourself. Humans are just a runt along a ladder of *spiritual* evolution, and in future we'll move on to higher lifeforms.

I'll leave the thread now, these conversations never really help either side. Your camp tends to just say "genes" over and over and thinks you've answered anything, and when I mention anything different to the narratives you firmly believe in (without evidential basis to), I'm called schizophrenic and moronic or whatever. So I'll leave now, you guys can believe whatever you want and I'll similarly do the same.

>the ones which allow groups to survive, reproduce and expand prevail, that's human history.
No it's not the 2 historically biggest nations on the planet have stayed isolated for millennia and not sought to expand at all

It’s a tautology. Animals that pass on their genes do. Animals that don’t, don’t. There is no need for an overseer of any sort. It’s a simple cause and effect process the same as all inanimate matter.

The "Earth" you speak of is entirely made out of vision. Grass, trees, water, sky, sun, and everything else. I can't really explain this any clearer, I'll say it one last time: reality is a non-dual simulation. You are everything you have ever and can ever see. The sky is made out of the eye.

And secondly, those "datings" of the earth, are just narratives (just like the logically nonsensical one's regarding the eye's "evolution", or the "big bang") which can't be definitively proved in anyway. But your camp tends to believe secondary narratives given to you more than you even attempt to understand primary epistomological facts that dictate the bounds of all narratives.

No I'm not, the only thing approaching a controller is whatever set out how energy works and there's nothing to suggest that such a force is acting intentionally

they are the biggest and yet they somehow "didn't expand"? really makes you think

What no it isn't

panpsychism will be "crackpot" to your camp, until your own scientists are asserting it

the next decade will be a great transition for the sciences, truly

It's a tautology. Animals that are beneficial to the system pass on their genes. Otherwise they don't. How can there be no overseer when all these animals interact with each-other in a larger system - furthermore that this variation isn't utterly random but clearly biased towards certain trends. This becomes increasingly clear also when you look at convergent evolution. It's simple meta-causation. If matter was simply inanimate, how are physical laws? Physical Laws aren't in themselves material, but they are organizing principles that order all matter out of it.

Attached: 517b6b5669f9733b38cc8d94d27fa5111515894169_full.jpg (640x360, 52K)

How did genetic mutations come to be in the first place?

All you've said is that you can only understand a reality that is controlled by an overseer not produce any actual arguments to suggest so.

You've deliberately misinterpreted the comment to score cheap rhetorical points. Using the context of your initial comment it shouldn't be possible for you to do that accidentally

why is survival and reproduction the final end of all behavior? what makes this so? did you guys just arbitrarily decide maslow's hierarchy stops at the lowest tier, and think the more you repeat this the more true it becomes?

The variation in itself being non-random isn't an argument? Convergent evolution isn't an argument? The maximization of possible states as pursued by the biosphere isn't an argument? Are you incapable of understanding that the selection mechanism paired up with random mutation is bound to create cybernetic attractors? That's literally a final cause user! I will never understand physicists.

Attached: tumblr_pl8husMJG41y0nwq1o1_540.gif (540x353, 513K)

I'm not misinterpreting anything, it's a poor comment, it assumes the "historically biggest nations" were born that way.

uh uh uh uh uh uh like the individual can um um um um benefit his group or something if they don't have to put up with his existential whining, hence why he evolved to be able to kill himself, and thus go against the primary prerogative of all biological existence :)

there, explained :)

>Animals that are beneficial to the system pass on their genes.
Already wrong. There is no “system” to be beneficial to.

>How can there be no overseer when all these animals interact with each-other in a larger system

Do the interactions of inanimate matter in the system of space necessitate an overseer?

>biased towards certain trends.
Only trends that fit into the tautology. That is to say; animals that pass on their genes, pass on their genes. They’re more likely to do this if those genes tend towards being passed on.

>If matter was simply inanimate, how are physical laws?
Fuck if I know, but I do know this is a non sequitor and has nothing to do with whether or not evolution needs an overseer.

>why is survival and reproduction the final end of all behavior?

it's not the final end of all behavior. It's the behavior that is most likely to be selected, because if your behavior is geared against survival or reproduction, then it's very likely to die off in the long term.

>physicists
*physicalists, oops

There are based physicists like the guy who is the head of the Principia Cybernetica that has woken up enough from his dogmatic slumber.

Attached: iim;.jpg (447x621, 446K)

No it isn't

"the earth existed for billions of years before life evolved on it"

source? can you tell me what year consciousness appeared too?

When a people have resided in the same specific landmass for millennia and have ballooned their population in that same landmass what expansion exactly took place?

Carbon dating

Since your only response was a strawman I’ll actually answer your question. What’s the teleology of wisdom teeth? What’s the teleology of the retarded way our respiratory and digestive systems are wired? Evolution isn’t about teleology. As I’ve stated before, it’s tautology. Genes that get passed on, do. Regardless of how advantageous to survival and reproduction they are. This isn’t even getting in to all the different ways variois gene groups can manifest themselves and such.

why, then, do evolutionary psychologists and followers of the doctrine reduce all behavior to survival and reproduction? wherein all behaviors known of are linked to these two realities?

>Already wrong. There is no “system” to be beneficial to.
What is the ecosystem?
>Do the interactions of inanimate matter in the system of space necessitate an overseer?
Yes
>Only trends that fit into the tautology. That is to say; animals that pass on their genes, pass on their genes. They’re more likely to do this if those genes tend towards being passed on.
And this process leads to attractors i.e. a final cause. You aren't actually refuting my point.
>Fuck if I know, but I do know this is a non sequitor and has nothing to do with whether or not evolution needs an overseer.
You are the one that said that it is just the same process of inanimate matter. But the physical universe strangely alters its configuration in a succession of state transitions. Matter being a part of it.

This is the case with literally everything having to do with teleology though. Aristotle himself admits that in the study of teleology you're only going to get answers as precise as the nature of your science allows. We have a much greater scientific understanding of early man and man's evolution now than we did previously. So even though our conclusions are of course imperfect, they are much closer to approaching perfection than 99% of past thought.

I would link the telos of those to the behaviors they serve, but regardless, how did genes come to be in the first place, such that they could pass themselves on?

mostly bullshit

Big bang

That's amazing! Have you played Conway's game of life? What is your opinion on the self-organization of the individual cells from simple rules? At the end you get complex forms and behaviours from simple selection parameters. That isn't a final cause? What is it then? Completely random? You know that doesn't make sense right? The fact that there are rules from the start to how this works means that it is tautologically not random. The fact that these cells then self-organize to deterministic forms means that the process is also teleological. What's hard to understand?

You can point out flaws in movies and then also make an argument that movie production is not teleological. That isn't an argument user!

expansion of their group in massive landmasses
are you for real
but your post is pointless, tribes still exist to these days, yet no one is dumb enough to claim that tribalism has "prevailed"

oh, great. sorry, i've been the audience of too many youtube debates between creationists and evolutionists to understand exactly what this conversation devolves into. for the sake of sense, let's not proceed further

based schizo poster

>The fact that there are rules from the start to how this works means that it is tautologically not random
Doesn't mean it's overseen either. Why does anything need a purpose?

Evolutionary PSYCHOLOGY, the theme of this thread, is entirely teleological.

According to evolutionists they have prevailed because they survived and their genes were advantageous to not being completely exterminated by people several magnitudes more advanced than them

It has some good hypotheses that are mostly impossible to test. But that is true for all of psychology.

The idea that both society and our psyche are under the influence of evolutionary processes should be self evident.

No

Or they were just lucky

You’re righ, my mistake. I got confused since at this point the thread has devolved into whether evolution even happens or not.

Unfortunately evolution isn't predictive like real science so we'll never know

Am I a schizoposter user? I think I am being rather logical here. It also seems that most laymen intuitively get what I am arguing for given that they often fall into the trappings of biological teleology. See the normans that talk about people that obsess on reproduction and how you are a loser for not participating in it.

Everything has a purpose user. That's the eschaton! I don't understand how you can't see it, it's obvious. The very fact that we can perceive physical reality means that reality's structure is isomorphic with our own. Actually, this isn't even something mystical. The universe is not cognitive because we are special, rather, we evolved the way we did because of the cognitive nature of the physical universe. Though that is going a bit into metaphysics now.

Here anons, take a read at this:
pespmc1.vub.ac.be/DOWNCAUS.html

Attached: 25569F4A-2B11-48A6-8B46-3064D949058C.jpg (711x723, 299K)

>Everything has a purpose
Why?

85% of the universe is written off as dark matter...

>evolution isn't predictive
It is though. It's predictive power is just not very good for humans.

For once because humans are self aware of their biological nature. And because the human psyche is too complex, inconsistent and diverse to be predicted over a long period of time by another human

I don't know, I didn't do it. At least, I don't think I did. Do you deny that thanks to the laws of thermodynamics our universe as a complex adaptive system is undergoing entropic maximization? That suggests a final cause. One larger than ourselves and all of physical reality is leading up to. Isn't it beautiful? I beckon you to comprehend the logos user! Everything thinks!

Attached: wokehera.jpg (1200x988, 115K)

your posts are seriously making me cringe, please stop

Merely suggests

I think it is beyond that user. It isn't simply that the human psyche in itself is complex, but we are embedded in a highly complex psychosocial and biological system. We don't just develop our minds by ourselves, but we also further on interact with others, which only makes the entire ordeal more entropic and difficult to predict.

Attached: 769FF1B5-CB9E-441A-9F04-A925D7514494.jpg (550x557, 185K)

But user, matter at the subatomic level behaves in a nondeterministic way.

If you say so. But if we are playing that game, then dinosaur fossils merely suggest that evolution has been going on for millions of years.

What did I do wrong user? I do admit that Heraclitus wouldn't like my whole rambling about teleology. His whole pseudo-tao thing would be adverse to it. That image was OC and I just really wanted to post it cause it is funny...

Attached: 931BF9DA-ED81-418E-8087-5F289FD17DF6.jpg (487x542, 217K)

Fuck off and take your anti-psychosis/mania medication.

Attached: 1537141644046.jpg (480x540, 37K)

>matter at the subatomic level behaves in a nondeterministic
Only because we cause interference by our relatively crude means of observing it. Quantum relativity isn't about there being no order in the chaos, it's about having to try and measure the order by smacking everything about with a sledgehammer every time you want to look at it.

I don't think most evolutionary psychologists imply that all of our psychological phenomena is rooted in biology, clearly experience change the psyche. I feel like it is the same knee-jerk reaction people have to the social theory that some behavior is informed by society and cultural norms. Both of these propositions taken by themselves aren't radical, it is just that people in favor of one or the other assume that the opposition is saying that their model is the totality of explanation when it isn't. Just like the nature v nurture debate isn't usually framed as an either/or but an matter of degrees.

Though much like other experts, people tend to overestimate the importance and applicability of their field.

Ah, but there is entanglement that allows different sub-atomic particles to predictably behave in relation to eachother. You do raise a good point. I for one am neither a determinist nor an indeterminist, but rather a self-determinist, i.e. the universe itself must select itself into being. There could be a hidden variable behind QM, but it could also be a consequence of this. One of the reasons why is that clearly, while on such small levels, things appear random, when we zoom out, all the randomness disappears. There's all this structure that is already selected for.

Attached: tenor.gif (498x241, 359K)

Yeah this could be a reason for why QM appears random as well (which is a hidden variable theory), and without further justification for my own speculation, I seem utterly nuts in comparison!

That's mean user! What did I do to you?

This is true. I personally don't like JP's use of biology to try and justify expedient realities in our society and stuff. There's definitely a biological substrate that influences our social interactions, that's undeniable. It's quite evident that zebras dont have the same societies as humans do.

Attached: 9f61d4f66d44fdc45f6070853e04481f.jpg (706x828, 62K)

why do I keep hearing that women who study psychology are easy?

Maybe they are all depressed

>Is it a viable methodology for analysing human behaviour?
Yes.
>What does Yea Forums think of evolutionary psychology?
Most people are not smart enough to understand evolution in any real terms. Most psychologists are idiots and frauds. There's very few people who can say anything intelligent on evolutionary psychology as a result, and not many who can appreciate them either. You have to be very smart and have an intuitive sense of these things, 90% of posters in this thread surely do not qualify.

Attached: 1378322564302.jpg (450x600, 31K)

>itt Yea Forums screeches against evolution insisting they didn't evolve from monkies

except evo psyche has so far been pretty antagonistic to the status quo rather than used to support it.

Oo, can you enlighten us about Evolutionary Psychology then? I think I am reasonably intelligent, user, I wan't to learn!

Attached: tumblr_pla7g897Bt1xlkja9o3_250.gif (250x350, 884K)

You'll have to be more specific.

If something didn't have a purpose it wouldn't exist, obviously. A thing doesn't come to be from a vacuum.

Hmm, let's start with what is the general gist that is wrong with what people on this thread have said about it. Common stuff. After, I'm also interested with any social implications of this field of study. Are there any real political implications?

>the universe itself must select itself into being.
the fuck does this mean

Attached: 1546698845663.jpg (364x481, 35K)

What is the evopsych explanation of people posting brainlet memes?

>Hmm, let's start with what is the general gist that is wrong with what people on this thread have said about it. Common stuff.
I stopped reading the raving idiocy itt pretty quickly and skimmed to the bottom. No thanks.

>Are there any real political implications?
Not any useful ones, unless you think culling half the population could ever be permissible.

>muh thermodynamics
The speed of universal expansion is increasing, not decreasing.

You are a stupid person. Evolutionary psychology is descriptive, not normative. Most people posting here are very stupid persons who fail to understand this but speak with such authority despite consummate ignorance.

Well ok. The universe is self-contained by tautology. Everything that is real, is in the universe. Due to this, questions like 'what created the universe' seem mistaken by the language they are using. How can anything outside the universe create it? Why, that would imply there was something that was unreal that has any domain on what is real. It logically follows, and is also far more parsimonious to say that the universe is its own creator/first-causer.

Using cybernetic language, the universe must be autopoietic, reflexive, and, since physical laws themselves aren't made out of matter, beyond merely material.

I've said before that the only reason why we are actually able to perceive the universe at all is that it structure mirrors our cognition. This must be the case for perception to be possible.

Attached: unknown.png (308x267, 121K)

Congrats user! You've refuted the second law of thermodynamics?

Attached: raf,360x360,075,t,fafafa_ca443f4786.jpg (360x360, 25K)

So you guys point to existent-behaviors that naturally aid survival and say "it was selected for", as if this explains it's being there in the first place. You then point to behaviors that have no relation to survival and similarly attribute it's basis for being there as due to survival/reproductive benefit, like the existing theories on "art" as assisting "mate selection". And at the bottom of the doctrine lies the mighty "randomly mutating genes", which you never even attempt to explain the origin or cause of, and consider a sound and sturdy foundation by which every aspect of existence above it can be explained, which you use to answer every question of "why something is there in the first place" (morality, sexuality, psychology, literally everything). Makes sense.

How does Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" help one to survive in the wild, or reproduce?

You thinks society isn't a self-contained explanation, but evolution is? Society requires a prior explanation for itself, but evolution needs none?

Look at my schizoposts user. God did it!

Attached: 1552154328680.jpg (414x382, 52K)

This. It's unobtainium.

If the likes of Chalmers or Koch can't even sort out the underlying foundation, rest assured that Beterson can't either. It's all bullshit conjecture at this point.

What is the evopsych explanation for smug anime girls, and more specifically the renaissance they're currently experiencing in our culture?

Uhm, I am a barely male that prefers to express himself as a female than not. I also get dysphoric about my masculinity.

Probably the estrogen in the water.

Oh yeah this is an anime image board...
Or something

Attached: tumblr_pla7g897Bt1xlkja9o5_250.gif (250x350, 767K)

It's a descriptive discipline, like astronomy or archaeology, not a predictive discipline like the laboratory sciences. It provides us with a theory of human origins, like cosmology does with the physical universe. It can provide us with insights about who we are by mapping our past interactions with the natural world, bound as it is by law.

You definitely don't sound like an ideologue with nothing to say (but who never stops talking).

Next you're going to be shocked that newtonian physics falls apart under scrutiny.

That's okay, user :) you express however you feel comfortable :)

>>Most people are not smart enough to understand evolution in any real terms.
Just because I don't understand it doesn't mean I don't know what it is

Silly user, you didn't actually refute it, I was being sarcastic. I am not even sure what your point was. Last time I checked the increasing entropy of the universe is a truism.

T-thanks

You reminded me of /lit's/ short lived "femphase", wherein most all of the canonical authors were openly acknowledged as being some shade of femboy, and that a man cannot write well except by his being imbued with the feminine essence. That was a short, but great, phase of this board. Do you user, keep the femboy presence alive on here. Let the "discord tranny" posters seethe and rage with every anime girl you post.

Stop larping perhaps.

That last line made me grin uncontrollably in public.

Attached: aussie.png (738x696, 91K)

:no"

A chain of hows is the best why.

As far as I see it gets used to justify racism and misogyny, so very much the status quo

You're a big guy

Nietzsche covered evolutionary psychology along with Strauß and his historical Jesus. Philistine philosophy, no discernible talent.

Attached: 1551768915344.jpg (255x233, 29K)

>If you say so.
Those were your words, bud.

>I am not even sure what your point was.
That much is clear.

Commie jew

Human iq differentiation due to brain development caused by social interaction and modes of eating time. Resulting in 15-30 point iq differentiation’s among cultures, resulting in different manifestations of unconscious organizations and sublimations.

Almost like different iq curves for different group manifest different art and food acquisition technologies and the logistics to support them.

Fucking dolt, society is from the ground up not top down. Fuck what a child.

this is what happens when you are raised on christianity, lose faith in your late teens/early 20s, remember middle school bio class, and let the youtube algorithm spoonfeed you hacks like peterson.

brainlet

Attached: tinbergen.jpg (425x394, 196K)

All I wanna say is that Peterson is a bad example of using an evolutionary framework (I prefer the word biological - or do as well if perceived as another framework) since he relies on Jung as a methodology. See his book "Maps of Meaning".

A better frontman for evolutionary psychology would be David Buss. Or even Geoffrey Miller, who can be critiqued for taking sexual selection too far. There's also people like Robert Sapolsky who are more biological as evolutionary - perhaps.

No it doesn't answer 'how' almost every single theory in evopsych has been falsified

Stop avatarfagging you obnoxious fuck

royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0342

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018442X15000384

lse.ac.uk/socialPolicy/Researchcentresandgroups/BSPS/pdfs/Sear_poster_2005.pdf

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474915/

I can keep going. The male taller norm is already shown to be a social beauty norm and not evolutionary or innate.

Trannies really hate evopsych because they're scared of what it sometimes implies.
Nothing new to see.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajhb.22917

I've read that before, and of course
>"Positive assortative mating for height exists in human populations, but is modest in magnitude suggesting that height is not a major factor in mate choice. Future research is necessary to understand the underlying causes of the large amount of heterogeneity observed in the degree of assortative mating across human populations, which may stem from a combination of methodological and ecological differences"
That agrees with my assertion, which is why it is the currently accepted position in biology and sociology departments. The male taller norm is a beauty norm, not a biological thing.
The only sexual qualifier that is innate is attraction to symmetrical faces, as that extends out from our innate pareidolia.

Even if the preference isn't universal that doesn't necessarily mean that its purely social.
That doesn't actually agree with you at all, it says that the preference exists but its not an absolute priority.

Why can't height be one of the "biological things" that has been selected for?

i.e. it's socialized. The existence of cultures with populations of hundreds of thousands of people, where the women all say "wtf who cares about height" and there is no male taller norm, falsifies height being a biological attraction trigger.
because that's not what the data suggests.

That's not what the analysis says
>148 of the correlations for partner heights were positive and the overall analysis indicates moderate positive assortative mating (r=.23). Although assortative mating was slightly stronger in countries that can be described as western compared to non‐western, this difference was not statistically significant.
>Positive assortative mating for height exists in human populations, but is modest in magnitude suggesting that height is not a major factor in mate choice
You realize something can not be a major factor and still be a factor right?
Not gonna sit here and argue because its 2am and i just skipped to the end of the thread without reading it but lmao.

