= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
knb comments on Problems in evolutionary psychology - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (102)
Relatively few posts are tagged "evpsych", but there still has been much criticism of ev. psych here, most of it highly repetitive and derivative. Wrongbot wrote several posts criticizing ev psych. During the "PUA wars" there were many posts written criticizing ev. psych. Recently Wrongbot wrote his post about "thoughts too dangerous to think" where he basically said ev. psychology would turn you into a sexist, so you should avoid thinking about the subject.
Yes, Kaj, I know you haven't said it was useless. If you read my comment, you'll notice that I never said you said that. What I am saying is that, since there has been an ongoing effort to discredit ev. psych from the very beginning, it is unlikely anyone significantly interested in ev. psych has not run into these criticisms.
You also never gave any evidence that a significant number of people on Less Wrong really are making overconfident, novel claims based on ev. psych reasoning.
My sequence on Sex at Dawn isn't a criticism of ev psych as a discipline. It's a criticism of certain conclusions drawn (mostly) by popular science writers, and offering a different set of conclusions that are themselves based (in part) on ev psych.
That's a massive over-simplification, and ev psych was never implicitly or explicitly called out as part of the danger.
If anything, I am one of the people making "overconfident, novel claims based on ev. psych reasoning." I'm not even sure I could disagree with that description of my ev psych posts to date, though I'd probably include a caveat about the degree of my apparent overconfidence.
I really never got the impression of overconfidence from your Sex at Dawn series. I think you did a good job of including the necessary caveats and cautions.
I'm sorry that I misunderstood your intention. However, I do think that if one takes your line of argument seriously, it wouldn't lead to ignoring ev. psych--which more than any other area of research addresses sex differences.
I would expect to get much more credible evidence on modern sex differences from psychology or biology, but I guess that the topic is taboo enough that most researchers steer clear of it. Which might explain part of ev psych's poor reputation--more willingness to pursue taboo areas of research.