Except that evopsych is 99.99999% bullshit.

Hell, much of regular psychology is bullshit.

Evopsych belongs with all the other pseudosciences- in the trash bin.

I am not in the business--but it is not wholly crap.

Do you think-you--that we can glean anything from trying to understand biological motivations for behaviors? Surely ther must be something, no?

The men I know are not rapists and don't think rape "jokes" are funny.

I teach in an area where women are treated as sexual objects and hear many very offensive statements to that end-I call them on it EVERY TIME. And I am among the few that do.

Don't let your eyes glaze over just yet.

What statement is wrong? Call me dense--I do not see it.

would say that. I most certainly-did not make that assertion. That is not a fair argument. Anyone that would say or think that would not be thinking in any rational way.
I am a man. I know many men. No one I know would make that assertion.
I do not want to call that a straw man-quite-since there are probably a few who would think such a thing.
But the vast majority of people would NOT say that at all.
You can't disregard ideas based upon the conclusions of a small minority. That is just not right.
Clearly, there is, in some, a drive to do terrible things. How can trying to discern the motivations of those be a bad thing?

And define as rape. One animal did not say yes and feels violated. Bullshit

This is just more mra garbage

You did not read my entire post--it is clear. Don't call me MRA--not on your life--I hate their immature BS.
I said---WE get to decide what is right and wrong--and rape is MOST DEFINITELY wrong. That it happens in the natural world is irrelevant. THAT is what I was saying.
Please respond AFTER you read what I posted. We are on the same side

How do you know that whAt animals do meet the definition of rape? With no conscious, not brain development or thought, no consideration or boundaries with mating, no societal pressures or gender conditions .... How can you or anyone else define what animals do as rape.

This is where evo fails. We take our human existence today, our brain power, our progression and apply it only 10k but should be 100k in the past.

I invite you to please stop for a second--
We are animals--ones with great brains. That is why we get to decide what is right and wrong. We expect certain things of the others of our species.
This is fact.
I did not say that what a male lion does, or what a male loon does, is rape.
I am not saying that it has the same effect upon a lioness that it does upon a human--no way.
I am saying that, for a few in a species, this MAY be a way to pass along the genes.
I do not like it--in fact--my wife used to like loons. Then a DNR employee told her about the disreputable activities of the rogue males of the species. It pretty much ruined her and my romantic view of those awesome birds.

We are glorified animals--this is known. We are prey to certain drives.
This does not, in any way, excuse behaviors--not at all.
It simply helps to understand them. Trust me--rapists are the LAST people I want roaming around.

Is going to give us answers does not work.

Thru out your whole post you say we do not know this or that then conclude with this info we should apply to humans to better understand.

Because one animal does something does not apply to all, I know you get that. And certainly does not apply to our biological self yet you want to attach it to human to have a meaning. When the bottom line is we do not know shit.

Please-----do not read past my words! I am saying that even if it occurs in the natural world(it does)--is not an excuse for it. IS NOT!
I don't care what most animals know. I don't decide what is right or wring based upon what animals do--because I can think!
There are species where the males kill the mother's young so that the male can drive the female into estrus and force the mother to have his progeny.
I do not say, and do not think this is OK--something occurring in nature does not determine our attitudes about that thing.
Criminy--please read my whole post before responding!

if you're interested

http://www.democraticunderground.com/111413691

It has no way to test it and that is a big deal in science.

There are probably few biologists who would deny that behavior is at least partially congenital, maybe completely so. But any scientific hypothesis must be able to be tested. As far as I know -- I am no expert here -- the hypotheses of evolutionary psychology have a really big problem with that.

If one cannot test an hypothesis, it should be discarded. That seems to be the way with much of evo-psych and that is why it is so controversial.

Justifiably so.

also-you cannot just trash ideas because they cannot be tested--NO--you must only take them with a grain of salt-knowing they are just concepts.
I honestly do not get why this is an issue here.
We are dealing with ideas-not judgments. If someone make some decision based on these ideas, they are being unrealistic.
I do not understand why these ideas are a problem.
If some dillhole creates a philosophy upon these ideas-then, YES--they are being illogical.