When it is said that a preference is biologically innate, it doesn't mean that the preference takes absolute priority over all other factors. It means it is a tendency structured prior to experience that is likely to be a constant pressure cross-culturally, in contrast to environmental factors the force of which varies more greatly, but in sum can overcome an innate tendency or make it manifest in abnormal ways.

the male taller norm being a common beauty norm does not imply it's innate. That study only corroborates the other studies I linked. I can link even more.
The argument isn't if its common, it's "is it innate". That meta analysis straight up says "it's ecological" i.e. not biological but based on environment and upbringing.
This is why we have dozens of cultures without a male taller norm as a beauty standard where the women don't care.

see An example of a preference that is symmetric facial features. I urge you to find cultures/studies of cultures where "ugly" faces are preferred over symmetrical ones, like we have found cultures where short men are preferred/there is no male taller norm.

>evolution exists
>psychology exists
>both things are related to each other in a meaningful way
Sounds pretty clear to me, if you can prove a certain trait developed thanks to natural selection and how it influences human behavior, such as parental investment for example, which obviously influences our choice of mates.

That meta analysis straight up does not say its ecological, it offers it as a possible explanation.
What the fuck user.

Litterally every human behavior boils down to avoiding death and wanting to fuck

It helped him produce. I am confused do you things happen in totalities? Are you a fucking retard?

suicide?

Stupid, most of what you are in pre-6.

Yup

>Evolutionary psychology states every behavior must be adaptive

it's highly effective but it eternally btfos soulfags, aka most people.

Magnitude of the force of the tendency can explain commonality.

I'm arguing that innateness doesn't mean that the tendency must dominantly express in all environments, but that it does express in all. Secondly all evolution is ecological both proximate and ultimate explanations must recognize that behaviors result from a species' nature interacting with the natural environment. There are patterns of interaction that develop in different environmental niches because of both internal species constraints and external environmental constraints.

Fromsoft has never made a good game though I don't get it

Wow, that explains what music is, and why music exists in the first place, it's just a dressed-up survival mechanism!

More would consider it a fitness indicator or a byproduct of sexual selection.

Okay, and does that explain what music is, or why we make, listen to and enjoy it?

your own worldview posits yourself to be a biological NPC, lol

Can someone please just tell me where genes came from? :3

In the belly of the beast, that's where the fuck we come from.

All psychology is pseudo-science, including evolutionary.

This just seems vacuous, if every behavior is adaptive, even clearly non-beneficial ones what are we really even saying about evolution?

music has more to do with our sound identification mechanism and the way we find patterns enjoyable

Which, um, could both be adaptive?

Attached: Ianm.jpg (650x400, 42K)

As I proceeded, I found my philosopher altogether forsaking mind or any other principle of order, but having recourse to air, and ether, and water, and other eccentricities. I might compare him to a person who began by maintaining generally that mind is the cause of the actions of Socrates, but who, when he endeavored to explain the causes of my several actions in detail, went on to show that I sit here because my body is made up of bones and muscles; and the bones, as he would say, are hard and have ligaments which divide them, and the muscles are elastic, and they cover the bones, which have also a covering or environment of flesh and skin which contains them; and as the bones are lifted at their joints by the contraction or relaxation of the muscles, I am able to bend my limbs, and this is why I am sitting here in a curved posture: that is what he would say, and he would have a similar explanation of my talking to you, which he would attribute to sound, and air, and hearing, and he would assign ten thousand other causes of the same sort, forgetting to mention the true cause, which is that the Athenians have thought fit to condemn me, and accordingly I have thought it better and more right to remain here and undergo my sentence; for I am inclined to think that these muscles and bones of mine would have gone off to Megara or Boeotia-by the dog of Egypt they would, if they had been guided only by their own idea of what was best, and if I had not chosen as the better and nobler part, instead of playing truant and running away, to undergo any punishment which the State inflicts. There is surely a strange confusion of causes and conditions in all this. It may be said, indeed, that without bones and muscles and the other parts of the body I cannot execute my purposes. But to say that I do as I do because of them, and that this is the way in which mind acts, and not from the choice of the best, is a very careless and idle mode of speaking.

