Steven Pinker explains the cognitive biases we all suffer from and how they can short-circuit rational thinking and lead us into believing stupid things. Skip to 12:15 to bypass the preamble.

  • streetlights@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    23·
    5 个月前

    This is not true. Firstly, Evolutionary Psychology is not involved with “animal” behavior in general, it is specific to human psychology.

    Most of the field focuses on primates because, unsurprisingly, that’s where we find most of psychology. It is wrong to say it has nothing to do with animals.

    Ethology is the general study of animal behavior.

    And botany is the study of plants? Every field in biology overlaps with evolution.

    Also Evolutionary Psychology is not the only approach to studying human behavior either.

    That’s not a challenge to the premise of evopsych. If anything it sort of supports it.

    • acosmichippo@lemmy.worldMEnglish
      4·
      5 个月前

      That’s not a challenge to the premise of evopsych. If anything it sort of supports it.

      It was in response to your claim that Evolutionary Psychology is the “the only accepted explanation for the origin of animal behaviour.” If you want to make that claim you need to support it with some kind of reference.

      • streetlights@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        22·
        5 个月前

        It was in response to your claim that Evolutionary Psychology is the “the only accepted explanation for the origin of animal behaviour.”

        Well it doesn’t refute that.

        If you want to make that claim you need to support it with some kind of reference.

        Well ok, perhaps “only accepted explanation” was claiming too much given that a large proportion of the population believe in souls or pure blank-slatism for human behavior.

        For the non-human animals though, it certainly isn’t controversial to say evolution is the only explanation for the origin of behaviour. What else could it be?

        • acosmichippo@lemmy.worldMEnglish
          2·
          5 个月前

          it certainly isn’t controversial to say evolution is the only explanation for the origin of behaviour. What else could it be?

          there’s a lot to unpack here. firstly, there is more to human behavior than genetics/evolution, hence nature vs nurture. in other words our human experience determines our behavior in addition to genetics.

          Secondly, that’s not the only claim or assumption of Evolutionary Psychology. There is lots of other stuff besides that statement that is controversial at best.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology

          • streetlights@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
            21·
            5 个月前

            Careful you almost misquoted me there

            For the non-human animals, it certainly isn’t controversial to say evolution is the only explanation for the origin of behaviour. What else could it be?

            there’s a lot to unpack here. firstly, there is more to human behavior than genetics/evolution, hence nature vs nurture.

            It’s a jolly good thing I was talking about non-human animals then.

            in other words our human experience determines our behavior in addition to genetics.

            It’s a common fallacy to suppose that because an behavioural adaption has a genetic basis that therefore having the genes determines the behaviour.

            https://areomagazine.com/2019/08/20/seven-key-misconceptions-about-evolutionary-psychology/

            Misconception #3 in the above.

            Secondly, that’s not the only claim or assumption of Evolutionary Psychology. There is lots of other stuff besides that statement that is controversial at best.

            Evolutionary Psychologists make claims, some of which yes are clearly lacking in explanatory power, evidence and predictions.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology

            Yes I’m familiar with Wikipedia, if I’m just going to be talking to a search engine here I’m not terribly invested in continuing.