There are many who claim it is and seek to lend that legitimacy to the discussion to further an agenda. It isn't a science and it is important to make that distinction.

unless and until then, I cannot afford to spend time worrying about evo psych's contentions.

but it is still interesting, isn't it?
As long as they don't pretend that they can explain or predict behaviors--it is certainly interesting how we came to be the species we are.
By the way--it will never, ever be proved that a certain behavior is based upon some vestige behavior--impossible.
Keep up the good fight, though--I do watch!

Evolution is not a ladder or a staircase leading anywhere.

Most any ordinary plant carries more in it's genetic toolkit than humans do. Species can evolve and become more complex or less complex.

The diversity of human society is so great -- patriarchy, matriarchy, and a zillion other loosely defined and unscientific labels... that these labels often tell us more about the observer than they do the observed.

Our particular society is quite upset with the idea of aimless evolution. Everything has to fit into a hierarchy. Gods on top, down to our "leaders," down to the poorest human, down to the animal, down to the plant, down to the slime mold, down to the bacteria.

But that's not the way nature IS. Humans are animals, in particular mammals. Mammals are quite diverse in their social structures, and humans are incredibly diverse in their social structures.

At this point "evo-psych" tends to be as wacky as Freudian psychology. It's not a science, and the prejudices of the evo-psych "observer" are often on display.

that is why I put lesser forms in quotes--to quote others. Subtleties are lost online. Don't let me lose you there!

Evo-psych is indeed merely conjecture-but not useless at all.
Looking to find evolutionary drives is certainly interesting. The ideas are not all half-cocked.
I try to be precise with my phrasing--but much is lost, I'm afraid.

I agree with you--understanding ourselves is not simple.

In all kinds of manner. So you may find it amusing and interesting, these mere conjectures, but a lot of us find them dangerous especially when our boys are raised with conjectures as facts

not necessarily with the information itself.
Is it taboo or unacceptable to even investigate these things?

up to apply to real life today.

that is not information

in·for·ma·tion [in-fer-mey-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news: information concerning a crime.
2.
knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data: His wealth of general information is amazing.
3.
the act or fact of informing.
4.
an office, station, service, or employee whose function is to provide information to the public: The ticket seller said to ask information for a timetable.
5.
Directory Assistance.

No drives, no fallacies, nothing whatsoever that can be linked to our natural evolution?
I don't believe you would say that because it would be silly to do so.

We look at our biology in the light of evolution ALL THE TIME. We can look at a trait and suggest reasons how it could be helpful or harmful in the past.
Why would our psychology--which is based within our brains, which have been acted upon by the forces of evolution for ages--why would there be no connection? And how is it dangerous to speculate??

The fact is--it isn't dangerous. It IS dangerous to base unwarranted conclusions upon these ideas. THAT would be bad science. THAT would be using these ideas(which are formulated by using information) in order to justify some twisted mindset.

So--firm conclusions cannot be drawn--I know that.
Proof cannot be found to state with any certainty that one behavior springs from one that came before.
But-so what?? As long as a person does not misrepresent this stuff--it is not a bad thing--only when used badly.

By the way--I was out of town until now-so I could not respond in a timely fashion.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

I prefer to look at things anthropologically. At least it's based on observations and not bs.

...and the difficultly of proving particular claims about particular behaviors, which are, unfortunately, often just exercises in conjecture.

The big problem is that any it's very hard to test anything in evolutionary psychology. The most effective conceivable experiment, for instance, to get a baseline on "raw" human behavior would be horribly cruel and unethical -- raising children in various natural settings completely deprived of contact with any existing human culture, forcing the few who survived to re-develop language and culture from scratch.

Since we can't do that, of course, it may be difficult, verging on impossible perhaps, to tease out which aspects of our behavior are purely evolved traits.

On the other hand, I think the basic concept that human behavior somehow has to be tied to our evolutionary past is sound. After all, where else would our behavior ultimately come from if you aren't going to make supernatural claims? It makes no sense that we're a pure "tabula rasa" with no inborn predilections whatsoever until we receive a cultural imprint.

It also doesn't follow that, in the absence of solid proof for any particular evolutionary psychology claim, that the default assumption must be that, until proven otherwise, humans are by nature loving, caring, paragons of gender neutrality and fairness, making the current prevalence of male-dominated cultures and societies nothing more than a random accident of history, something that goes on and on for no other reason than cultural perpetuation.