Explain exactly how evolutionary psychology btfos the existence of a soul

What is the evolutionary explanation for celibate monks who deny themselves physical pleasures for spiritual growth?

something something social adaptation, you can just claim everything to be adaptive and walk away when it renders your system meaningless.

I find it's good for interactions between the sexes but there isn't really that much to learn and it gets old when evolutionary psychologists try to tie it into EVERY phenomenon they can no matter how unrelated it is

If this is what something like Moonlight Sonata means to you, I really can't say much else.

It doesn't have to explain outliers, they are the ones who don't reproduce, they're irrelevant. They're defective basically

my guess is that they're more aware of our "animal instincts" and what not so they can see the beauty in a man trying hard to ravage their pussy

Anyone? :3

Why are they even enjoyable?

Sequences of nucleotides

What explains the universality and fundamentality of spirituality among our entire species? No outliers here, every culture on Earth has a set of sacred metaphysical texts that have shaped the structure of their societies. Not just this, but spirituality in general, Native American or African or Judeo-Christian, Islamic, Indian, Chinese, etc, it's literally inescapable. Is this an error too?

But they have persisted through all of human history even though they themselves do not reproduce, why have they survived so long? They are not an extremely fringe group. They are a minority but you can't just dismiss them as outliers

Spirituality is not defective, it doesn't lead to not reproducing for most people

>Ctrl+f "cuck"
>Only one
Good job Yea Forums, you are the slightly less retarded board.

Why does every high-level philosophy of the world encourage temperance of physical pleasures? Plato, Hindu, Buddhist, Judeo-Christian, etc philosophies all emphasize the need to control one's physical appetites, if not suppress them completely in the case of celibacy. Why is this found universally, instead of us universally equating virtue with physical pleasure, and encouraging the latter's indulgement?

If there is no active benefit to survival by being spiritual, it seems like there would be relatively equal groups of spiritual humans and humans with absolutely no spiritual inclinations. Then why is spirituality such a universal aspect of humanity?

But why does it exist at all, if all is only material, and solely made for breeding? Spirituality does not fit that paradigm, while being found universally.

Ironically, when the Jews were liberated from the death camps, some of them were so famished from hunger they ate until their stomachs exploded

>If there is no active benefit to survival by being spiritual,
There probably is. Either that or spirituality is just something that naturally accompanies the sort of model of the world that humans evolved, which model was beneficial obviously

that's horrible

Underrated. What I like least about this board is how plagued it is by theologues of one stamp or another, furious to persuade, and correspondingly incurious and uninformed. Even schizo posters are refreshing compared to them, which is why it's a thing here.

Memes aside how can science "justify" anything? It only tells us how the world is and not how it should be.

What sort of education is capable of producing thinkers of this skill level? Holy...

That's not going to stop people from using it to justify their beliefs on how the world should be

Randomly mutating genes (and self-created, apparently) form the foundation of all reality for your camp; I assure you, I don't feel intimidated speaking to holders of such worldviews.

>so very much the status quo
yikes

two contradictory assertions in mathematics can be justified as long as one of them is wrong.

absolutely not. it's complete pseudoscience.

I think the implication was you couldn't reconcile contradictory assertions of equal truth as is the case in evopsych.

well I suppose the problem with it is that it makes sense and when something makes sense it's easy to believe but that doesn't make it true but perhaps it does increase the likelihood that it might be true and in the end you just have to decide if that's good enough for you
This is just the nature of science in general
Nothing can ever be convenient and conclusive
It's not as if "real" psychology is perfect or any field for that matter it's just a matter of "this is the best we've got right now"
At the end of the day whatever works works right?

You are actually fucking retarded. Were you reading Percy Jackson instead of listening in biology class? Literally in the first sentence you shoot yourself in the foot by confusing Darwinism with Lamarckism. Pathetic.

Attached: 1529276824334.jpg (705x739, 48K)

It's one of the many academic grifts that are current. Pure bullshit to justify various competing ideologies, i.e. fascism, anarchism, communism, patriarchy, matriarchy, monogamy, polyamory etc. It's another secular religion for the rational age.