Episode 112: Evolutionary Psychology – David Buss Responds to Critics – Part 2

In part 2 of my interview with David Buss, he responds to more criticisms of evolutionary psychology. Here’s what we cover: a) does evolutionary psychology just give criminals another reason not to take responsibility for themselves?, b) is all the research in evolutionary psychology done on American college students?, c) are evolutionary psychology theories falsifiable? We cover such topics as whether women’s mating strategies change depending on where they are in their menstrual cycle? and How does evolutionary psychology might explain homosexuality? and what does evolutionary psychology say about cultural differences in the desire for women with a low waist-hip ratio? All in this episode of The Psych Files.


Resources on Evolutionary Psychology

Comments

  1. says

    Once again, very interesting discussion. Thanks Michael and David.

    I once wrote a critique of evolutionary psychology with respect to the evolution of flexible cognition in humans, but it’s very clear from the interview and my readings that evolutionary psychology is much broader than that.

    I thought the concern of one listener that it was all about sex was, as you said, quite unfounded. There is a huge amount to evolutionary psychology and one area which you didn’t mention was how we think about social contracts. The relationship of ‘you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours and watch out if you cross me’ is a logical relationship that humans are appalling at working with if expressed in abstract terms, but are excellent at if couched in terms of social contracts (hope that made sense). Cosmides and Tooby’s work is a great source for that.

    Thanks again.

  2. SixShooter says

    “Men should be more competitive and lower their standards [at breeding time].”

    I really do not think most men fathom the creep-factor and condescension in that statement, and that crap’s ubiquitous.

    First off, when is breeding time? When one particular woman approaches one particular man about the prospect. It is case by case. This allusion to a sort of mating *ritual* is simply religio-fied rape.

    The little twin girl who asked her bro what he was doing in his fort was likely no where near just-*siiighhh* – thinking about playing house and dollies. Her dad put that into her mouth for attempting to prove his point that the interests of children naturally go anything like as follows: boys=blue and girls=pink (used to be the reverse until the last century, btw). Likely, the girl was wondering which of her friends her brother planned to prey on with in the new “fort” that he “built to attack his friends”. Nice.

    Our first commenter says that evo psych is “broader” than brain elasticity. Which would mean that the former trumps the latter across the board. That is an incorrect assertion. As brain encouraged toward femininity (a performance to appease the oppressor) will grow different pathways than one encouraged toward masculinity (designed to privilege over the oppressed). This overrides any natural inclinations for as long as a person can be deluded. Once they are faced with their delusion, they must choose either to adopt double think (resulting in egregious behavior, such as promoting evo psych’s instructions on how to rape and get the law to excuse you due to “it’s just the nature of dudes, sorry raped peeps!” on a podcast while not seeing the misogyny of it all) or to drop the delusion. Once the delusion is dropped, the mind is handed over to real learning and plasticity.

    This cast is really disappointing. If anyone wonders who these podcast guys were talking about when they insisted that some political movements just wish to disprove evo psych, they are talking about radical feminism. Radical feminism holds men accountable for their excuses, such as the evo-psycho argument that men just like strange more. No, men have been *taught* to use their penises as weapons of control. That is why they risk their health (not as much as they risk women’s though) to do something that’s like, just “for fun”. Total lies.

    If you’re not just here to be the typical spin doctor and genuinely want to share correct info, then visit Radfem Reader. MRAs have been declared a hate group already.

Trackbacks

  1. […] Episode 112: Evolutionary Psychology – David Buss Responds to Critics – Part 2 (thepsychfiles.com) […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *