Thank you Neuro. I risked going down a rabbit hole and rewire my thinking a particular way. Like me I suspect a lot of people not trained in the field(but maybe trained in an other field such as engineering or comp science) would also be persuaded by the pop articles and even some youtube lectures but never would consider the valid counter arguments. Your video is crucial in this way, that you have straight up countered issue and provided the alternative viewpoint. And this type of video is rare in youtube(which is why we need to encourage and appreciate the effort). Also it raises bigger questions on pop science and its transmission. Shouldnt be these things, which are still very much under developement(and have potential to impact the society in a big way) be confined within the scientific community? What purpose those articles like "thanksgiving evolutionary psychology" serve other than to propagate a false notion among the general public. I think first debate needs to occur among the scientific community about these things before they are let out in the public...
I think that Robert Sapolsky explains it well... it's just one of the many buckets we have to explain behaviour. On it's own it's not that great, but in the context of all other buckets it can help us to understand behaviour.
Evolutionary psychology is the key 🔑 to human transcendence and power. When we separate what is necessary for us to be here from the higher organizations and purposes of the human intellect, then we can do anything. The key is understanding yourself. What worked in the past in tribes of hunter-gatherers, and the patterns of male rivalries doesn’t apply now. Doesn’t work to place people in proper occupations or anything. To be able to see them for what they are and how these things work, allows us to go beyond them. Maternal nurturing and safety behavior as well. Women can learn to take more risks too-bring cooperation tendencies to a higher level by doing so. Evolutionary psychology is really the foundation of the future if we use it in this way. Temet Nosce-know thyself
@@grapenut6094 He was refreshingly unpolitical after that though. I can't believe I forgot genetic drift and bottlenecks until he mentioned these. Considering GD/bottlenecks etc. puts these evopsych theories into more pseudoscience areas; the same way that development in neuroscience put phrenology (studying skulls) in the trash.
@@brianboru6685 I mean, not really... in his Stanford lectures he explains some of the same limitations and mistakes of evolutionary psychology. He is actually very critical of the field... but he also states that it can be usefull to explain some behaviours.
Note: I'm an entomologist and behavioral ecologist. I don't think there *is* a strictly adaptationist explanation for our keeping pets. I can't even come up with a Just-So Story about it. My brain just refuses. It's a combination of exaptation and spandrels that itself may have been the subject of diffuse selection pressures and co-evolution. We are incredibly social. Humans will form parasocial bonds with a mars rover because its optical sensors give it a cute face. That's probably a spandrel. It's just a byproduct of the fact that our brains want to form social bonds. Some bold/friendlier wolves begged for campfire scraps. Those wolves were selected for because we thought they were cute and fed them. It turns out, having wolves in your corner helps you hunt and fend off predators. That's an exaptation. So we integrate our social groups with these friendly wolves, and start co-evolving with them. It's a similar story with cats when we started doing agriculture (except now, the expansive sense of empathy we have has been defininitively extended to non-humans) and on it goes.
" Humans will form parasocial bonds with a mars rover because its optical sensors give it a cute face." How is this not an Evolutionary Psychological theory? EP often hypothesizes spandrels, just as you did, and then goes seeking evidence for it. For example, your pets = spandrel theory could be interrogated by looking for correlations in the evidence for hunting activities and animal keeping. Congratulations - you just kicked down this videos' greatest straw man by engaging in some perfectly respectable EP.
A trait originating as a spandrel or exaptation doesn’t exclude it from EP, especially if that trait ended up providing a survival/reproductive advantage which led to its genetic or cultural* propagation. Our friendliness to wolves may have only been a by-product of being a highly social species, but that trait was brought on by evolution in the first place. This led to the co-evolution of dogs and humans, evidenced by a list of parallel-ly developed genes. Not to mention the fact we are focusing on the human’s perspective, ignoring the wolf’s. Being friendly and cooperative with humans provided a survival advantage to wolves willing and capable of acting in such a way. This of course led to the speculation of dogs through selection of genes, because an unfortunate truth is that genes can and do influence animal’s (and human’s) behaviour to varying degrees. Not only did dog’s biology change during speciation, but their psychological and social profile too; an example of non-human EP in action. *Note how I said culturally propagated, as well as genetically. EPs are rarely genetic reductionists or determinists, even though critics claim they are. Of course culture influences how we act in ways which are either too varied or too recent to have affected our genotype. EP is still a valuable approach because there are other aspects of human (and non-human) behaviour, universal in all cultures, which can be explained through natural and sexual selection. Not to mention dual-inheritance theory, which proposes that culture itself can be explained in terms of non-genetic “cultural evolution” and “cultural selection.” Hopefully these ideas will become part-in-parcel with EP one day.
@@sednasix6608 obviously. One's ability to imitate a famous voice is 100% correlated to the credibility of one's argument. It's just how science sciences.
I feel like you're assuming that what is natural is what is right even though there is no reason to assume so, for example even if rape turned out to be a natural cause of evolutionary psycology it wouldn't mean people will think "oh since its natural it should be legal"
I don't think what is "natural" is what is "right". My issue with the evolutionary psychology research around rape is how it gets discussed with wider audiences and how it is used to casually excuse harmful and socially unacceptable behavior as "human nature" (typically to benefit those traditionally in power). By admission of evolutionary psychologists, our psychological mechanisms do not predict behavior. Culture, social influences, and our capacity for a moral code also have an intense impact on our behaviors. And last I heard, most people don't rape other people. If you flippantly throw around evolutionary psychology and say, "yes, buuuuut rape is actually a natural thing", then you _do_ open the door for others to feel it is more socially okay, which can lead to either more rape or more people excusing away the behavior. We can have conversations about the evolution of certain traits without defending them. Beyond this, there has been extensive criticism of evolutionary theories surrounding rape because we don't have sufficient information about environmental or cultural factors that would have driven this genetic change, it's unlikely that rape generally would have net fitness benefits for most men, and even more recent research has failed to support this hypothesis. Anyway, I appreciate your comment! I like talking about stuff like this.
@@neurotransmissions I have no idea where you get the slightest inkling that when rape or if rape was actually attributed to evolutionary psychology it would somehow be casually excused, also I saw you used the word “human nature”. Well what do you mean by human nature? Is it human nature to kill burn and destroy? If you say no then how exactly do you explain that over the last 3,400 years, humans have been entirely at peace for 268 of them. Also too just touch on the whole rape thing, animals rape each other all the time. Dolphins have tried raping human woman. Apes have raped Deers. So saying it’s not at least somewhat of an evolutionary thing it like arguing we didn’t evolve from primates, or arguing that the animals are mimicking our behaviour
You are absolutely right. Rape is a natural thing. To say that is not really to support it.... Why is it important to know that rape is natural? Because knowing that, we can look for solutions. Rape is not the consequence of "rape culture"; it is the consequence of the lack of "non-rape culture". War, homicide, jealousy and rape... are natural things.
You explained the branch of evolutionary psychology very well. Further; much of your criticism against evolutionary psychology ia valid too. In the end you reached the conclusion that evolutionary Psychology is a mixed bag; it has it's valuable explanatory power but some limitations too. But then why you chose the title of your presentation so extreme? Why you called it garbage?
Yeah but I just had an argument with a friend who took this literally. He now believes evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience. Which is incredible because in comparison to most psychology it is far more reasonable and approachable. In addition, utilizing simulated experimentation EP oversimplified can give great insight into things like developed altruism and selfishness and complex systems with independent agents.
The biggest problem with EP isn't EP. It's the interpretation of EP as a "so born this way" premise for justifying destructive behaviours. Genetic determinism is false. Genetic influencing there is a strong case for. The reality is that psychology is information. The overwhelming influencing factor behind it is environmental information. There is observably a feedback loop which preserves patterns forged in a living entity's life time and passes those patterns on to the next generations. Some point to epigenetics and there maybe clues there. But the truth is we don't understand the mechanisms behind preservation of behaviours into the genetic code (if that even really is a part of the mechanism since it only really preserves protein structure). All we can really say for sure by looking at studies of identical twins is that genetic influencing is a thing, but is absolutely overridden by environmental influence and the elusive "free will" or "qualia" which commands and directs the mind.
molecular determinism mixed with quantum randomness would completely explain behavior, unfortunately we don’t understand anywhere near close to understanding how molecular interactions in the brain explain behavior. But the only thing we don’t have evidence for is the idea of free will. We can still make decisions but we can not choose how the the only things that can influence our behaviors, molecular and quantum interactions, behave.
On the contrary, we can with certainty that genes eclipse environmental influences in determining human behavior. There is no solid contradictory evidence.
Not qualia nor free will directs or commands the mind. We may not understand what it is because our body and neurological system are to complicated to determine or predict exact behaviour but I believe our physical minds are deterministic(and probably random to some extent too) machines.
Humans evolved as social animals and they derive value from caring relationships. The fact that we care for a pets is a byproduct of our relationship with our own species. Pets initially provided a material benefit of keeping pests away, etc but now this emotional comfort is the primary driver of pet ownership.
While that is part of the story, I think a lot of empathy actually comes from getting better at predicting the behavior of prey. You make better decisions on it if you think of them as living things than just flesh. It has the side effect that humans and dogs feel bad about killing stuff and would rather not (if we could get meat without killing animals almost no one would). It is also useful for certain social interactions, especially with non-humans.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana I beg to differ, I personally know and have seen many meat eaters say that openly acknowledge that they are animals and feel pain no differently from the ones they eat, AND some will also or even smirk and say that they just enjoy the taste of meat so they will never stop eating animals regardless of if there are good vegetable alternatives; maybe it'd change if/when vat grown meat with giant hamster serum becomes a thing. The egg and milk industry are rather disgusting, possibly even more-so than the meat one, and yet as it doesn't involve death, vegetarians just don't GAF vOv (and fish supposedly don't have feelings too??? which is total BS). Morality has more to do aesthetics than most would admit. Edit: Pack of Wild Painted Dogs seem happy when they down a large antelope or wildebeest. I see no bad feelings felt. They seem overjoyed that they and their family, offspring and extended relatives, eat well for the next few days and survive longer to pass on their genes.
@@wayfa13 I said almost everyone. For example, some people still use fur or want whaling, but they are not the majority. The want or hunting success usually outweighs the feeling bad, but if given an equivalent, or even close equivalent, alternative both humans and dogs prefer not killing. Although this is more true of other Eutherians, because we are a lot more intelligent and social than most other animals. Also, people don't hunt nowadays, so they don't have to use (and thus improve) their empathy to predict prey behaviour, so will feel less bad about killing.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana omnivores in general would rather avoid hunting if possible, and only do it when necessary, of it they don't need to puch too much effort in it. It is only obligate carnivores that "enjoy" the hunt. But the reasons are more about conserving energy and most likely not a side effect of empathy.
We need to also consider distinguishing between what section of humanity you are referring to Love for dogs and cats isn't as universal as many think as there are entire communities that don't love them or consume them
Humans evolved to have pets to keep them calm during bad trips, enabling them to consume more shrooms which gave them a selective advantage because they were able to galaxy brain their non pet owning opponents back into the pre-stone(d) age.
Um... You basically argued against a minority view of what some would claim (more modestly than you insinuate - in fact, there's a lot of insinuation with immediate caveats in your "critique") is an aspect of Evolutionary Psychology: adaptation as an explanation of some human behaviors. Frankly, this was a seriously odd video. You bring up "critiques" of Evolutionary Psych, then explain that they don't really reflect what is currently being touted in EP (so they really aren't critiques, but misperceptions, yes?) and, then, when you FINALLY get to your gripe, you punt with generalizations about EP that I, personally, don't see as majority views. You even refer to Evo psych as a thing that has a belief system ("Evolutionary psych, says...") of its own, instead of an area of study with diverse modeling as a way to look at human behavior from differing POV's... Based on this video, one would think Evo psych is some new religion that has serious pitfalls (conflating Evo psych with White Supremacy is really sloppy, IMO) and that we should all be careful of this "iffy" idea that we are primarily biological beings... Bizarre.
I'm not really sure what your counterargument is? If adaptationism is a minority view, then what is the majority view? The first EP research center was opened at UC Santa Barbara by two of EP's most important members, Cosmides and Tooby, and they quite boldly tout EP as adaptationist. Here's the website where they outline what EP is - www.cep.ucsb.edu/primer.html The founding principles of EP are listed clearly. You can call those principles "beliefs" if you like. Don't get me wrong, this is not every EP researcher's perspective, but it appears to be the prevailing approach to EP and has been since its founding. I don't conflate evolutionary psychology with white supremacy, but rather point out the fact that many white supremacists use EP to bolster their own misguided beliefs. Interesting that you point out that specific concern, though, among all of them. 🤔
@@neurotransmissions Well, right there in the link they spell out that adaptation is only one element of consideration, so again, I don't get characterizing EP as "essentially" adaptationist (this is one group of researchers' primer, BTW, but an excellent one, IMO). Chance events such as mutation, recombination, drift, and gene flow maybe more important than natural selection, as you said, and this is something being considered these days, as I understand it. Also, I would say the founding principles of of EP would be considered a bit quaint these days and I would agree that adaptation was the key ingredient when EP was in its infancy... It's not so much that I think what you said is wrong, just a bit general and, frankly, sometimes misleading (again, you spent 20 minutes on what is misunderstood about EP, not what's "wrong" with it) when it comes to the framing that EP provides. I just don't see a lot of scientists making concrete behavioral claims using EP. Of course, there are sloppy scientists doing so, but I just don't think it's entirely fair to judge EP by those who do. Basically, it feels like a "click bait" title that proports to discredit EP, but only critiques (correctly, IMO) one facet of the field... Again, not incorrect, just a little misleading, to me. I bring up the White Supremacy angle because EP has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with that vile belief system. The fact that bigots hijack EP is no more relevant to whether or not it's a useful frame as the relevancy of the misuse of Evolutionary Theory by White Racists as to its usefulness as a Scientific Theory... Of course, racism is disgusting, but it really isn't relevant to your video: "Evolutionary psychology is mostly garbage" ... Again, the misuse of EP by bigots has no bearing on whether EP is a useful frame, so it just feels "sensational" to bring it up.
I appreciate your reply and I think we are generally aligned in what we're talking about, with a few differences. I believe that EP places more priority on adaptation than perhaps you do. I think there is an allure to describing our psychological mechanisms using natural selection because then there's a "reason" why we do things. I brought up some of these other criticisms because I knew that if I didn't, others would. I brought most of them up primarily to defend EP from being unfairly attacked or characterized. However, there are some that also deserve to be discussed or scrutinized. For the most part, I was viewing this video like carving a marble statue, chiseling away the elements that obscure what I see as a very large issue. I think it was important to briefly touch on them. Finally, I agree that misuse of research does not impact the potential use of any field as a useful frame. However, it is important to examine trends of who misuses certain kinds of science for nefarious reasons because it may indicate an issue in how that science is shared. It is "sensational", but it is also true. And since it is true, it is worth bringing it up, even if it is uncomfortable to acknowledge.
@@neurotransmissions I certainly agree that popular notions of EP give glib explanations (often based on misperceptions about Natural Selection!) for complex behavior and anyone attributing behavior on the basis of adaptiveness alone is missing the complexity of a field that I see as more useful for a frame to look at certain behaviors (rather than as an explanation for those behaviors). I take your point in pre-empting "misperceptions" about EP and I'll admit I was being a tad persnickety, but it seems you have a very sophisticated audience (I appreciate your channel, as well), so I'm not sure it was really necessary to spend so much time on misconceptions about EP (again, persnickety), but you would have more experience regarding audience responses (I was wanting you to get to your critique, personally), so I'll concede you may have done what was necessary to avoid an avalanche of haters! As to the racism issue: You have a point that these things should be acknowledged, but again, this seems to a sophisticated audience (I don't see any off color stuff insinuated, even) that this wouldn't be an issue for. But, I can also see how that could be a naive position to take... It bugs me that we have to talk about White Supremacy when we should be discussing the general merits or demerits of EP, but I concede (again, ugh) you're right to bring it up. I guess I would just emphasize a little more strongly that one has nothing to do with the other. Finally, thank you for responding. I feel like I have a better idea of where you're coming from and I appreciate the thoughtfulness you showed in your responses. I will definitely subscribe to your channel (I'm also a cat lover!) and look forward to watching more of your content.
21 minutes in: a significant anti-bias bias, which explains the obviously click bait headline. There is a fundamental flaw in the "essence" part of this argument: the impact that chronic Fear has on how organisms evolve/de-evolve. Something that this guy is high in I think
It would be ill-advised to reduce the whole of evolutionary psychology to its misgivings, as literally all fields make fallacious assumptions and pass them off as fact. I'm far from the biggest fan of evo-psy, but I do see its utilty. Its problem is the same as any other discipline. Those in the field who do not account for other related fields, make these false assumptions. We can see the same with sociobiology, which used to be behaviorism. Despite changing its name, its back to its old tricks, social constructionist proponents are denying the reciprocity between biology and environment. They are pushing an ideology. Everytime a field denies other fields, they are pushing an ideology. Same happened with genetic determinism, trying to push that old eugenics canard. As a scientist, you should stray away from such generalizations and reduction. Yeah, it does need to be criticized, but going sensationalistic and calling it garbage, is going a tad too far imho.
I am an evolutionary psychologist (one of the 6 who watched it). We have heard many of these critiques repeatedly... and it is tiring to repeatedly rebut the straw men args, misunderstandings, misperceptions, mischaracterizations, etc.. Suggest those interested do web searches for these articles: “Yes, but…” Answers to Ten Common Criticisms of Evolutionary Psychology Seven Key Misconceptions about Evolutionary Psychology
Oh I am sure you are just another straight white conservative trying to save his racial hierarchy. Or at least that's what this video would have me believe.
I usually love the content in these videos. My only issue with this one is assuming that the current field of evolutionary psychology just focuses on cognitive psychology from an evolutionary or “adaptiveness” standpoint. As a neuroscientist who was thought by people such as Louise Barrett (would definitely recommend her book and articles on these issues) and Peter Henzi, I found that even though many researchers and academics seem to fit into the “Swiss army knife” analogy or “the gene for” etc. with reductionist models (which true, this is a very common misconception and I don’t agree with many of these ideas) these aren’t the only approaches to evolutionary psychology and they are often critiqued by evolutionary psychologist themselves. People such as them and many others (can definetely reference them as a student on this field as well). I would definitely recommend reading into these views as they could bring a more scientific, clear, reliable and more complete approach to evolutionary psychology. These views often build themselves from the behaviour itself and not from antropocentric views seeking to be confirmed through an evolutionary lens (like the examples you reference in the video). So I appreciate clearing out the garbage in the field but I think it’s a bit unfair to reduce the field to the mistake some people made in the field. So I wouldn’t say this field is mostly garbage. In fact, these perspectives are growing among researchers and are finding a stronger place in science. Just my thoughts, I hope this sparks some discussion or looking more into this :)
Agreed in that some fundamental issues have to be rethought by the mainstream in the field. And things like cognition are fundamentally rethought with 4e cognition by thinkers like Francisco Varela. Again, I would definitely encourage reading Barrett. Other than that, this was a great analysis 👏
His critique is more of an attempt to defame evolutionary biology because of the current political agendas whose narratives are threatened by the advances made in this field. I don’t think they’re very interested in knowing more…
This is a great video. Evolutionary Psychology research routinely put forth untestable hypothesis, and then when the observations match the hypothesis they claim it’s true. So many aspects of human evolution are inherently unknowable, and that’s something that can’t be overlooked. Past unattested behaviors and psychology are mostly conjecture, which is why you see the meme of “archaeologists always say something is a ritual that’s lazy”. No, it’s intellectually honest. Nothing more can be discerned from the evidence. There are limits to our knowledge and that’s something that has to be acknowledged. Evolutionary Psychology is a useful tool, but it shouldn’t be the only tool to understand our past. It’s a hammer, but it should only be used for nails that need it. If it needs a mallet, leave it alone.
EP can be useful but it also sounds like a “just so” story. The big problem is that there’s no way to prove a thing right or wrong. A non-falsifiable claim can grow and be used to oppress.
a 37 culture study observing the same patterns in mate selection from primitive tribes to developed nations over the span of 30 years is not 'just so'.
@@myself2noone Well that’s aggressive. And incorrect. It’s my perception of many past claims which turned out to be false. It’s science. Don’t act like a jerk.
That introduction speech sounds an awful lot like the narration by Werner Herzog, from the documentary “Burden of Dreams” which I only recognize because I play Risk of Rain 2. edit oh shit he literally says werner herzog after the speech lmao i just posted this when he said the loved it against my better judgement part
They call EvoPsych "reductionist" then they bring a huge load of social constructivism slop as an alternative. A lot of false dichotomies and extrapolations in this video.
I started writing a novel angrily calling you out for straw manning because I conflated evolutionary biology (Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith ect) with evolution psychology. Books like the "Selfish gene" or "evolution and the theory of games" are my bible and I was ready to go for the throat. Especially when you showed books that looked like they were co-authored by Deepok Chopra. Now I see that there is an important distinction thanks to your video and I mostly agree. The Current state of evo- psych has a very Freudian feel. Probably because the human brain is so complex and its causal mechanisms are so poorly understood. I also believe that behavior in humans has been informed by evolution. I have a friend who is a speech pathologist so there are lots of interesting areas of research within the realm of linguistics that might be applicable. The idea that there are areas in the brain specialized for verbs, adjectives, phonemes and the like gives some hope that the field isn't completely baseless. On a side note, I'm not really a fan of clickbait / inflammatory titles for science related content. In my opinion, it weakens your position an unbiased commentator but hey, its your vids and I'm a purist who's not trying to make a career on RUclips. Thanks for the content as always.
Natural selection is survival of the fittest, though, "fittest" doesn't mean the 1st place as the word may imply. As Richard Dawkins put it "It is more of a survival of the good-enough." Also, implying the many traits our genomes provide us, like our appearance or behaviours, wouldn't affect selection completely ignores how humans choose their mates. There are certain things men find attractive in women and vice versa.
No one is implying all traits are neutral or nearly neutral, but let's not kid ourselves and pretend something as minor as whether earlobes are attached actually affects fitness in any meaningful way. No one is denying the definition of natural selection either, rather, there is a cost to selection in populations making it unlikely it is always the driving force of evolution. Especially not with so many neutral and nearly neutral mutations and traits that are accepted by by genetic drift.
I think, evolutionarily speaking, our relationship with pets began somewhat symbiotically, particularly with Wolves as they would receive food, warmth and the companionship of a pack while we used their heightened senses to help us hunt or alert us to dangers, and also for companionship. Edit: You tricked me! You knew I was going to write this!
There is an awesome documentary I watched years ago on PBS called Dogs and how they got they way. They had a theory that dogs evolved from wolves that would eat at the human dumps. they evolved to be more friendly to gain more food. It makes sense. The first dogs that could be called dogs that they found in the fossil record where at the first human dumps. Dogs evolved with civilization.
That was actually a fantastic Werner Herzog. I knew where this was going pretty quickly though, there should be no execution of evolutionary psychology....that sounds utterly terrifying. Just like natural is not good; evololutionary psychology can help us identify the operations running in the subconscious and be mindful of them. Most should be transcended if possible rather than reinforced, some can be reinforced and natural like altruism.
Well put. As long as we don't consider evolution to be an ethical force, the "bad" EP can be identified and dismissed. As you say, it should help us transcend our bias's. Underplaying EP's power only serves to give those with bad intent more power.
That's quite some intentional triggers and unintentional biases you've thrown in there to get people to react from their tribal instinct. I love the hypocrisy. But I am sure you are not aware of it and are fully convinced of your own angle of how to see this. But let me break it down for you and change a lot of those smarts you put in there into legitimate wisdom to help you out! Loaded title: Check Long intro with little content: Check Snarky remarks: Check Cherry picking: Check. Using hearsay: Check Creating multiple big straw mans: Check Not really using any of the well reputable scientists: Check Actually using that what you claim to reject: Check Painting everyone who is interested in evolutionary psychology with the same brush: Check It's quite clear with all these facts you never intended to take evolutionary psychology seriously and are just like the people who distorted Darwin's findings into Eugenics and distorted Nietzsche's views to promote atheism and Nazism. I feel sorry for the people who think this is a good break down of everything and fall for your biased political inception. Which I am sure of already excused yourself for since it's 'for a good cause'. Funny how our brains are wired like that, quite sure that I will also am making some assumptions here, but will do my best to avoid them. You are simply using examples of something you once heard without referring to where to find it and who wrote it to even see if it's a serious source(not intellectually fair, but a nice debate tactic you have unknowingly developed to protect your beliefs). I would love to see you do it with the books of Frans de Waal, or perhaps it might wake you up which would be nice. Since there is someone who knows how to do proper research and explain things without needing to use play on our feelings. None of the reputable scientists would use evolutionary psychology on such an individual level as you just did and use it as a total answer(like your example on jealousy). You are doing the same as many people who are purists in Blanc slate theory, Critical Race Theory or Evolutionary Psychology. So please learn to zoom out here, it would help your talents to reach much greater heights! Real scientists and people who properly understand Evolutionary Psychology know that it is just the biological basis 'where we start from'. You have culture and then again personal experiences top of that(and alcohol breaking those down first, explaining primitive behavior under the use of alcohol). It's just simply a fact that all the signals first enter via our more primitive brain and makes us feel certain ways that are hard to conquer (if needed, not all impulses are politically undesired) if we don't properly educated people. It tells us also why they are so strong and ignoring that would feed the monster/shadow inside (To throw a little bit of Jung in there). You are creating a giant straw man out of Evolutionary Psychology and making it as if those studying it see it like you, as if they take it as the answer to everything(which they don't). It's just as stupid as all people who go full sale for critical race theory or blank slate theory. If you are one of those two, you are also harming your own cause (but sadly those with dogmatic beliefs based on their primitive tribal feelings don't get that, but please try. I seriously think your work can be of great value) You simply are like people enjoying Grand Theft Auto of Game of Thrones yet condemn people who are trying to explain where these feelings come from since it hurts your ideological sensitivities. And that makes sense, since we integrate those parts and it literally hurts us when others disagree(also explains why religious zealots can react so strongly) In that same line you are (let's just say unknowingly, for a good faith perspective) using evolutionary psychology to play on our innate tribal sensitivities and trigger them to get on your side. It's easy for free thinkers without loyalty how that the hypocrisy in this video is almost uncanny. But again, this is now done on purpose, our brain will forgive almost anything we done and helps your rationalize it(no one is the bad guy in their own life's story) But if you think Evolutionary Psychology is still mostly garbage then think of the following: What does it mean to be a social animal? How did it come into existence, where does empathy come from? How is it possible we can communicate with each other of we are not at least for a certain part feeling/experiencing the same things base don our biology? Try not eating drinking for 2 days, or even try not going to the toilet and see how predictable your behavior becomes. You know what, just try holding your breath for 10 minutes. Hell we could throw out marketing, propaganda and even medicine if we would all be that unique (at least you are trying to diminish it to such a small thing). It's roughly 1/3 of our being that is here to stay for good and for bad and the bad part we need to solve via culture/personal development. But I dare you for your own sanity to challenge Frans de Waal or many of the well known reputable evolutionary psychologists out there 'directly'. And please avoid tabloids using these things for absurd small minded things that sadly most of humanity is interested in(and thus makes money). I directly admit that evolutionary psychology still has a long way to go, but so far it has been a great addition answering a ton of questions we would have in the past thrown on top of Philosophy. Like how Chemistry has been born out of Alchemy and Astronomy was born out of Astrology.
Woah woah slow down there buddy; I don’t want to wake up pregnant! 😂 Hey man thanks! I was just listening wondering wtf this guy was on about and waiting for someone else to refute this, but everyone else is just drowning on about pets and shit. What you said about Nietzsche honestly is the core of it, the core of both the video and the subsequent comments, the herd must maintain its own illusions. I believe many a science will soon be completely thrown away due to not adhering to our modern morality; namely a slave morality. Glad I wasn’t the only one commenting with objectivity and honesty.
My first introduction to evo psych was seeing it used in highschool to reinforce sexism that could be better explained by social structure than innate brain biology. I’m probably significantly biased against it to today. I don’t think it’s all bad probably but I am very skeptical of it.
Oh no, a new, groundbreaking field is messy, in flux, heavily debated, and filled with crackpot claims by those seeking new frontiers to claim..... sounds like science to me.
My plausible evolutionary explanation of pets: Humans are pattern-seeking social mammals who's tool use and collaboration allowed us to reach the top of the food chain. Part of our pattern seeking is intuiting agency and we are also good at forming social bonds and attachments (for example to children). Coupled with general curiosity and meeting other animals in our environment being a common experience, there is nothing stopping humans from treating an unthreatening animal as a friend, intuiting agency and thoughts in that animals head, and caring for it as we do for our own offspring - especially when finding abandoned baby animals in the wild. Where keeping pets has entered human culture, like any other behaviours it has become codified and refined. Keeping pets is just a human thing to do, like worshipping rocks, or seeing faces in the clouds, or caring for orphans, or making found family, or falling in love with a fictional character, or talking to a machine.
Yeah, delusion that an animal could somehow feel the same emotions as a human is not impossible through evolution. The arguments against this are anti-science, just because they damage left wing sensibilities.
I think judging the idea of, for example, whether rape is natural or not by the idea that that might justify it, is wrongheaded. Natural only equals good if you posit a naturalist theory of morality. If you do, then it is a problem. But I suggest that the problem is more in the naturalist philosophy than in the science. Killing animals for their meat is definitely part of humanity's past and one could argue that it has a positive evolutionary value. Vegetarians and vegans believe it is wrong based on empathy for the animals despite it being natural. If you have to justify every good as natural then you have made morality meaningless.
One can even make the point that there's this potential danger/concern with the theorizing of something as natural or adaptative being twisted/interpreted as "natural/adaptive therefore morally good," but there are two fundamental distinct things, one would be the natural theory, and other the moral theory based on it (or even inspiring it). While the natural theory may be highly questionable, even ultimately false/wrong, that would be from the lack of evidence and/or poor "theoretical structure" (like being vague and unfalsifiable), not that some people see that as the moral validation or condemnation of something, or even that it was inspired by something dreadful. "This is immoral therefore it's false/non-existing" is like "creationist epistemology," attacking evolution as a fact based on associations like eugenics and social darwinism. Sadly, this faulty reasoning is not that uncommon in criticisms of evolutionary psychology as well, which undermines the credibility/validity of the criticisms. Not that all criticism against it has this kind of problem, though, but it seems rather frustratingly common in certain topics.
Not to trust everything you read or hear sure is good advise. The human mind is so complex we don't even understand ourselves, so a healthy dose of scepticism sure is advised.
The most plausible explanation in my eyes for us keeping pets is that as we initially developed symbiotic relationships with animals based on survival and utility (domesticating wolves to help us hunt etc) that the cognitive algorithms that predispose us to identifying with and empathising with other humans and our young had the side effect of us doing this to the animals as we kept close proximity to them (bit like how we can see faces in things that aren't even living because our brains are finetuned to find those patterns) - we began to relate to their experiences as if they were humanish essentially, anthropomorphising them enough to become invested in their wellbeing as sentient beings instead of just a means to an end, meaning we began to develop the care for them to some extent like we do now. This in turn increased our desire to breed them for more companionable/desirable traits as well as utility based ones, further increasing this dynamic by making this experience more mutual between the animal towards us. I'm typing this whilst being cuddled by a cat - she would not be doing so if her species had not been bred to be less hostile and more affectionate towards humans. I in turn give her pronouns and a name and talk to her much like I would a human child because of a part of my psyche sees her as some weird pseudo human to bond with and care for. In other words, I think pet keeping is an extension of human need to bond and nurture other humans and we domesticated animals enough that our brains experience them as being close enough to humans to want to care for.
Sure, evo psych can be used in nefarious ways, and it presents hypotheses that are untestable, but that seems to be the nature of any task that involves looking into the past. I think that the valuable evo-psych material comes from drawing inferences using patterns of behavior that are also seen in animals. Their lower level of intelligence compared to humans suggests that any behaviors we have in common relate to a shared underlying structure. So behaviors like mate guarding, pair bonding, male physical competition, courtship rituals, territorial behavior, child-protection, exploration, etc. all must be related to an underlying structure that many organisms share. I'm not so sure that this video sways my opinion on the field.
Humans are complex mammals, and those that think evopsych totally reduces us and our behavior to the level of mere monkeys or bonobos would be incorrect. However, that humans are hardwired to prefer traits and attributes in mates that confer survival & reproductive value in a harsh environment is pretty self-evident. This is well-established and not some "just-so" story as claimed by those offering weak rebuttals like this Soybeard's video. Clearly these protests are from those who wouldn't thrive without the coddling of a decadent civilization and feel threatened by such realities.
No one is saying that we dont share underlying structures and emotions. But evo psych makes the claim that the way we lived throughout history has adapted and specializing those structures further and changing them. So if everyone disliked one fruit back then we would start evolving to all have a dislike for it etc.
"Their lower level of intelligence compared to humans suggests that any behaviors we have in common relate to a shared underlying structure" no it doesn't necessarily mean that.
What about game theory? Without it. EP is toothless, and it would be a collection of niche theories, and your video would land strongly. But in fact, game theory gives EP the predictive features that can be utilized by many of the greats of psychology, such as Kahneman, Tversky and Pinker. There is no need for EP to downplay the huge effect of social and cultural influences on humans. The fact that we are such sponges for it is a core feature of EP. The "toolkit" as you put it is one developed to allow flexibility. However, the central learning from EP is that the toolkit contains a lot of big blunt tools that are easily wielded, that developed at a time when they were ideally suited to the job of propagating genes over thousands of generations. But that doesn't mean that we don't have finer and more delicately flexible tools in the kit. Game theory and EP support that also. Yes, EP is itself a powerful tool that can be used to support archaic injustices, and even invent new ones. but if we hide from the evidence that supports it, those who would use it for this evil will be empowered by our dishonesty, using it as evidence to show that they only hold the key to truths of human psychology.
Although you provided valid points about the limited the capacity of evo psychology in explaining current human behaviors, you didn't really provide arguments against the fact that our psychology is still determined by genes. Mutations, genetic drift and recombination just provide randomness for the genes, but they don't disattach the influence of the genes over the psychology of modern humans.
I believe that evolution has had a role in our psychology, hence why I didn’t make arguments against genetic influences that have evolved over time. I take issue with the field of evolutionary psychology, and how willy-nilly many psychologists are with their hypotheses.
@@neurotransmissions If that is your main qualm, you might enjoy Lewis et al. (2017): Evolutionary Psychology: A How-To Guide. They establish a (while not perfect) better framework from evo psych researchers to develop their specific hypotheses.
@@GotAbductedOnce Either give some examples, or admit that your only problem with the arguments is that you personally don't like them because they interfere with your personal politics and code of ethics. It's always "This is wrong, because I say so", and never "This is wrong, and here's why". I wonder why that might be.
@@hotelmario510 he dismiss the evolution (earlobes is cherry-picking, what about blue eyes and beard?), he said that we are changing by chance (28:18), he strawmanning about explaining genome (28:42) in evolutionary *psychology*, he told that evolpsyc is just-so stories - when in reality evolutionary psychology is interested in what can be predicted from already known information, and all scientific hypotheses are just-so stories prior to being tested. Also, exaptationist and spandrel hypotheses have an additional evidentiary burden compared to adaptationist hypotheses.
@@РомановВладимир-ю9дthank you. I thought I was the only one that noticed this trend. Seems odd he'd dismiss actual science he claims to love ad a field.
@@phantom8926 I recall the time when usually people about the right-wing was anti-evolution cause of the Bible. And now many of the left-wingers are against evolution - because it is bigoted and patriarchal, and we need "real science" like hermetic principles. 🤷
You said a lot of correct (yet obvious) things in this video, but most of them can be applied to the majority of scientific fields concerning humans and human behaviour. I think that scientific debate in the US is pretty close to become impossibile, since (as you do in this video) people tend to immediately give a political connotation to every single claim or hypotesis.
This is an interesting comment, because I didn't say anything pertaining to the field of politics. I mentioned that there's a book about political division and I said "conservative", but I was referring to traditionalists or those who stick closely to establishments, not political affiliation. I find that when others say something is "political" outside of the realm of the political institution, they use that word to refer to the social messaging that's inherent in anything that involves humans and they are essentially saying, "I do not wish to examine the ways in which this impacts marginalized people in our culture." Evolutionary psychology studies how the mind interacts with a social context and it is studied by individuals within that social context - therefore it is "political". Evolutionary psychology research (and much of science, as you point out) contains social messaging and one has to be _willing_ and _able_ to ignore it to consider something unmarked by any particular point of view. So sure, it's "political". But let's not get defensive and build up walls. We need to be realistic about the ways in which science and media carry narratives that shape our culture and impact others. Don't blame the person pointing at the pothole for the pothole's existence. Instead, let's work together on building better roads.
@@ankansenapati3600 I would say that since the invention of brain imaging devices like the MRI, psychology turned into a "hard" science, just like when in biology the DNA was first discovered
@@neurotransmissions "This is an interesting comment, because I didn't say anything pertaining to the field of politics. " 5 paragraphs latter. "So sure, it's "political". But let's not get defensive and build up walls. We need to be realistic about the ways in which science and media carry narratives that shape our culture and impact others."
It sounds to me like you're being disingenuous while trying to sound reasonable. You don't like some of the findings of EP - because they challenge your own political beliefs. In order to preserve your political beliefs you've set about sacrificing straw men on the altar of political correctness. At least that's what it seems like to me.
Evolutionary psychology gets tested better than most fields of science. Cross-cultural analysis (especially small tribes), historical analysis, multi-species analysis (especially the other great apes), large data sets, and robust peer review. It is NOT "just-so-stories."
Far better than social psychology lol. If one accepts the fact we're talking animals it makes most sense it would seem to best understand our behaviors/psychology by studying us as animals with brains/instincts selected for by nature.
Your title and the silly introduction are not warranted by the content of the video. Popular exaggerations and misinterpretations are not evolutionary psychology. We understand the differences between Darwin's and Spencer's work. Part of the reason for pets being popular (beyond their original affordances) is the history of human and animal domestication - longer periods of playful, curious, & empathic behaviors, decreases in reactive aggressions (see Richard Wrangham) - delayed and modified brain developments within individuals and groups. Traits associated with and due to animal domestication and human self-domestication are evident from the fossil history of humans and many animals and are evident from experiments recently done with foxes. Christopher Ryan's "Civilized to Death" might have been summarized in the conclusion. Any critique of the efforts of evolutionary psychologists really ought to critique the efforts of Tooby and Cosmides. Please do so.
I think it was Stephen Jay Gould who said that the vast majority of traits in an animal are there not because they have been selected for but emerge from the interaction of other traits that have, like the empty space between the columns of an arc hasnt been "designed". A bit like there is no specific gene that makes you afraid of tigers. Evolutionary psychology seems to fall prey to this style of fallacious reasoning way too often.
Not sure what he's trying to argue here. First psychology is somewhere between 30 and 40 percent effective. So the science is controversial overall. However, the theory that the human psyche is partially or primarily controlled by our evolutionary biology is a valid course for psychology to follow We know that events from past experience effect peoples lives. So it's not a stretch to assume that events from history and prehistory could affect hormonal levels, fear effects, and ultimately behaviour isn't a hard path.
I've been thinking about all this every single time I see Peterson online lately. Great, fantastic video. Loved the way you speak and the avoidance of unnecessary attack or criticism. Also, we keep pets because "uwu doggo good boy! Who is a good booy?"
I came here because of Peterson and the fact that he inspires the mgtow movement. I was convinced that those people fail to understand what Peterson says, but it turned out I was wrong. This still confuses me
@@ciepykocyg8692 Peterson isn't an evolutionary psychologist, he has knowledge on it but he's a "Depth Psychologist", the naming sounds weird but it just means he's influenced by Carl Jung which he does mention alot in his college lectures and public talks ( stuff like the Anima/Animus, The Shadow, Archetypes, etc.)
@@marlinbethea-gullap4666 some of what JB Peterson says about "evolutionary psychology" isn't actually about this "school of thought" of evolutionary psychology mentioned here ("David Buss school"), but rather a broader and arguably more parsimonious school of thought. Not defending whatever he might have said, I don't really follow, and I only stumble with highlights focusing more or nearly only on BS. But not all is necessarily 100% BS, often he's mocked by bringing up lobsters, but that would potentially be one of those things speaking more of nearly-universals of biology and behavior, "game-theory" type of stuff happening either in a very repetitive manner through all branches of life, and also being then inherited. Doesn't mean that whatever generalization from lobsters would even necessarily apply to humans, and, to the degree that it would apply, doesn't mean anything like "we do it, just like lobsters, therefore is morally right," or whatever he may be saying. Gosh, I hate how he became some kind of "intellectual" super-star when he'll come up with BS like ancient DNA symbols in different cultures, the just as bad or even worse "epistemology" of whatever-makes-you-feel-better-is-true. And as a byproduct there's this scenario where people like him say 99% of BS and undermine the perceived validity of some 1% of non-BS they add to the mix, and make it hard to salvage the 1% of non-BS without risking being seen as a follower/admirer.
We are not "more evolved". Evolution is not there to make you "more advanced". Living beings evolve to *adapt*, and sometimes that means being "more intelligent", and other times it means being an ameba. There is no real hierarchy there, just a vast ecosystem(s)
That part about atoms ejaculating across empty space or whatever ... the 'empty space' part is probably meant to elicit veins bulging in space nerds' foreheads. 😅
I know nothing about this topic, but this video makes me know even less, especially due to the amount of smug I just witnessed, fix your presentation style.
Hypothesis: We began keeping some pets because they were useful in warning us about predators while we were sleeping or helping us to find or kill prey animals. Others may have been useful as practice subjects for children to learn skills that would later be useful in childcare: a kitten or puppy is better than an inanimate doll to function as a child surrogate.
From time to time an orphaned dog ancestor or kitten would as a last ditch appeal for survival might seek human contact and mothering or even a mother cat starving for death risked approaching humans and yelled hoping for mercy and a bit of food. I think still happens rarely today with the lynx or bobcat which however can't exist without avoiding humans since it is legal to "harvest" them for their fur. As animals we share a sort of facial disk with cats which also try to use facial muscles and expressions to manipulate other animals or companions. And the dog has been proven to be expert at reading human facial expressions.
This is my main problem with evolutionary psychology. It's so easy to, without any research, come up with a reasonable sounding explanation for any human behaviour that sounds "evolutionary" without really doing anything but think about it for a a few minutes. I know you're not claiming this is true or anything, but a lot of people could easily read what you have written and defend it as basically common sense.
I can’t align with a single thing you’re saying unfortunately. There are two layers at least. 1. Is the science of evopsych doing a good job of evopsych? 2. Is the idea that evolved outcomes of evolved brains a deep and pervasive reason for things people do and think, whether or not we’ve done a good job of explaining it all yet? 1. Probably not so much, but I don’t find that interesting and it diminish 2 at all. 2 is far more interesting and I’d say the answer is yes, by necessity. You can’t do or think anything with anything other than your evolved brain. Whether it’s exaptation, spandrel, thinking your way out of an urge, those are all still downstream of having a brain. I may be wrong, but I think it’s not reasonably broad to point out thoughts, instincts, etc that we can’t think of reasons for why they would have been adaptive and say therefore, that these things fall outside of evopsych or show it to be wrong. Those thoughts, etc are still taking place in the complex admixture of evolution. Any subjective thought, experience interoception, and the rest of it comes from some step of evolution even if it was a step that was in aid of something else. You can take the most unlikely to be evopsych phenomenon you could ever think of and it’s still coming out of brain matter which evolved. You seem to be hanging your argument on whether adaptations were either successful or as yet understood by the field. In an area so young as well as complex, one can’t proceed from there to the fairly confident conclusion you make.
I loved this balanced account and I absolutely agree. Some of the worst excesses of evolutionarily psychology seem to have gained ground in the popular imagination in the last decade, when I thought it had long since lost credibility. I admire your restraint in not naming the worst offenders. Something that you didn't give particular attention to was the was the the fact that genetics simply doesn't have the right levers to pull to direct cognition. Developmental cognitive neuroscience is fascinating, but when you look at how many layers of process separate DNA from cognition, it is clear that the attitude that "you don't need to worry about the details nature will find a way to encode cortical function" is naive. Linking odour to hormone response is one thing, linking visual stimulus to memory formation is another.
One of the coolest hypotheses in human evolution I found was the idea that we have been selecting for a longer and longer juvenile period of our life, because this gives our brains more plasticity for longer. By your logic I agree that really really adaptable brains runs in complete contradiction of evolving any hardline ways of thinking at the gene level
Maybe I’m not caught up in the loop but when your talking about “the worst excesses in the recent decade” are you talking about those manosphere guys on RUclips?
@@Jareers-ef8hp those guys certainly amplify some of it but i think i was thinking mostly of academic work and i wasn't making a judgement about the social and political messages, just the scientific credibility. Honestly, struggling to remember exactly who i had in mind now so feeling a bit like I'm BS-ing
Liked many aspects of this on the whole, like your summarization of EP and steel manning it against many common critiques. That said, it seems very disingenuous that you never made mention (unless I missed it) of reproductive selection vs. natural selection. Most all authorities on EP that I’ve heard emphasize this as the main driver for shaping behavior and it is a big “yeah duh” to me that natural selection will only account for the degree their needed for survival, thus, there is room for a lot of variability in behavior there after. To your point about it not having enough rigor to it as a science - another big yeah duh. Would have been helpful if you provided ways it could be more empirically driven, but I think there needs to be room for understanding as a social science it is never going to have the same ease with this as a hard science will - there simply isn’t a method for it yet. I agree in that they’d benefit from overlaying the theory within more modern populations…however, you’d mentioned earlier as others point out - many would take this as justification for racism or eugenics so there’s obviously going to be sociopolitical barriers to performing this kind of research. You may agree, but I think we’re in the midst of a “changing of the guard” within the field of psychology. The old institutions will die out and EP will be commonly understood as the framework because, let’s face it, it makes by far the most sense in principal but the evidence, so far as it can be provided, is catching up. *edit*: a just-so story for you - right after the birth of my 1st child, I noticed an almost instantaneous and sharp decline in my affection for my pets…especially my dog. I pondered this for years before I finally heard about it happening to a few others men that I know so I’ll put forward the following: having pets in todays day and age is not but a tool to signal one’s fitness as a parent to attract a high quality mate. But once you make the transition to real life parenthood, the signal is absolutely worthless and thus the relationship you have with your pet substantially changes with your situation. 🍻, JD
You say that EP is mostly garbage, but you failed to show what are the articles or books which compose most of EP which are garbage. You gave one example of pets, without showing the article. Pretty much all of your criticisms have counterarguments in the book "the adapted mind". You have to point out specifically which articles have the just-so stories
I've read The Adapted Mind. It's a good book and foundational to EP. I actually formed my arguments in part as a response to the ethos proposed in that book. I don't think it addresses the concerns regarding EP's adaptationist approach. Even Cosmides and Tooby, the authors of the book, fall victim to making evolutionary assumptions without providing convincing evidence or seriously considering alternative explanations. Also, I intentionally decided against discussing specific studies because a) I am addressing a macro issue and b) it would be tiresome to go through every EP study I take issue with. I mean the video is already 40 minutes.
@@neurotransmissions but how can you criticize an entire field of knowledge saying that most of it is garbage without showing what most of the garbage is? Sorry but you have to be more specific. I only took note of the criticism you do about pets, which I know nothing about, but will try to investigate. But what else? You don`t have to show every article, just show what are the flaws in most of EP`s objects of study, maybe? mating strategies? parental care? evolution of morality? language? agression and cooperation? you claim all those fields of study with thousands of articles are all mostly garbage?
You better do more in-depth research. It's clearly suggested, because the stories are really loooong, highly complicated in-depth details. This video is really shallow still, in terms of prove SCIENCE projects, by the way. I can tell you this, because of reading lots of stories that are extremely loooooong and in-depth stories exist under thebigSCIENCE stories that are linked to. But, thanks for your insight.
With such strong claim in the title, I suggest to start at 8:13 right the way. Better yet, read Answers to Ten Common Criticism of Evolutionary Psychology instead.
I don’t understand how people can think it’s a “stretch” for evolution to also be applied to Psychology and human behaviour. We have no reason not to think this, this is the default.
Because evolutionary psychology is reductive and works backwards from conclusions. Evolutionary biology is a complex field that relies on genetic data, while it does make theories, it doesn't propose that evolution is the explanation for everything in nature. Evolutionary psychology looks at a human behaviour and tries to rationalize an "evolutionary" sounding description for why that behaviour came about. It also doesn't address to the field of neuroscience, which makes the claim (backed by physical evidence) that rather than having evolved to have fixed behaviors, our brains have evolved to be adaptive to current circumstances. Basically, evolutionary psychology is speculation which is using the credibility of evolutionary theory to bolster unfounded claims. To address your point that to think evolution has not had an effect on our psychology is silly, I agree. But the field of evolutionary psychology does not actually have a relationship with biological evolutionary theory, which means that it's conclusions have nothing to do with how physical evolution has impacted our psychology. for that you need a complex understanding of how our psychical bodies (in recent years we suspect particularly the brain) relate to our states of mind, which, again, evolutionary psychology does not offer.
I am finding hard to understand this. So evolutionary psych is garbage because it over emphasises on fitness and less on variance. But isn't variance part of the fitness function when viewed at species as a whole ? what am i missing.
When a trait is selected, it means that those in the population without that trait must suffer a loss of fertility. ie they fail to reproduce. This cost of selection creates a limit to how much evolution by selection can occur before the burden to the species population overall becomes terminal. However, evolution happens much faster than that. Therefore, there must be a LOT of genetic change that is NOT a direct result of natural selection - random in various ways that he outlines. That even goes for some traits that become universal. EvoPsych tends to reason backwards: take a trait today and speculate what the selective pressure was that brought it about. But if a lot of traits are not the direct result of natural selection, then that reasoning becomes very insecure. Add to that the lack of evidence (because we can’t compare humans with close relatives) and Houston, we have a problem. That is what is meant by the criticism that EvoPsych is excessively “adaptationist”.
It's garbage because it attributes deliberate human perversions to natural selection and calls them inevitable thereby denying free will. The elites love it because then the powerful get to determine the course of history and say it's just as natural as gravity.
@@rhetoric5173That’s not strictly true: most attempts are simply fallacial and often presented with bad - or bad faith - arguments. The real reason a lot of EvoPsych is BS is oversimplified horseshit from self-professed experts & their favourite projections.
I think the reason for keeping pets is the same reason we want children - the same reason we want to create things, and solve problems. I don't know what that reason is, but I can definitely _feel_ how they all activate the same general area in my brain.
Maybe the desire to be a part on something important in life, like something to give meaning to our own lives? That or just company and emotional attachment.
Fitness is being misunderstood. Fitness is not about the individual, it's about gene replication. also evolution is obviously not restricted to genes and biology. A lot of our psychology is structured and molded by culture, but culture is also evolutionary. So evolutionary psychology is the most valid theory for explaining all of our present behaviour. He is forgetting that sexual selection has selected for 'neutral' genetic variation and that is indirectly natural selection and evolutionary.
Tbf I don't know a ton about things like climate change or viruses and vaccinations but I trust the science. Of course I allow myself to be skeptical if something doesn't make sense to me or goes against whatever my hunch is but when I have questions I like to think I have a decent grasp of where to look and what sources to trust over others. I also don't know a ton about evolutionary psychology but again, I trust the science. Its interesting to me however that when certain people outright deny climate change or the efficacy of vaccinations we condemn them as anti-science and we see them as clearly motivated by their own personal beliefs. I mean the evidence is overwhelming if they just looked for it, but for certain people it just doesn't align with their world view whether for religious, political or personal reasons. Regardless we can see the incentives underlying what they do and don't believe. I feel like this is very similar to evolutionary psychology but for a different kind of person. Some of the scientific evidence and claims don't align with their views or what they want to believe about the world and so they deny it. For them they feel like its different though because they'll say they've looked at all of the evidence but they see problems everywhere so obviously its a garbage field of science. But this is identical to what a climate change denier does. They latch onto the bad studies and controversies as being evidence that therefore the entire field of climate science can't be trusted. I think what leads to this more than anything is allowing a topic to be "off limits." If someone wants to deny climate change for instance I have no problem with that whatsoever. I'd just hope that they are willing to look at all the evidence including the best counter arguments and criticism of their own beliefs just as I would do for their evidence. I'm not worried about what conclusions I'm going to find, if it really is good evidence then I'd like to believe that means I'll change my beliefs to align better with what's true about the world. Its not like I want a climate crisis to happen, its just what I really think is the case based on the best evidence. The same is true for any other belief including anything and everything in evolutionary psychology. My preferences for what I do or don't want to be true just doesn't have anything to do with what's actually the case about the world and reality.
I like your credo! I usually believe things based on my own incentives. Setting a high value on personal autonomy, I wanted the covid vaccine to be a fail. The fact that it was - at least partially- it unlikely to have been predicted by my awesome intuition. Your humility does you more credit.
I see an issue with your comparison to fields like climate change or the efficacy of vaccination. Those fields have much larger data pools over longer periods of time they are drawing upon. They are pretty much settled science. Comparing evopsych to them seems odd. I’m a microbiologist by training and I have no problems with the concept of evopsych and it’s probably gotten a bad name from a minority of practitioners willing to push sensationalist findings that are based on extremely shaky studies with outrageously small sample sizes. Kind of reminds me of the rush to publish all kinds of dubious papers on how the microbiome ‘effects’ just about everything you could think of in my own field. Problem is all these flashy dubious studies make a media splash when they get published with of course no discussion about sample size, effect size and methodology, but the much better studies with much larger sample sizes and controlled conditions and meta-analyses that come out years later showing no statistical significance don’t get any media coverage (women’s preference in sexual partner traits changing with ovulation is a good example of this, as far as I’m aware none of these studies have held up when repeated with larger sample sizes). Again I’m a layperson not involved in a field anywhere near evopsych but it seems to me we may be making the mistake of thinking some culturally dictated behaviors specific to our period of time are universal and explainable by genetically inheritable traits. Like the idea men are more sexual, wired to cheat even though we as a culture at times have held the exact opposite view. Or even the idea man = hunter, woman = gatherer. There was that anthropological survey that found a substantial minority of women across cultures involved in hunting and vice versa. Idk, it seems the more anthropological works I’m exposed to the more clear it seems we have a bias to assume the behaviors/societal roles of our own culture equal some universal norm when they aren’t.
@@pameladickson1478 "I see an issue with your comparison to fields like climate change or the efficacy of vaccination. Those fields have much larger data pools over longer periods of time they are drawing upon. They are pretty much settled science. " But where is this coming from? Why is this supposed to just be obvious to me? Settled by who or what? What "settles" a science? Both me and you are absolutely free to look up any and all research in these fields we are talking about. I ask sincerely when I say have you done this search to see what's actually the case? "I’m a microbiologist by training and I have no problems with the concept of evopsych and it’s probably gotten a bad name from a minority of practitioners willing to push sensationalist findings that are based on extremely shaky studies with outrageously small sample sizes. Kind of reminds me of the rush to publish all kinds of dubious papers on how the microbiome ‘effects’ just about everything you could think of in my own field." But who are the people we get this information from? At least for me its always been "Researchers at some university found that X amount of research isn't reproducible" Its not coming from random people on youtube. Are there any large studies or metastudies that say evo-psych research is particularly prone to being faulty? "women’s preference in sexual partner traits changing with ovulation is a good example of this, as far as I’m aware none of these studies have held up when repeated with larger sample sizes" Which to me seems to have to do with this EXACT thing its talking about. This is just simple science. What if I used something in climate science that we've gotten better at understanding and point out that in the past we we're off by a little and then use that as evidence for the whole field being problematic? "some culturally dictated behaviors specific to our period of time are universal and explainable by genetically inheritable traits" But what if they are? Why would it matter? As ridiculous as an example what if it really was just the case that a certain Chinese population showed by far the strongest propensity to play the violin than any other population on the planet. I'm not saying that's the case, I'm saying it as an example. So what if its true? Are you going to prejudice people based on whats true or not? Are you going to deem someone less than or better than because they have a certain set of genes? Whats the alternative here? What if its true but people put pressure on each other to not mention it because its a social taboo? We're just supposed to play pretend with each other because we're not mature enough to handle the truth? Again, I'm not saying its the case, I'm using it as an example. It could very well be the complete opposite if thats where the evidence led. I have zero attachment to this field. As far as I know my comments are free to be seen by anyone and I post sporadic videos on playing the piano and nature related things. I don't spend my time in this field at all. But I guess I took it personally because it reminded me growing up in the Mormon church. I was told again and again and again what I could and couldn't question. I was made to feel bad for even going in certain directions of questioning. Evopsych is like the combination of perfect topics for some people where they just don't want to believe anything about the field because they already have their minds made up. Count me out of that altogether. I'm going to ask what I want, I'm independent and smart enough to go look up anything anyone claims and find good sources to see if they are bullshitting me or not. I'm not saying I know anything about this field. I haven't even made a claim about anything in this field because I really don't know. But I'm not going to pretend to know just because it feels like the right answer to me.
I think humans began to keep pets for a variety of reasons. Ask anyone with a pet why they got a pet and you'll get so many answers For companionship, for work, for protection, for pest control, to signify wealth. There is no one reason why humans have pets.
I can’t even watch this whole thing. It’s absolutely ridiculous how much you let your own subjective morals infringe on science. Yes, I completely agree that bias can play a role in what ideas evolutionary psychologists endorse, but your bias also can play a role in what ideas you reject. The modern scientific world is truly suffering a great deal from moral and political infringement
From what I understand, it seems as though you're only tackling this video as an argument against the Jordan Peterson-type hypotheses. You mention plenty of roadblocks to your reasoning, but that's it, you simply continue without seriously reinforcing why you're right. It feels honest, but also lazy. As a working class white man, the study of evolutionary psychology is important to me since the majority of the prefrontal cortex and the human conscience didn't evolve at all in the past 10,000 years, but before the advent of widespread agriculture, before any hierarchy at all. I look to evolution psychology to back up my desire for the world to become a completely egalitarian society through worker co-ops (or in the shorter term, labor unions). Dedicating an entire video to chastising the way the general public interprets scientific studies is just virtue signaling. There is no actionable way forward if you only tell people not to use scientific studies wrong in a RUclips video, and your authoritarian and condescending way of speaking may end up further invigorating your opposition. I would recommend the book Civilized to Death by Christopher Ryan. It's a very good book, even if it doesn't get too far into specific behaviors, but rather into culture instead.
I’m not chastising how the general public consumes Evo psych, I’m chastising evo psych researchers for doing bad science. And yes, that includes authors or public figures that cherry-pick data or gloss over counter arguments. Kind of like Civilized to Death, which is provocative, but not convincing. It’s simply more evolutionary storytelling. If you’d like to resort to ad hominem attacks by saying I’m virtue signaling, then we’re not really talking about the arguments I made in the video. Though based on your comment, it doesn’t feel like you fully grasped the conclusion I laid out regarding the field.
I'm sorry, I wish I hadn't been so aggressive in that comment. I honestly didn't watch past the twenty minute mark until you replied. I enjoy how you're encouraging the addition of more nuance to the concept of this field and I hadn't thought of the idea that the adaptation equation could flat out be incorrect. I know it's not the style of this video, but I would prefer a couple specific references to prove wrong that equation and the genetic changes within 450 years thing (and anything you would like to disprove to the audience), since that would immediately implicate genetic historians' current claims on the timeline of human evolution. I do disagree somewhat, though, that all academic work in this field must be strictly quantified. I personally believe more differing hypotheses would be better than completely eliminating those with possible logical holes. That leaves research in the future more open. But I'm sure the current Evo Psych researchers could use much more of your caution to view the field from more angles. Blind spots are called blind spots for a reason. But other than that and the majority of the significant content being so far into the video, I have no qualms anymore, so I apologize for being an idiot in your comments section.
@@Dkdudeman it’s all good man. I appreciate your comment and critiques. I think it’s these kinds of conversations that improve our understanding and decrease our blind spots, so thank you.
Truth claims definitely get picked up and tossed around in harmful ways. Unfortunately, this is true across the sciences in general where correlation becomes causation. My understanding, which is probably novice at best, is that multilevel selection and contextual pressure interact in a dance we call evolution. I would have loved more discussion about culture and I am sure editing is hard. I do find utility in exploring the function of adaptive human behavior within a broader biopsychosocial context. Maybe I've read too much David Sloan Wilson and EO Wilson. I try not to make too many big T truth claims. Thanks for the thoughtful work! Explore humbly!
Be warned this is basically click bait with incoherent arguments. Steve Pinker or Gad Saad would destroy these poorly formed arguments. I always try and seek out those that have a different perspective so I can understand both sides of the argument. Unfortunately this one is basically just diatribe With very little substance
I don't think it's clickbait at all. I literally am saying evo psych is mostly garbage and explain why. You can say the arguments are incoherent if you like, but I'm curious what doesn't make sense to you or what you think is poorly-formed. As for Gad Saad, I'm glad you bring him up. He's actually one of the people I would say manipulates evolutionary psychology to serve his ideology. He wields evo psych like a weapon, trying to "destroy" people as you put it. Jordan Peterson falls into this same camp. That isn't how science works. It's not about who is the best debater or who "wins". It's an instrument for examining the evidence and forming a more complete understanding of the universe, not a way to defend one's personal view of the world.
@@neurotransmissions you can't educate these people. they are bigots who want to justify their f-ed up beliefs through goofy """"intellectuals""" such as peterson. it is truly a sad existence.
I mean it's basically tautological to say that R4p3 is natural. It is a behavior exhibited by natural beings...ipso facto, etc. It doesn't really have much to say about what we DO about it, however. Matricide is also natural.
Firstly, can I say that as a Psychology student I really do appreciate you referencing the sources of information. Secondly, For a while there I thought your statement of "evolutionary psychology is mostly garbage" was driven by misconceptions. But you proved me wrong and I found myself agreeing with alot of points. Evolutionary Psychology cannot explain everything, and sometimes cant decide whether something is an adaptation or a by- product. This video was interesting to listen to and has provided me with some points to research for my assignment. (which is looking at the criticisms and limitations of Evolutionary Psychology. So thank you :)
You exaggerate and misrepresent evolutionary psychologists. None of them claim that "everything is an adaptation", neither do most of them ignore modern evolutionary biology principles. You seem to be erecting a straw man. Every hypothesis is a "just so story" until there is empirical evidence. Why is the "just so story" accusation not applied to social leaning theories or social conflict theories? I fear what you perceive as bad EP is research that challenges your existing world view, bias works in many ways.
A hypothesis is a starting point, a just so story is an ending point. They are not related in the slightest. Of course, for evolutionary psychologists, there is no difference between their first supposition and their conclusion, so I can see why you'd be confused, but they are supposed to be very different.
Great video 👍 & the narration was really good 😂 One request- Could you please make a video on BCI/BMI and talk about it's future applications & uses not only for the patients but also for the general public. Thanks for the amazing content ❤️
@@neurotransmissionsWhile you're at it, might it also be possible to do a video on finding specifically trained therapists and treatments for childhood sexual trauma / CPTSD, i.e., SGB (stellate ganglion block), ketamine infusions.?
Here I, a layman, go writing a plausible evolutionary hypothesis for why did we started keeping pets, as requested: we relate to our animal companions with the same affections as we do to our human friends. The animals first domesticated were kept around for utilitarian reasons (meat, keeping pests and intruders at bay, help with hunting and other chores), but we formed bonds with them regardless, as kind of a residual for our adaptive social behaviours. And we just kept having more and more animals around, once we've started.
It seems fairly obvious to me that animals have been useful for us in different ways for a long time. Humans being social species, started bonding with animals, through empathy and many other animals have the same capacity of getting attached to humans. It started as a sort of symbiotic relationship, like dogs hunting along man, and birds being used for food production, or perhaps for delivering messages. This utility of pets then has reduced or changed with technological evolution, yet the potential of bonding with them has remained similar.
I don't have any formal background (or understanding) of Evolutionary Psychology. I haven't read any papers or even books about it. But before watching this video I would have claimed to believe it, just because what I picked up through osmosis made sense to me. When you were laying it out, I was nodding along. But when you debunked it, you didn't address any opinions that I actually held. Or, I don't think you did? So now I think that Evolutionary Psychology may not be what I was referring to. My concept of the field was trying to understand differences between the world we adapted to, and the world me made. That our society doesn't meet our own human needs very well. Sedentary life makes us depressed because we're wired to be trekking in a savanna all day long. We pig out on candy because if we didn't take advantage of that berry bush, we might starve by next week. We're lonely because we live alone in tiny boxes instead of with a tribe of close family who all work together every day to stay alive. These are all what I was calling Evolutionary Psychology. I'm interested in understanding where we came from, how it shapes us, and how we can use that insight to make society healthier for us. What is that field called?
It's called evolutionary psychology. I understand the goal of this video being to criticize, but it has vastly reduced a field down to those things that are easy to knock down and ignores a lot of the nuance to it. Comparative psych relies on a lot of evolutionary psych principles. Animal psych relies on a lot of those principles, etc. If you asked any evolutionary psychologist, you'd get a slightly different synopsis of his or her field of study. I think this video relies on a very specific understanding of the field.
I'm curious to know what you feel was ignored in the video. I don't see how taking principles from a field makes it more valid. Modern medicine relies on principles of old medicine, but that doesn't mean we still think bloodletting is the ideal treatment for mental illness.
@@neurotransmissions In another comment, you said that your problem with evolutionary psychology research around rape is how it gets discussed with wider audiences. That discussion doesn't have any bearing on the validity of the research, but it sways your opinion of that research. I think it's a bit unfair to make that argument while saying that principles being used from a field don't make it more valid. Your former argument relies on applying opinions to the validity of an area of research. However, I do think that the principles taken from evolutionary psych that are applied to comparative and animal psychology are valid and evidence-based. I think there's a lot of nuance in how evolutionary psychology is applied, and I understand why that wasn't fully explored in the video - no one wants to upload a two hour RUclips video! Very few people are pure behaviorists or purely deterministic. Looking through the lens of evolution has not meant ignoring the past 12,000 years. There has been a lot of research regarding evolution more recently and how we may be evolving with modern day pressures and how past evolution interacts with modern day pressures. Drawing a reasonably logical conclusion that our social behaviors evolve as much as our physical characteristics is not so far fetched as the four humors method of medicine. We have strong evidence that the four humors were nonsense. We do not have strong evidence that our behaviors are not influenced by evolution, and we do have research pointing to that. I don't think that's a fair comparison. We can see a strong pattern of evolving behaviors and intelligence in the difference between other primates and ourselves based on when we diverged. The later the divergence, the more similar their intelligence and behavior is to ours. Bonobos who diverged from us 8 million years ago are less similar to us than chimpanzees who diverged 5-6 million years ago. That holds true with gorillas being less intelligent than bonobos and diverging before they did. Does that guarantee that our way of thinking and processing the world is evolutionary or that it continues to be? No, but it does suggest that the ability of a chimpanzee to use a lexigram keyboard to communicate compared to a gorilla's lack of capability has implications for our evolution as well. We are facing very different pressures for evolution today. We are not necessarily looking for strength in a mate, and modern medicine removes a lot of necessity for seeking a healthy mate. We are often seeking kindness, intelligence, empathy, etc. What will that mean for our evolution? I think that's an area of evolutionary psychology that is important and will continue to develop.
@@neurotransmissions Sorry to have written a small novel, didn't realize how long it was until I hit post. Just an area I'm interested in and worked in!
No worries! I appreciate the thorough response. First off, in that other comment, I was addressing the person's concern that they thought I was conflating what is "natural" with what is "right". I was making a point that you can discuss topics of rape without condoning or excusing them which, unfortunately, has happened a lot with evolutionary psychology in the general public. I specifically did not make that the focus of my video because plenty of others have more eloquently discussed that topic. However, I also presented some issues with the research itself, which was the primary critique I brought up in the video. We are in agreement that you can take valid principles from another field, but what I was saying is that cherry-picking the valid principles from evolutionary psychology doesn't forgive the other principles that, frankly, result in a lot of poor research. By no means am I saying evolutionary psychology is nonsense like bloodletting, but bloodletting certainly advanced the development of phlebotomy and the study of our bodily fluids. Does that mean bloodletting should hold the same validity as phlebotomy? Certainly not. In the same way, evolutionary psychology has not necessarily earned its validity simply because other fields take principles from it. I agree that evolutionary psychology very much focuses on modern day pressures, but typically within the context of genetic changes that happened during the Pleistocene and how they either synergize or conflict with our modern lives. Perhaps I am unaware of a surge of new studies about evolutionary trends occurring in more recent times? As stated, I don't think evolutionary psychology is invalid. I think it should be thoroughly scrutinized in order to rid the field of bloodletting-like research. As for your last paragraph, I think we are in agreement that the mind continued to develop and it is worth researching. However, as I make very clear, researchers must avoid evolutionary storytelling without having the rigorous evidence to back it up. I think that much of the best research in the field is yet to come as we continue to have a longer history of recorded time. I'll be curious to see where evo psych goes next.
Humans started kepping pets when they realised that doggies and kitties were cute 💕 and good bois. (Just joking, great video!!) P.s.: when you said "and that's the last time I'm going to say anything nice about Pinker" I screeched. As a Doctor in Linguistics I agree.
It would be naive to assume natural selection plays zero role in psychology, but surely, to focus entirely on the potential evolutionary history of psychologies while neglecting the environmental pressures that induces these possible evolutionary adaptations is inadequate.
I don't think anyone is genuinely doing that though. Evolution is a response to environmental pressures. We inherently have to consider those pressures to understand why certain adaptations carried forward. In applying evolutionary psychology today, we have to consider how those adaptations are interacting with our present day environmental pressures. There's no genuine separation there, and I haven't seen a paper published that argues it can be fully separated. We don't live in a vacuum, you know? Seems like a strawman.
Well the issue is that we have a limited understanding on how our hunter-gatherer ancestors live, let alone how they interacted with and were affected by the environment.
Sorry about the audio from 4:39 to 7:39. Those clips got boosted accidentally, so apologies if it blows out your eardrums!
I was wondering why the noise floor was so high... Luckily I was on low volume hehe 😅
Thank you Neuro. I risked going down a rabbit hole and rewire my thinking a particular way. Like me I suspect a lot of people not trained in the field(but maybe trained in an other field such as engineering or comp science) would also be persuaded by the pop articles and even some youtube lectures but never would consider the valid counter arguments.
Your video is crucial in this way, that you have straight up countered issue and provided the alternative viewpoint. And this type of video is rare in youtube(which is why we need to encourage and appreciate the effort).
Also it raises bigger questions on pop science and its transmission. Shouldnt be these things, which are still very much under developement(and have potential to impact the society in a big way) be confined within the scientific community? What purpose those articles like "thanksgiving evolutionary psychology" serve other than to propagate a false notion among the general public. I think first debate needs to occur among the scientific community about these things before they are let out in the public...
I'm an Autistic/Asperger's Neanderthal
I believe math never existed its only a human observation on how we can make sense of it all.
I'm a Neanderthal hybrid born into a Cro-Magnon's kingdom
I think that Robert Sapolsky explains it well... it's just one of the many buckets we have to explain behaviour. On it's own it's not that great, but in the context of all other buckets it can help us to understand behaviour.
Evolutionary psychology is the key 🔑 to human transcendence and power. When we separate what is necessary for us to be here from the higher organizations and purposes of the human intellect, then we can do anything. The key is understanding yourself. What worked in the past in tribes of hunter-gatherers, and the patterns of male rivalries doesn’t apply now. Doesn’t work to place people in proper occupations or anything. To be able to see them for what they are and how these things work, allows us to go beyond them. Maternal nurturing and safety behavior as well. Women can learn to take more risks too-bring cooperation tendencies to a higher level by doing so. Evolutionary psychology is really the foundation of the future if we use it in this way.
Temet Nosce-know thyself
@@grapenut6094 He was refreshingly unpolitical after that though. I can't believe I forgot genetic drift and bottlenecks until he mentioned these. Considering GD/bottlenecks etc. puts these evopsych theories into more pseudoscience areas; the same way that development in neuroscience put phrenology (studying skulls) in the trash.
@@spiralsun1 I'm sorry, I don't use religion to make scientific predictions
@@grapenut6094 look up for applied behavioral analysis or interconductism
@@brianboru6685 I mean, not really... in his Stanford lectures he explains some of the same limitations and mistakes of evolutionary psychology. He is actually very critical of the field... but he also states that it can be usefull to explain some behaviours.
pet-keeping evolved so we had someone to practice our werner herzog impressions on
lmao yeah
Note: I'm an entomologist and behavioral ecologist. I don't think there *is* a strictly adaptationist explanation for our keeping pets. I can't even come up with a Just-So Story about it. My brain just refuses. It's a combination of exaptation and spandrels that itself may have been the subject of diffuse selection pressures and co-evolution. We are incredibly social. Humans will form parasocial bonds with a mars rover because its optical sensors give it a cute face.
That's probably a spandrel. It's just a byproduct of the fact that our brains want to form social bonds. Some bold/friendlier wolves begged for campfire scraps. Those wolves were selected for because we thought they were cute and fed them. It turns out, having wolves in your corner helps you hunt and fend off predators. That's an exaptation. So we integrate our social groups with these friendly wolves, and start co-evolving with them. It's a similar story with cats when we started doing agriculture (except now, the expansive sense of empathy we have has been defininitively extended to non-humans) and on it goes.
Very well said
Great comment
TIL: definition of spandrel. Thank you!
" Humans will form parasocial bonds with a mars rover because its optical sensors give it a cute face."
How is this not an Evolutionary Psychological theory? EP often hypothesizes spandrels, just as you did, and then goes seeking evidence for it. For example, your pets = spandrel theory could be interrogated by looking for correlations in the evidence for hunting activities and animal keeping.
Congratulations - you just kicked down this videos' greatest straw man by engaging in some perfectly respectable EP.
A trait originating as a spandrel or exaptation doesn’t exclude it from EP, especially if that trait ended up providing a survival/reproductive advantage which led to its genetic or cultural* propagation. Our friendliness to wolves may have only been a by-product of being a highly social species, but that trait was brought on by evolution in the first place. This led to the co-evolution of dogs and humans, evidenced by a list of parallel-ly developed genes.
Not to mention the fact we are focusing on the human’s perspective, ignoring the wolf’s. Being friendly and cooperative with humans provided a survival advantage to wolves willing and capable of acting in such a way. This of course led to the speculation of dogs through selection of genes, because an unfortunate truth is that genes can and do influence animal’s (and human’s) behaviour to varying degrees. Not only did dog’s biology change during speciation, but their psychological and social profile too; an example of non-human EP in action.
*Note how I said culturally propagated, as well as genetically. EPs are rarely genetic reductionists or determinists, even though critics claim they are. Of course culture influences how we act in ways which are either too varied or too recent to have affected our genotype. EP is still a valuable approach because there are other aspects of human (and non-human) behaviour, universal in all cultures, which can be explained through natural and sexual selection. Not to mention dual-inheritance theory, which proposes that culture itself can be explained in terms of non-genetic “cultural evolution” and “cultural selection.” Hopefully these ideas will become part-in-parcel with EP one day.
Man, you absolutely nailed the Werner Herzog narration!
Honestly, this comment made my day. 😊
@@neurotransmissions i genuinely thought you called on Jordy Vandeput to do the voiceover.
It was very good
Hear hear !!
Does that make his argument more credible ?
@@sednasix6608 obviously. One's ability to imitate a famous voice is 100% correlated to the credibility of one's argument. It's just how science sciences.
I feel like you're assuming that what is natural is what is right even though there is no reason to assume so, for example even if rape turned out to be a natural cause of evolutionary psycology it wouldn't mean people will think "oh since its natural it should be legal"
I don't think what is "natural" is what is "right". My issue with the evolutionary psychology research around rape is how it gets discussed with wider audiences and how it is used to casually excuse harmful and socially unacceptable behavior as "human nature" (typically to benefit those traditionally in power). By admission of evolutionary psychologists, our psychological mechanisms do not predict behavior. Culture, social influences, and our capacity for a moral code also have an intense impact on our behaviors. And last I heard, most people don't rape other people. If you flippantly throw around evolutionary psychology and say, "yes, buuuuut rape is actually a natural thing", then you _do_ open the door for others to feel it is more socially okay, which can lead to either more rape or more people excusing away the behavior. We can have conversations about the evolution of certain traits without defending them. Beyond this, there has been extensive criticism of evolutionary theories surrounding rape because we don't have sufficient information about environmental or cultural factors that would have driven this genetic change, it's unlikely that rape generally would have net fitness benefits for most men, and even more recent research has failed to support this hypothesis. Anyway, I appreciate your comment! I like talking about stuff like this.
@@neurotransmissions I have no idea where you get the slightest inkling that when rape or if rape was actually attributed to evolutionary psychology it would somehow be casually excused, also I saw you used the word “human nature”. Well what do you mean by human nature? Is it human nature to kill burn and destroy? If you say no then how exactly do you explain that over the last 3,400 years, humans have been entirely at peace for 268 of them.
Also too just touch on the whole rape thing, animals rape each other all the time. Dolphins have tried raping human woman. Apes have raped Deers. So saying it’s not at least somewhat of an evolutionary thing it like arguing we didn’t evolve from primates, or arguing that the animals are mimicking our behaviour
@@neurotransmissions it also flies in the face of self sacrifice. Being dead is Not a good way to get genes to the next generation
You are absolutely right. Rape is a natural thing. To say that is not really to support it.... Why is it important to know that rape is natural? Because knowing that, we can look for solutions. Rape is not the consequence of "rape culture"; it is the consequence of the lack of "non-rape culture". War, homicide, jealousy and rape... are natural things.
You explained the branch of evolutionary psychology very well. Further; much of your criticism against evolutionary psychology ia valid too. In the end you reached the conclusion that evolutionary Psychology is a mixed bag; it has it's valuable explanatory power but some limitations too.
But then why you chose the title of your presentation so extreme? Why you called it garbage?
clickbait
books have titles for a reason, to get you to pick them up and read them. videos are the same way. you watched this video did you not?
Yeah but I just had an argument with a friend who took this literally. He now believes evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience.
Which is incredible because in comparison to most psychology it is far more reasonable and approachable. In addition, utilizing simulated experimentation EP oversimplified can give great insight into things like developed altruism and selfishness and complex systems with independent agents.
You need to push back on the overuse of a science with extremely limited explanatory power and no practical applications.
The biggest problem with EP isn't EP. It's the interpretation of EP as a "so born this way" premise for justifying destructive behaviours. Genetic determinism is false. Genetic influencing there is a strong case for.
The reality is that psychology is information. The overwhelming influencing factor behind it is environmental information.
There is observably a feedback loop which preserves patterns forged in a living entity's life time and passes those patterns on to the next generations. Some point to epigenetics and there maybe clues there. But the truth is we don't understand the mechanisms behind preservation of behaviours into the genetic code (if that even really is a part of the mechanism since it only really preserves protein structure). All we can really say for sure by looking at studies of identical twins is that genetic influencing is a thing, but is absolutely overridden by environmental influence and the elusive "free will" or "qualia" which commands and directs the mind.
molecular determinism mixed with quantum randomness would completely explain behavior, unfortunately we don’t understand anywhere near close to understanding how molecular interactions in the brain explain behavior. But the only thing we don’t have evidence for is the idea of free will. We can still make decisions but we can not choose how the the only things that can influence our behaviors, molecular and quantum interactions, behave.
On the contrary, we can with certainty that genes eclipse environmental influences in determining human behavior. There is no solid contradictory evidence.
Really is genetics overridden in studies about twins? Like, did you see the Colorado Adoption Project of Robert Plomin? Did you see the data about IQ?
Great comment but free will and qualia are not the same at all. Maybe I'm not reading the comment right?
Not qualia nor free will directs or commands the mind. We may not understand what it is because our body and neurological system are to complicated to determine or predict exact behaviour but I believe our physical minds are deterministic(and probably random to some extent too) machines.
Humans evolved as social animals and they derive value from caring relationships. The fact that we care for a pets is a byproduct of our relationship with our own species. Pets initially provided a material benefit of keeping pests away, etc but now this emotional comfort is the primary driver of pet ownership.
While that is part of the story, I think a lot of empathy actually comes from getting better at predicting the behavior of prey. You make better decisions on it if you think of them as living things than just flesh. It has the side effect that humans and dogs feel bad about killing stuff and would rather not (if we could get meat without killing animals almost no one would). It is also useful for certain social interactions, especially with non-humans.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana I beg to differ, I personally know and have seen many meat eaters say that openly acknowledge that they are animals and feel pain no differently from the ones they eat, AND some will also or even smirk and say that they just enjoy the taste of meat so they will never stop eating animals regardless of if there are good vegetable alternatives; maybe it'd change if/when vat grown meat with giant hamster serum becomes a thing.
The egg and milk industry are rather disgusting, possibly even more-so than the meat one, and yet as it doesn't involve death, vegetarians just don't GAF vOv (and fish supposedly don't have feelings too??? which is total BS).
Morality has more to do aesthetics than most would admit.
Edit: Pack of Wild Painted Dogs seem happy when they down a large antelope or wildebeest. I see no bad feelings felt. They seem overjoyed that they and their family, offspring and extended relatives, eat well for the next few days and survive longer to pass on their genes.
@@wayfa13 I said almost everyone. For example, some people still use fur or want whaling, but they are not the majority.
The want or hunting success usually outweighs the feeling bad, but if given an equivalent, or even close equivalent, alternative both humans and dogs prefer not killing. Although this is more true of other Eutherians, because we are a lot more intelligent and social than most other animals.
Also, people don't hunt nowadays, so they don't have to use (and thus improve) their empathy to predict prey behaviour, so will feel less bad about killing.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana omnivores in general would rather avoid hunting if possible, and only do it when necessary, of it they don't need to puch too much effort in it.
It is only obligate carnivores that "enjoy" the hunt.
But the reasons are more about conserving energy and most likely not a side effect of empathy.
We need to also consider distinguishing between what section of humanity you are referring to
Love for dogs and cats isn't as universal as many think as there are entire communities that don't love them or consume them
Humans evolved to have pets to keep them calm during bad trips, enabling them to consume more shrooms which gave them a selective advantage because they were able to galaxy brain their non pet owning opponents back into the pre-stone(d) age.
FACTS
my pets always freak out when im on psychedelics
Congratulations, you are an evolutionary psychologist lol. Making up stories is literally all they do.
absofuckinglutelay
Um... You basically argued against a minority view of what some would claim (more modestly than you insinuate - in fact, there's a lot of insinuation with immediate caveats in your "critique") is an aspect of Evolutionary Psychology: adaptation as an explanation of some human behaviors.
Frankly, this was a seriously odd video. You bring up "critiques" of Evolutionary Psych, then explain that they don't really reflect what is currently being touted in EP (so they really aren't critiques, but misperceptions, yes?) and, then, when you FINALLY get to your gripe, you punt with generalizations about EP that I, personally, don't see as majority views. You even refer to Evo psych as a thing that has a belief system ("Evolutionary psych, says...") of its own, instead of an area of study with diverse modeling as a way to look at human behavior from differing POV's...
Based on this video, one would think Evo psych is some new religion that has serious pitfalls (conflating Evo psych with White Supremacy is really sloppy, IMO) and that we should all be careful of this "iffy" idea that we are primarily biological beings... Bizarre.
I'm not really sure what your counterargument is? If adaptationism is a minority view, then what is the majority view? The first EP research center was opened at UC Santa Barbara by two of EP's most important members, Cosmides and Tooby, and they quite boldly tout EP as adaptationist. Here's the website where they outline what EP is - www.cep.ucsb.edu/primer.html
The founding principles of EP are listed clearly. You can call those principles "beliefs" if you like. Don't get me wrong, this is not every EP researcher's perspective, but it appears to be the prevailing approach to EP and has been since its founding.
I don't conflate evolutionary psychology with white supremacy, but rather point out the fact that many white supremacists use EP to bolster their own misguided beliefs. Interesting that you point out that specific concern, though, among all of them. 🤔
@@neurotransmissions Well, right there in the link they spell out that adaptation is only one element of consideration, so again, I don't get characterizing EP as "essentially" adaptationist (this is one group of researchers' primer, BTW, but an excellent one, IMO). Chance events such as mutation, recombination, drift, and gene flow maybe more important than natural selection, as you said, and this is something being considered these days, as I understand it. Also, I would say the founding principles of of EP would be considered a bit quaint these days and I would agree that adaptation was the key ingredient when EP was in its infancy...
It's not so much that I think what you said is wrong, just a bit general and, frankly, sometimes misleading (again, you spent 20 minutes on what is misunderstood about EP, not what's "wrong" with it) when it comes to the framing that EP provides. I just don't see a lot of scientists making concrete behavioral claims using EP. Of course, there are sloppy scientists doing so, but I just don't think it's entirely fair to judge EP by those who do.
Basically, it feels like a "click bait" title that proports to discredit EP, but only critiques (correctly, IMO) one facet of the field... Again, not incorrect, just a little misleading, to me.
I bring up the White Supremacy angle because EP has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with that vile belief system. The fact that bigots hijack EP is no more relevant to whether or not it's a useful frame as the relevancy of the misuse of Evolutionary Theory by White Racists as to its usefulness as a Scientific Theory... Of course, racism is disgusting, but it really isn't relevant to your video: "Evolutionary psychology is mostly garbage" ... Again, the misuse of EP by bigots has no bearing on whether EP is a useful frame, so it just feels "sensational" to bring it up.
I appreciate your reply and I think we are generally aligned in what we're talking about, with a few differences. I believe that EP places more priority on adaptation than perhaps you do. I think there is an allure to describing our psychological mechanisms using natural selection because then there's a "reason" why we do things.
I brought up some of these other criticisms because I knew that if I didn't, others would. I brought most of them up primarily to defend EP from being unfairly attacked or characterized. However, there are some that also deserve to be discussed or scrutinized. For the most part, I was viewing this video like carving a marble statue, chiseling away the elements that obscure what I see as a very large issue. I think it was important to briefly touch on them.
Finally, I agree that misuse of research does not impact the potential use of any field as a useful frame. However, it is important to examine trends of who misuses certain kinds of science for nefarious reasons because it may indicate an issue in how that science is shared. It is "sensational", but it is also true. And since it is true, it is worth bringing it up, even if it is uncomfortable to acknowledge.
@@neurotransmissions I certainly agree that popular notions of EP give glib explanations (often based on misperceptions about Natural Selection!) for complex behavior and anyone attributing behavior on the basis of adaptiveness alone is missing the complexity of a field that I see as more useful for a frame to look at certain behaviors (rather than as an explanation for those behaviors).
I take your point in pre-empting "misperceptions" about EP and I'll admit I was being a tad persnickety, but it seems you have a very sophisticated audience (I appreciate your channel, as well), so I'm not sure it was really necessary to spend so much time on misconceptions about EP (again, persnickety), but you would have more experience regarding audience responses (I was wanting you to get to your critique, personally), so I'll concede you may have done what was necessary to avoid an avalanche of haters!
As to the racism issue: You have a point that these things should be acknowledged, but again, this seems to a sophisticated audience (I don't see any off color stuff insinuated, even) that this wouldn't be an issue for. But, I can also see how that could be a naive position to take... It bugs me that we have to talk about White Supremacy when we should be discussing the general merits or demerits of EP, but I concede (again, ugh) you're right to bring it up. I guess I would just emphasize a little more strongly that one has nothing to do with the other.
Finally, thank you for responding. I feel like I have a better idea of where you're coming from and I appreciate the thoughtfulness you showed in your responses. I will definitely subscribe to your channel (I'm also a cat lover!) and look forward to watching more of your content.
@@christophercousins184 @Neuro Transmissions Can I thank you both for a nuanced debate in this comment section? We need more of this in our world!!
Loving the moody, documentary style shots
21 minutes in: a significant anti-bias bias, which explains the obviously click bait headline.
There is a fundamental flaw in the "essence" part of this argument: the impact that chronic Fear has on how organisms evolve/de-evolve. Something that this guy is high in I think
It would be ill-advised to reduce the whole of evolutionary psychology to its misgivings, as literally all fields make fallacious assumptions and pass them off as fact. I'm far from the biggest fan of evo-psy, but I do see its utilty. Its problem is the same as any other discipline. Those in the field who do not account for other related fields, make these false assumptions. We can see the same with sociobiology, which used to be behaviorism. Despite changing its name, its back to its old tricks, social constructionist proponents are denying the reciprocity between biology and environment. They are pushing an ideology. Everytime a field denies other fields, they are pushing an ideology. Same happened with genetic determinism, trying to push that old eugenics canard.
As a scientist, you should stray away from such generalizations and reduction. Yeah, it does need to be criticized, but going sensationalistic and calling it garbage, is going a tad too far imho.
But then he wouldn't get all these liberal viewers who want to believe that everything is a matter of our social structure, duh.
Agreed, well put.
I am an evolutionary psychologist (one of the 6 who watched it). We have heard many of these critiques repeatedly... and it is tiring to repeatedly rebut the straw men args, misunderstandings, misperceptions, mischaracterizations, etc..
Suggest those interested do web searches for these articles:
“Yes, but…” Answers to Ten Common Criticisms of Evolutionary Psychology
Seven Key Misconceptions about Evolutionary Psychology
Thank you
@@jaidathompson7089u actually believe this person..wow 😂 sorry but most of Evo psyc is hillsrioudly stoopid
Cheers
Oh I am sure you are just another straight white conservative trying to save his racial hierarchy. Or at least that's what this video would have me believe.
Appreciate this.
I was sceptical when I started watching this but I've been took to school, it's always good to be reminded that you know practically nothing
Cute bait ^_^
Pretty engaging video . Had no idea how 40 minutes passed
An evolutionary justification for pets: That they aid hunting and combat, or served as companionship (improved emotional stability)
and/or as they have better smell and hearing (dog analogues), guards that warn you of oncoming danger/threats that you don't even know about yet
It really goes to show the level of ignorance in these types of people
Yeah dogs have more than purpose of "seeming cute" 😂😂
I usually love the content in these videos. My only issue with this one is assuming that the current field of evolutionary psychology just focuses on cognitive psychology from an evolutionary or “adaptiveness” standpoint. As a neuroscientist who was thought by people such as Louise Barrett (would definitely recommend her book and articles on these issues) and Peter Henzi, I found that even though many researchers and academics seem to fit into the “Swiss army knife” analogy or “the gene for” etc. with reductionist models (which true, this is a very common misconception and I don’t agree with many of these ideas) these aren’t the only approaches to evolutionary psychology and they are often critiqued by evolutionary psychologist themselves. People such as them and many others (can definetely reference them as a student on this field as well). I would definitely recommend reading into these views as they could bring a more scientific, clear, reliable and more complete approach to evolutionary psychology. These views often build themselves from the behaviour itself and not from antropocentric views seeking to be confirmed through an evolutionary lens (like the examples you reference in the video).
So I appreciate clearing out the garbage in the field but I think it’s a bit unfair to reduce the field to the mistake some people made in the field. So I wouldn’t say this field is mostly garbage. In fact, these perspectives are growing among researchers and are finding a stronger place in science. Just my thoughts, I hope this sparks some discussion or looking more into this :)
Agreed in that some fundamental issues have to be rethought by the mainstream in the field. And things like cognition are fundamentally rethought with 4e cognition by thinkers like Francisco Varela. Again, I would definitely encourage reading Barrett.
Other than that, this was a great analysis 👏
His critique is more of an attempt to defame evolutionary biology because of the current political agendas whose narratives are threatened by the advances made in this field. I don’t think they’re very interested in knowing more…
This is a great video. Evolutionary Psychology research routinely put forth untestable hypothesis, and then when the observations match the hypothesis they claim it’s true. So many aspects of human evolution are inherently unknowable, and that’s something that can’t be overlooked. Past unattested behaviors and psychology are mostly conjecture, which is why you see the meme of “archaeologists always say something is a ritual that’s lazy”. No, it’s intellectually honest. Nothing more can be discerned from the evidence. There are limits to our knowledge and that’s something that has to be acknowledged.
Evolutionary Psychology is a useful tool, but it shouldn’t be the only tool to understand our past. It’s a hammer, but it should only be used for nails that need it. If it needs a mallet, leave it alone.
@@boydhooper4080 Gad Saad is one of the more unscrupulouos evolutionary psychologists. Pinker is a lot better.
EP can be useful but it also sounds like a “just so” story. The big problem is that there’s no way to prove a thing right or wrong. A non-falsifiable claim can grow and be used to oppress.
a 37 culture study observing the same patterns in mate selection from primitive tribes to developed nations over the span of 30 years is not 'just so'.
@@mystermont2019 what study is this? I want to look into it, thankyou
@@myself2noone Well that’s aggressive. And incorrect. It’s my perception of many past claims which turned out to be false. It’s science. Don’t act like a jerk.
That introduction speech sounds an awful lot like the narration by Werner Herzog, from the documentary “Burden of Dreams”
which I only recognize because I play Risk of Rain 2.
edit oh shit he literally says werner herzog after the speech lmao i just posted this when he said the loved it against my better judgement part
Gotchya! 😂
They call EvoPsych "reductionist"
then they bring a huge load of social constructivism slop as an alternative.
A lot of false dichotomies and extrapolations in this video.
I started writing a novel angrily calling you out for straw manning because I conflated evolutionary biology (Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith ect) with evolution psychology. Books like the "Selfish gene" or "evolution and the theory of games" are my bible and I was ready to go for the throat. Especially when you showed books that looked like they were co-authored by Deepok Chopra. Now I see that there is an important distinction thanks to your video and I mostly agree. The Current state of evo- psych has a very Freudian feel. Probably because the human brain is so complex and its causal mechanisms are so poorly understood.
I also believe that behavior in humans has been informed by evolution. I have a friend who is a speech pathologist so there are lots of interesting areas of research within the realm of linguistics that might be applicable. The idea that there are areas in the brain specialized for verbs, adjectives, phonemes and the like gives some hope that the field isn't completely baseless.
On a side note, I'm not really a fan of clickbait / inflammatory titles for science related content. In my opinion, it weakens your position an unbiased commentator but hey, its your vids and I'm a purist who's not trying to make a career on RUclips. Thanks for the content as always.
Yes. I also had my brain make connections between Freud and this
damn, being conservative and having white skin flesh on my meat suit means i am a bigot? what can i do to correct this horrible affliction?
Natural selection is survival of the fittest, though, "fittest" doesn't mean the 1st place as the word may imply.
As Richard Dawkins put it "It is more of a survival of the good-enough."
Also, implying the many traits our genomes provide us, like our appearance or behaviours, wouldn't affect selection completely ignores how humans choose their mates.
There are certain things men find attractive in women and vice versa.
I am the goodest enough.
No one is implying all traits are neutral or nearly neutral, but let's not kid ourselves and pretend something as minor as whether earlobes are attached actually affects fitness in any meaningful way.
No one is denying the definition of natural selection either, rather, there is a cost to selection in populations making it unlikely it is always the driving force of evolution. Especially not with so many neutral and nearly neutral mutations and traits that are accepted by by genetic drift.
I think, evolutionarily speaking, our relationship with pets began somewhat symbiotically, particularly with Wolves as they would receive food, warmth and the companionship of a pack while we used their heightened senses to help us hunt or alert us to dangers, and also for companionship.
Edit: You tricked me! You knew I was going to write this!
There is an awesome documentary I watched years ago on PBS called Dogs and how they got they way. They had a theory that dogs evolved from wolves that would eat at the human dumps. they evolved to be more friendly to gain more food. It makes sense. The first dogs that could be called dogs that they found in the fossil record where at the first human dumps. Dogs evolved with civilization.
@@samsalamander8147 *they evolved to be less aggressive, because humans killed the more aggressive ones they encountered when taking out the trash
Could you elaborate why you don't like Steven Pinker? :)
pweez pweez pweeeeez!
That was actually a fantastic Werner Herzog. I knew where this was going pretty quickly though, there should be no execution of evolutionary psychology....that sounds utterly terrifying. Just like natural is not good; evololutionary psychology can help us identify the operations running in the subconscious and be mindful of them. Most should be transcended if possible rather than reinforced, some can be reinforced and natural like altruism.
Well put. As long as we don't consider evolution to be an ethical force, the "bad" EP can be identified and dismissed. As you say, it should help us transcend our bias's. Underplaying EP's power only serves to give those with bad intent more power.
That's quite some intentional triggers and unintentional biases you've thrown in there to get people to react from their tribal instinct. I love the hypocrisy. But I am sure you are not aware of it and are fully convinced of your own angle of how to see this. But let me break it down for you and change a lot of those smarts you put in there into legitimate wisdom to help you out!
Loaded title: Check
Long intro with little content: Check
Snarky remarks: Check
Cherry picking: Check.
Using hearsay: Check
Creating multiple big straw mans: Check
Not really using any of the well reputable scientists: Check
Actually using that what you claim to reject: Check
Painting everyone who is interested in evolutionary psychology with the same brush: Check
It's quite clear with all these facts you never intended to take evolutionary psychology seriously and are just like the people who distorted Darwin's findings into Eugenics and distorted Nietzsche's views to promote atheism and Nazism. I feel sorry for the people who think this is a good break down of everything and fall for your biased political inception. Which I am sure of already excused yourself for since it's 'for a good cause'. Funny how our brains are wired like that, quite sure that I will also am making some assumptions here, but will do my best to avoid them.
You are simply using examples of something you once heard without referring to where to find it and who wrote it to even see if it's a serious source(not intellectually fair, but a nice debate tactic you have unknowingly developed to protect your beliefs). I would love to see you do it with the books of Frans de Waal, or perhaps it might wake you up which would be nice. Since there is someone who knows how to do proper research and explain things without needing to use play on our feelings. None of the reputable scientists would use evolutionary psychology on such an individual level as you just did and use it as a total answer(like your example on jealousy). You are doing the same as many people who are purists in Blanc slate theory, Critical Race Theory or Evolutionary Psychology. So please learn to zoom out here, it would help your talents to reach much greater heights!
Real scientists and people who properly understand Evolutionary Psychology know that it is just the biological basis 'where we start from'. You have culture and then again personal experiences top of that(and alcohol breaking those down first, explaining primitive behavior under the use of alcohol). It's just simply a fact that all the signals first enter via our more primitive brain and makes us feel certain ways that are hard to conquer (if needed, not all impulses are politically undesired) if we don't properly educated people. It tells us also why they are so strong and ignoring that would feed the monster/shadow inside (To throw a little bit of Jung in there). You are creating a giant straw man out of Evolutionary Psychology and making it as if those studying it see it like you, as if they take it as the answer to everything(which they don't). It's just as stupid as all people who go full sale for critical race theory or blank slate theory. If you are one of those two, you are also harming your own cause (but sadly those with dogmatic beliefs based on their primitive tribal feelings don't get that, but please try. I seriously think your work can be of great value)
You simply are like people enjoying Grand Theft Auto of Game of Thrones yet condemn people who are trying to explain where these feelings come from since it hurts your ideological sensitivities. And that makes sense, since we integrate those parts and it literally hurts us when others disagree(also explains why religious zealots can react so strongly) In that same line you are (let's just say unknowingly, for a good faith perspective) using evolutionary psychology to play on our innate tribal sensitivities and trigger them to get on your side. It's easy for free thinkers without loyalty how that the hypocrisy in this video is almost uncanny. But again, this is now done on purpose, our brain will forgive almost anything we done and helps your rationalize it(no one is the bad guy in their own life's story)
But if you think Evolutionary Psychology is still mostly garbage then think of the following: What does it mean to be a social animal? How did it come into existence, where does empathy come from? How is it possible we can communicate with each other of we are not at least for a certain part feeling/experiencing the same things base don our biology? Try not eating drinking for 2 days, or even try not going to the toilet and see how predictable your behavior becomes. You know what, just try holding your breath for 10 minutes. Hell we could throw out marketing, propaganda and even medicine if we would all be that unique (at least you are trying to diminish it to such a small thing). It's roughly 1/3 of our being that is here to stay for good and for bad and the bad part we need to solve via culture/personal development.
But I dare you for your own sanity to challenge Frans de Waal or many of the well known reputable evolutionary psychologists out there 'directly'. And please avoid tabloids using these things for absurd small minded things that sadly most of humanity is interested in(and thus makes money).
I directly admit that evolutionary psychology still has a long way to go, but so far it has been a great addition answering a ton of questions we would have in the past thrown on top of Philosophy. Like how Chemistry has been born out of Alchemy and Astronomy was born out of Astrology.
Woah woah slow down there buddy; I don’t want to wake up pregnant! 😂
Hey man thanks! I was just listening wondering wtf this guy was on about and waiting for someone else to refute this, but everyone else is just drowning on about pets and shit.
What you said about Nietzsche honestly is the core of it, the core of both the video and the subsequent comments, the herd must maintain its own illusions.
I believe many a science will soon be completely thrown away due to not adhering to our modern morality; namely a slave morality.
Glad I wasn’t the only one commenting with objectivity and honesty.
U sound highly illiterate
My first introduction to evo psych was seeing it used in highschool to reinforce sexism that could be better explained by social structure than innate brain biology. I’m probably significantly biased against it to today. I don’t think it’s all bad probably but I am very skeptical of it.
Oh no, a new, groundbreaking field is messy, in flux, heavily debated, and filled with crackpot claims by those seeking new frontiers to claim..... sounds like science to me.
Pseudoscience, science is the study of the natural world. Pseudoscience false science is a deranged cult.
I hope NOONE who listenned to the opening's description of big bang as the actual big bang theory cause its Mega Not
My plausible evolutionary explanation of pets:
Humans are pattern-seeking social mammals who's tool use and collaboration allowed us to reach the top of the food chain. Part of our pattern seeking is intuiting agency and we are also good at forming social bonds and attachments (for example to children). Coupled with general curiosity and meeting other animals in our environment being a common experience, there is nothing stopping humans from treating an unthreatening animal as a friend, intuiting agency and thoughts in that animals head, and caring for it as we do for our own offspring - especially when finding abandoned baby animals in the wild.
Where keeping pets has entered human culture, like any other behaviours it has become codified and refined.
Keeping pets is just a human thing to do, like worshipping rocks, or seeing faces in the clouds, or caring for orphans, or making found family, or falling in love with a fictional character, or talking to a machine.
This is a better version of what I tried to say
Yeah, delusion that an animal could somehow feel the same emotions as a human is not impossible through evolution. The arguments against this are anti-science, just because they damage left wing sensibilities.
I think judging the idea of, for example, whether rape is natural or not by the idea that that might justify it, is wrongheaded. Natural only equals good if you posit a naturalist theory of morality. If you do, then it is a problem. But I suggest that the problem is more in the naturalist philosophy than in the science. Killing animals for their meat is definitely part of humanity's past and one could argue that it has a positive evolutionary value. Vegetarians and vegans believe it is wrong based on empathy for the animals despite it being natural. If you have to justify every good as natural then you have made morality meaningless.
One can even make the point that there's this potential danger/concern with the theorizing of something as natural or adaptative being twisted/interpreted as "natural/adaptive therefore morally good," but there are two fundamental distinct things, one would be the natural theory, and other the moral theory based on it (or even inspiring it). While the natural theory may be highly questionable, even ultimately false/wrong, that would be from the lack of evidence and/or poor "theoretical structure" (like being vague and unfalsifiable), not that some people see that as the moral validation or condemnation of something, or even that it was inspired by something dreadful. "This is immoral therefore it's false/non-existing" is like "creationist epistemology," attacking evolution as a fact based on associations like eugenics and social darwinism. Sadly, this faulty reasoning is not that uncommon in criticisms of evolutionary psychology as well, which undermines the credibility/validity of the criticisms. Not that all criticism against it has this kind of problem, though, but it seems rather frustratingly common in certain topics.
Not to trust everything you read or hear sure is good advise. The human mind is so complex we don't even understand ourselves, so a healthy dose of scepticism sure is advised.
Do you mean: The human mind is so simple, we don't even understand ourselves ...
Good point. May I suggest "The human mind is so simple it don't understand its complexity"
Only God is omniscient He knows what
makes us tick
because they are cute n fuzzy
The most plausible explanation in my eyes for us keeping pets is that as we initially developed symbiotic relationships with animals based on survival and utility (domesticating wolves to help us hunt etc) that the cognitive algorithms that predispose us to identifying with and empathising with other humans and our young had the side effect of us doing this to the animals as we kept close proximity to them (bit like how we can see faces in things that aren't even living because our brains are finetuned to find those patterns) - we began to relate to their experiences as if they were humanish essentially, anthropomorphising them enough to become invested in their wellbeing as sentient beings instead of just a means to an end, meaning we began to develop the care for them to some extent like we do now.
This in turn increased our desire to breed them for more companionable/desirable traits as well as utility based ones, further increasing this dynamic by making this experience more mutual between the animal towards us.
I'm typing this whilst being cuddled by a cat - she would not be doing so if her species had not been bred to be less hostile and more affectionate towards humans. I in turn give her pronouns and a name and talk to her much like I would a human child because of a part of my psyche sees her as some weird pseudo human to bond with and care for.
In other words, I think pet keeping is an extension of human need to bond and nurture other humans and we domesticated animals enough that our brains experience them as being close enough to humans to want to care for.
That's just making up a story. That's all evolutionary studies do. Just make up stories.
Could you elaborate, please, on why you won't say anything nice about Steven Pinker ever again. Please?
Sure, evo psych can be used in nefarious ways, and it presents hypotheses that are untestable, but that seems to be the nature of any task that involves looking into the past. I think that the valuable evo-psych material comes from drawing inferences using patterns of behavior that are also seen in animals. Their lower level of intelligence compared to humans suggests that any behaviors we have in common relate to a shared underlying structure. So behaviors like mate guarding, pair bonding, male physical competition, courtship rituals, territorial behavior, child-protection, exploration, etc. all must be related to an underlying structure that many organisms share. I'm not so sure that this video sways my opinion on the field.
Humans are complex mammals, and those that think evopsych totally reduces us and our behavior to the level of mere monkeys or bonobos would be incorrect. However, that humans are hardwired to prefer traits and attributes in mates that confer survival & reproductive value in a harsh environment is pretty self-evident. This is well-established and not some "just-so" story as claimed by those offering weak rebuttals like this Soybeard's video. Clearly these protests are from those who wouldn't thrive without the coddling of a decadent civilization and feel threatened by such realities.
No one is saying that we dont share underlying structures and emotions. But evo psych makes the claim that the way we lived throughout history has adapted and specializing those structures further and changing them. So if everyone disliked one fruit back then we would start evolving to all have a dislike for it etc.
"Their lower level of intelligence compared to humans suggests that any behaviors we have in common relate to a shared underlying structure" no it doesn't necessarily mean that.
@@pygmalion8952 It doesn't necessarily mean that, but that is the most likely answer by a wide margin.
What about game theory? Without it. EP is toothless, and it would be a collection of niche theories, and your video would land strongly. But in fact, game theory gives EP the predictive features that can be utilized by many of the greats of psychology, such as Kahneman, Tversky and Pinker.
There is no need for EP to downplay the huge effect of social and cultural influences on humans. The fact that we are such sponges for it is a core feature of EP. The "toolkit" as you put it is one developed to allow flexibility. However, the central learning from EP is that the toolkit contains a lot of big blunt tools that are easily wielded, that developed at a time when they were ideally suited to the job of propagating genes over thousands of generations.
But that doesn't mean that we don't have finer and more delicately flexible tools in the kit. Game theory and EP support that also.
Yes, EP is itself a powerful tool that can be used to support archaic injustices, and even invent new ones. but if we hide from the evidence that supports it, those who would use it for this evil will be empowered by our dishonesty, using it as evidence to show that they only hold the key to truths of human psychology.
Although you provided valid points about the limited the capacity of evo psychology in explaining current human behaviors, you didn't really provide arguments against the fact that our psychology is still determined by genes. Mutations, genetic drift and recombination just provide randomness for the genes, but they don't disattach the influence of the genes over the psychology of modern humans.
I believe that evolution has had a role in our psychology, hence why I didn’t make arguments against genetic influences that have evolved over time. I take issue with the field of evolutionary psychology, and how willy-nilly many psychologists are with their hypotheses.
@@neurotransmissions If that is your main qualm, you might enjoy Lewis et al. (2017): Evolutionary Psychology: A How-To Guide. They establish a (while not perfect) better framework from evo psych researchers to develop their specific hypotheses.
pets are just so cute.... we are depressed so... I guess we need them to cope with the capitalism system ?
I can't believe you went through this whole thing without ever mentioning the selfish gene.
You can't have read the Selfish Gene and still get the things wrong that are wrong in this video. And I don't even agree with Dawkins 100%.
@@GotAbductedOnce Either give some examples, or admit that your only problem with the arguments is that you personally don't like them because they interfere with your personal politics and code of ethics. It's always "This is wrong, because I say so", and never "This is wrong, and here's why". I wonder why that might be.
@@hotelmario510 he dismiss the evolution (earlobes is cherry-picking, what about blue eyes and beard?), he said that we are changing by chance (28:18), he strawmanning about explaining genome (28:42) in evolutionary *psychology*, he told that evolpsyc is just-so stories - when in reality evolutionary psychology is interested in what can be predicted from already known information, and all scientific hypotheses are just-so stories prior to being tested. Also, exaptationist and spandrel hypotheses have an additional evidentiary burden compared to adaptationist hypotheses.
@@РомановВладимир-ю9дthank you. I thought I was the only one that noticed this trend. Seems odd he'd dismiss actual science he claims to love ad a field.
@@phantom8926 I recall the time when usually people about the right-wing was anti-evolution cause of the Bible. And now many of the left-wingers are against evolution - because it is bigoted and patriarchal, and we need "real science" like hermetic principles. 🤷
00:51 "These atoms began to fornicate ..."
I'm feeling childish admitting it, but I'm a 50 year-old who laughed at this.
You said a lot of correct (yet obvious) things in this video, but most of them can be applied to the majority of scientific fields concerning humans and human behaviour. I think that scientific debate in the US is pretty close to become impossibile, since (as you do in this video) people tend to immediately give a political connotation to every single claim or hypotesis.
This is an interesting comment, because I didn't say anything pertaining to the field of politics. I mentioned that there's a book about political division and I said "conservative", but I was referring to traditionalists or those who stick closely to establishments, not political affiliation. I find that when others say something is "political" outside of the realm of the political institution, they use that word to refer to the social messaging that's inherent in anything that involves humans and they are essentially saying, "I do not wish to examine the ways in which this impacts marginalized people in our culture." Evolutionary psychology studies how the mind interacts with a social context and it is studied by individuals within that social context - therefore it is "political". Evolutionary psychology research (and much of science, as you point out) contains social messaging and one has to be _willing_ and _able_ to ignore it to consider something unmarked by any particular point of view. So sure, it's "political". But let's not get defensive and build up walls. We need to be realistic about the ways in which science and media carry narratives that shape our culture and impact others. Don't blame the person pointing at the pothole for the pothole's existence. Instead, let's work together on building better roads.
This is the problem with most soft science. They conduct a 100 people studi
@@ankansenapati3600 I would say that since the invention of brain imaging devices like the MRI, psychology turned into a "hard" science, just like when in biology the DNA was first discovered
@@neurotransmissions
"This is an interesting comment, because I didn't say anything pertaining to the field of politics. "
5 paragraphs latter.
"So sure, it's "political". But let's not get defensive and build up walls. We need to be realistic about the ways in which science and media carry narratives that shape our culture and impact others."
It sounds to me like you're being disingenuous while trying to sound reasonable. You don't like some of the findings of EP - because they challenge your own political beliefs. In order to preserve your political beliefs you've set about sacrificing straw men on the altar of political correctness. At least that's what it seems like to me.
Evolutionary psychology gets tested better than most fields of science. Cross-cultural analysis (especially small tribes), historical analysis, multi-species analysis (especially the other great apes), large data sets, and robust peer review. It is NOT "just-so-stories."
Far better than social psychology lol. If one accepts the fact we're talking animals it makes most sense it would seem to best understand our behaviors/psychology by studying us as animals with brains/instincts selected for by nature.
Your title and the silly introduction are not warranted by the content of the video. Popular exaggerations and misinterpretations are not evolutionary psychology. We understand the differences between Darwin's and Spencer's work.
Part of the reason for pets being popular (beyond their original affordances) is the history of human and animal domestication - longer periods of playful, curious, & empathic behaviors, decreases in reactive aggressions (see Richard Wrangham) - delayed and modified brain developments within individuals and groups. Traits associated with and due to animal domestication and human self-domestication are evident from the fossil history of humans and many animals and are evident from experiments recently done with foxes.
Christopher Ryan's "Civilized to Death" might have been summarized in the conclusion. Any critique of the efforts of evolutionary psychologists really ought to critique the efforts of Tooby and Cosmides. Please do so.
I think it was Stephen Jay Gould who said that the vast majority of traits in an animal are there not because they have been selected for but emerge from the interaction of other traits that have, like the empty space between the columns of an arc hasnt been "designed".
A bit like there is no specific gene that makes you afraid of tigers.
Evolutionary psychology seems to fall prey to this style of fallacious reasoning way too often.
Not sure what he's trying to argue here. First psychology is somewhere between 30 and 40 percent effective. So the science is controversial overall. However, the theory that the human psyche is partially or primarily controlled by our evolutionary biology is a valid course for psychology to follow We know that events from past experience effect peoples lives. So it's not a stretch to assume that events from history and prehistory could affect hormonal levels, fear effects, and ultimately behaviour isn't a hard path.
I've been thinking about all this every single time I see Peterson online lately. Great, fantastic video. Loved the way you speak and the avoidance of unnecessary attack or criticism. Also, we keep pets because "uwu doggo good boy! Who is a good booy?"
I came here because of Peterson and the fact that he inspires the mgtow movement. I was convinced that those people fail to understand what Peterson says, but it turned out I was wrong. This still confuses me
Doggos > humans
@@ciepykocyg8692 Peterson isn't an evolutionary psychologist, he has knowledge on it but he's a "Depth Psychologist", the naming sounds weird but it just means he's influenced by Carl Jung which he does mention alot in his college lectures and public talks ( stuff like the Anima/Animus, The Shadow, Archetypes, etc.)
@@marlinbethea-gullap4666 some of what JB Peterson says about "evolutionary psychology" isn't actually about this "school of thought" of evolutionary psychology mentioned here ("David Buss school"), but rather a broader and arguably more parsimonious school of thought. Not defending whatever he might have said, I don't really follow, and I only stumble with highlights focusing more or nearly only on BS. But not all is necessarily 100% BS, often he's mocked by bringing up lobsters, but that would potentially be one of those things speaking more of nearly-universals of biology and behavior, "game-theory" type of stuff happening either in a very repetitive manner through all branches of life, and also being then inherited. Doesn't mean that whatever generalization from lobsters would even necessarily apply to humans, and, to the degree that it would apply, doesn't mean anything like "we do it, just like lobsters, therefore is morally right," or whatever he may be saying.
Gosh, I hate how he became some kind of "intellectual" super-star when he'll come up with BS like ancient DNA symbols in different cultures, the just as bad or even worse "epistemology" of whatever-makes-you-feel-better-is-true. And as a byproduct there's this scenario where people like him say 99% of BS and undermine the perceived validity of some 1% of non-BS they add to the mix, and make it hard to salvage the 1% of non-BS without risking being seen as a follower/admirer.
We are not "more evolved". Evolution is not there to make you "more advanced". Living beings evolve to *adapt*, and sometimes that means being "more intelligent", and other times it means being an ameba. There is no real hierarchy there, just a vast ecosystem(s)
You had me on "last time i say something good about Steven Pinker" 😆
That part about atoms ejaculating across empty space or whatever ... the 'empty space' part is probably meant to elicit veins bulging in space nerds' foreheads. 😅
Bc I like dog
I know nothing about this topic, but this video makes me know even less, especially due to the amount of smug I just witnessed, fix your presentation style.
Hypothesis: We began keeping some pets because they were useful in warning us about predators while we were sleeping or helping us to find or kill prey animals. Others may have been useful as practice subjects for children to learn skills that would later be useful in childcare: a kitten or puppy is better than an inanimate doll to function as a child surrogate.
From time to time an orphaned dog ancestor or kitten would as a last ditch appeal for survival might seek human contact and mothering or even a mother cat starving for death risked approaching humans and yelled hoping for mercy and a bit of food. I think still happens rarely today with the lynx or bobcat which however can't exist without avoiding humans since it is legal to "harvest" them for their fur.
As animals we share a sort of facial disk with cats which also try to use facial muscles and expressions to manipulate other animals or companions. And the dog has been proven to be expert at reading human facial expressions.
Symbiosis is super common in nature. IDK why people find it strange that humans would keep pets
This is my main problem with evolutionary psychology. It's so easy to, without any research, come up with a reasonable sounding explanation for any human behaviour that sounds "evolutionary" without really doing anything but think about it for a a few minutes. I know you're not claiming this is true or anything, but a lot of people could easily read what you have written and defend it as basically common sense.
There’s tons of scientific literature on animal domestication. Read Melinda Zeder for starters.
@@blankin576except this isn’t what we do in evolutionary psychology. We actually collect evidence and publish in peer-reviewed journals.
I can’t align with a single thing you’re saying unfortunately.
There are two layers at least.
1. Is the science of evopsych doing a good job of evopsych?
2. Is the idea that evolved outcomes of evolved brains a deep and pervasive reason for things people do and think, whether or not we’ve done a good job of explaining it all yet?
1. Probably not so much, but I don’t find that interesting and it diminish 2 at all.
2 is far more interesting and I’d say the answer is yes, by necessity. You can’t do or think anything with anything other than your evolved brain. Whether it’s exaptation, spandrel, thinking your way out of an urge, those are all still downstream of having a brain. I may be wrong, but I think it’s not reasonably broad to point out thoughts, instincts, etc that we can’t think of reasons for why they would have been adaptive and say therefore, that these things fall outside of evopsych or show it to be wrong. Those thoughts, etc are still taking place in the complex admixture of evolution. Any subjective thought, experience interoception, and the rest of it comes from some step of evolution even if it was a step that was in aid of something else. You can take the most unlikely to be evopsych phenomenon you could ever think of and it’s still coming out of brain matter which evolved. You seem to be hanging your argument on whether adaptations were either successful or as yet understood by the field. In an area so young as well as complex, one can’t proceed from there to the fairly confident conclusion you make.
I loved this balanced account and I absolutely agree.
Some of the worst excesses of evolutionarily psychology seem to have gained ground in the popular imagination in the last decade, when I thought it had long since lost credibility. I admire your restraint in not naming the worst offenders.
Something that you didn't give particular attention to was the was the the fact that genetics simply doesn't have the right levers to pull to direct cognition. Developmental cognitive neuroscience is fascinating, but when you look at how many layers of process separate DNA from cognition, it is clear that the attitude that "you don't need to worry about the details nature will find a way to encode cortical function" is naive. Linking odour to hormone response is one thing, linking visual stimulus to memory formation is another.
One of the coolest hypotheses in human evolution I found was the idea that we have been selecting for a longer and longer juvenile period of our life, because this gives our brains more plasticity for longer.
By your logic I agree that really really adaptable brains runs in complete contradiction of evolving any hardline ways of thinking at the gene level
Maybe I’m not caught up in the loop but when your talking about “the worst excesses in the recent decade” are you talking about those manosphere guys on RUclips?
@@Jareers-ef8hp those guys certainly amplify some of it but i think i was thinking mostly of academic work and i wasn't making a judgement about the social and political messages, just the scientific credibility.
Honestly, struggling to remember exactly who i had in mind now so feeling a bit like I'm BS-ing
@@maninalift Thank you for responding so soon
Liked many aspects of this on the whole, like your summarization of EP and steel manning it against many common critiques.
That said, it seems very disingenuous that you never made mention (unless I missed it) of reproductive selection vs. natural selection. Most all authorities on EP that I’ve heard emphasize this as the main driver for shaping behavior and it is a big “yeah duh” to me that natural selection will only account for the degree their needed for survival, thus, there is room for a lot of variability in behavior there after.
To your point about it not having enough rigor to it as a science - another big yeah duh. Would have been helpful if you provided ways it could be more empirically driven, but I think there needs to be room for understanding as a social science it is never going to have the same ease with this as a hard science will - there simply isn’t a method for it yet.
I agree in that they’d benefit from overlaying the theory within more modern populations…however, you’d mentioned earlier as others point out - many would take this as justification for racism or eugenics so there’s obviously going to be sociopolitical barriers to performing this kind of research.
You may agree, but I think we’re in the midst of a “changing of the guard” within the field of psychology. The old institutions will die out and EP will be commonly understood as the framework because, let’s face it, it makes by far the most sense in principal but the evidence, so far as it can be provided, is catching up.
*edit*: a just-so story for you - right after the birth of my 1st child, I noticed an almost instantaneous and sharp decline in my affection for my pets…especially my dog. I pondered this for years before I finally heard about it happening to a few others men that I know so I’ll put forward the following: having pets in todays day and age is not but a tool to signal one’s fitness as a parent to attract a high quality mate. But once you make the transition to real life parenthood, the signal is absolutely worthless and thus the relationship you have with your pet substantially changes with your situation.
🍻, JD
You say that EP is mostly garbage, but you failed to show what are the articles or books which compose most of EP which are garbage. You gave one example of pets, without showing the article. Pretty much all of your criticisms have counterarguments in the book "the adapted mind". You have to point out specifically which articles have the just-so stories
I've read The Adapted Mind. It's a good book and foundational to EP. I actually formed my arguments in part as a response to the ethos proposed in that book. I don't think it addresses the concerns regarding EP's adaptationist approach. Even Cosmides and Tooby, the authors of the book, fall victim to making evolutionary assumptions without providing convincing evidence or seriously considering alternative explanations.
Also, I intentionally decided against discussing specific studies because a) I am addressing a macro issue and b) it would be tiresome to go through every EP study I take issue with. I mean the video is already 40 minutes.
@@neurotransmissions but how can you criticize an entire field of knowledge saying that most of it is garbage without showing what most of the garbage is? Sorry but you have to be more specific. I only took note of the criticism you do about pets, which I know nothing about, but will try to investigate. But what else? You don`t have to show every article, just show what are the flaws in most of EP`s objects of study, maybe? mating strategies? parental care? evolution of morality? language? agression and cooperation? you claim all those fields of study with thousands of articles are all mostly garbage?
@@Caio-xb8zc "sure the field is nothing more than making up stories whole cloth, but how do you know some of them aren't coincidentally right"
You better do more in-depth research. It's clearly suggested, because the stories are really loooong, highly complicated in-depth details. This video is really shallow still, in terms of prove SCIENCE projects, by the way. I can tell you this, because of reading lots of stories that are extremely loooooong and in-depth stories exist under thebigSCIENCE stories that are linked to.
But, thanks for your insight.
Hi! If you are allready at it, discussing the weakness of subfields of psychology, could you maybe make a video about the replication crisis?
With such strong claim in the title, I suggest to start at 8:13 right the way. Better yet, read Answers to Ten Common Criticism of Evolutionary Psychology instead.
I don’t understand how people can think it’s a “stretch” for evolution to also be applied to Psychology and human behaviour. We have no reason not to think this, this is the default.
Because evolutionary psychology is reductive and works backwards from conclusions. Evolutionary biology is a complex field that relies on genetic data, while it does make theories, it doesn't propose that evolution is the explanation for everything in nature. Evolutionary psychology looks at a human behaviour and tries to rationalize an "evolutionary" sounding description for why that behaviour came about. It also doesn't address to the field of neuroscience, which makes the claim (backed by physical evidence) that rather than having evolved to have fixed behaviors, our brains have evolved to be adaptive to current circumstances. Basically, evolutionary psychology is speculation which is using the credibility of evolutionary theory to bolster unfounded claims.
To address your point that to think evolution has not had an effect on our psychology is silly, I agree. But the field of evolutionary psychology does not actually have a relationship with biological evolutionary theory, which means that it's conclusions have nothing to do with how physical evolution has impacted our psychology. for that you need a complex understanding of how our psychical bodies (in recent years we suspect particularly the brain) relate to our states of mind, which, again, evolutionary psychology does not offer.
I think he misses that the Haldane formula he quotes is about a constantly changing environment.
@@blankin576You could have just said, "Because evolution is bollocks". Because it is.
@@robertseavor4304thats not his point, which is why he didn't say that. Did you mistake "evolutionary psychology" for "evolution"?
@@travisdeppe9172 Nope. If you cannot understand my meaning then you probably believe in the religion of evolutionism.
Im sorry but say that about evolutionary psychology is like saying astronomy is crap cause astrology also tracks the movement of planets.
I am finding hard to understand this. So evolutionary psych is garbage because it over emphasises on fitness and less on variance. But isn't variance part of the fitness function when viewed at species as a whole ? what am i missing.
When a trait is selected, it means that those in the population without that trait must suffer a loss of fertility. ie they fail to reproduce.
This cost of selection creates a limit to how much evolution by selection can occur before the burden to the species population overall becomes terminal.
However, evolution happens much faster than that. Therefore, there must be a LOT of genetic change that is NOT a direct result of natural selection - random in various ways that he outlines. That even goes for some traits that become universal.
EvoPsych tends to reason backwards: take a trait today and speculate what the selective pressure was that brought it about. But if a lot of traits are not the direct result of natural selection, then that reasoning becomes very insecure. Add to that the lack of evidence (because we can’t compare humans with close relatives) and Houston, we have a problem.
That is what is meant by the criticism that EvoPsych is excessively “adaptationist”.
It’s garbage cause anything can be explained post hoc.
It's garbage because it attributes deliberate human perversions to natural selection and calls them inevitable thereby denying free will. The elites love it because then the powerful get to determine the course of history and say it's just as natural as gravity.
@@rhetoric5173That’s not strictly true: most attempts are simply fallacial and often presented with bad - or bad faith - arguments. The real reason a lot of EvoPsych is BS is oversimplified horseshit from self-professed experts & their favourite projections.
Have you taken a look at the behavior of other primates? See any similarities?
I think the reason for keeping pets is the same reason we want children - the same reason we want to create things, and solve problems. I don't know what that reason is, but I can definitely _feel_ how they all activate the same general area in my brain.
Maybe the desire to be a part on something important in life, like something to give meaning to our own lives? That or just company and emotional attachment.
Sounds like you didn't understand evolution by natural selection to begin with.
So your criticism is more to do with the implementation?
In the beginning there was banana everyone knows that 😁🎉
No goal of life bro
There is non
Why talk about belief. Like why waste my time 🤣
Fitness is being misunderstood.
Fitness is not about the individual, it's about gene replication.
also evolution is obviously not restricted to genes and biology.
A lot of our psychology is structured and molded by culture, but culture is also evolutionary.
So evolutionary psychology is the most valid theory for explaining all of our present behaviour.
He is forgetting that sexual selection has selected for 'neutral' genetic variation and that is indirectly natural selection and evolutionary.
Tbf I don't know a ton about things like climate change or viruses and vaccinations but I trust the science. Of course I allow myself to be skeptical if something doesn't make sense to me or goes against whatever my hunch is but when I have questions I like to think I have a decent grasp of where to look and what sources to trust over others. I also don't know a ton about evolutionary psychology but again, I trust the science. Its interesting to me however that when certain people outright deny climate change or the efficacy of vaccinations we condemn them as anti-science and we see them as clearly motivated by their own personal beliefs. I mean the evidence is overwhelming if they just looked for it, but for certain people it just doesn't align with their world view whether for religious, political or personal reasons. Regardless we can see the incentives underlying what they do and don't believe.
I feel like this is very similar to evolutionary psychology but for a different kind of person. Some of the scientific evidence and claims don't align with their views or what they want to believe about the world and so they deny it. For them they feel like its different though because they'll say they've looked at all of the evidence but they see problems everywhere so obviously its a garbage field of science. But this is identical to what a climate change denier does. They latch onto the bad studies and controversies as being evidence that therefore the entire field of climate science can't be trusted.
I think what leads to this more than anything is allowing a topic to be "off limits." If someone wants to deny climate change for instance I have no problem with that whatsoever. I'd just hope that they are willing to look at all the evidence including the best counter arguments and criticism of their own beliefs just as I would do for their evidence. I'm not worried about what conclusions I'm going to find, if it really is good evidence then I'd like to believe that means I'll change my beliefs to align better with what's true about the world. Its not like I want a climate crisis to happen, its just what I really think is the case based on the best evidence. The same is true for any other belief including anything and everything in evolutionary psychology. My preferences for what I do or don't want to be true just doesn't have anything to do with what's actually the case about the world and reality.
I like your credo! I usually believe things based on my own incentives. Setting a high value on personal autonomy, I wanted the covid vaccine to be a fail. The fact that it was - at least partially- it unlikely to have been predicted by my awesome intuition. Your humility does you more credit.
I see an issue with your comparison to fields like climate change or the efficacy of vaccination. Those fields have much larger data pools over longer periods of time they are drawing upon. They are pretty much settled science. Comparing evopsych to them seems odd. I’m a microbiologist by training and I have no problems with the concept of evopsych and it’s probably gotten a bad name from a minority of practitioners willing to push sensationalist findings that are based on extremely shaky studies with outrageously small sample sizes. Kind of reminds me of the rush to publish all kinds of dubious papers on how the microbiome ‘effects’ just about everything you could think of in my own field. Problem is all these flashy dubious studies make a media splash when they get published with of course no discussion about sample size, effect size and methodology, but the much better studies with much larger sample sizes and controlled conditions and meta-analyses that come out years later showing no statistical significance don’t get any media coverage (women’s preference in sexual partner traits changing with ovulation is a good example of this, as far as I’m aware none of these studies have held up when repeated with larger sample sizes).
Again I’m a layperson not involved in a field anywhere near evopsych but it seems to me we may be making the mistake of thinking some culturally dictated behaviors specific to our period of time are universal and explainable by genetically inheritable traits. Like the idea men are more sexual, wired to cheat even though we as a culture at times have held the exact opposite view. Or even the idea man = hunter, woman = gatherer. There was that anthropological survey that found a substantial minority of women across cultures involved in hunting and vice versa. Idk, it seems the more anthropological works I’m exposed to the more clear it seems we have a bias to assume the behaviors/societal roles of our own culture equal some universal norm when they aren’t.
@@pameladickson1478 "I see an issue with your comparison to fields like climate change or the efficacy of vaccination. Those fields have much larger data pools over longer periods of time they are drawing upon. They are pretty much settled science. "
But where is this coming from? Why is this supposed to just be obvious to me? Settled by who or what? What "settles" a science? Both me and you are absolutely free to look up any and all research in these fields we are talking about. I ask sincerely when I say have you done this search to see what's actually the case?
"I’m a microbiologist by training and I have no problems with the concept of evopsych and it’s probably gotten a bad name from a minority of practitioners willing to push sensationalist findings that are based on extremely shaky studies with outrageously small sample sizes. Kind of reminds me of the rush to publish all kinds of dubious papers on how the microbiome ‘effects’ just about everything you could think of in my own field."
But who are the people we get this information from? At least for me its always been "Researchers at some university found that X amount of research isn't reproducible" Its not coming from random people on youtube. Are there any large studies or metastudies that say evo-psych research is particularly prone to being faulty?
"women’s preference in sexual partner traits changing with ovulation is a good example of this, as far as I’m aware none of these studies have held up when repeated with larger sample sizes"
Which to me seems to have to do with this EXACT thing its talking about. This is just simple science. What if I used something in climate science that we've gotten better at understanding and point out that in the past we we're off by a little and then use that as evidence for the whole field being problematic?
"some culturally dictated behaviors specific to our period of time are universal and explainable by genetically inheritable traits"
But what if they are? Why would it matter? As ridiculous as an example what if it really was just the case that a certain Chinese population showed by far the strongest propensity to play the violin than any other population on the planet. I'm not saying that's the case, I'm saying it as an example. So what if its true? Are you going to prejudice people based on whats true or not? Are you going to deem someone less than or better than because they have a certain set of genes? Whats the alternative here? What if its true but people put pressure on each other to not mention it because its a social taboo? We're just supposed to play pretend with each other because we're not mature enough to handle the truth? Again, I'm not saying its the case, I'm using it as an example. It could very well be the complete opposite if thats where the evidence led.
I have zero attachment to this field. As far as I know my comments are free to be seen by anyone and I post sporadic videos on playing the piano and nature related things. I don't spend my time in this field at all. But I guess I took it personally because it reminded me growing up in the Mormon church. I was told again and again and again what I could and couldn't question. I was made to feel bad for even going in certain directions of questioning. Evopsych is like the combination of perfect topics for some people where they just don't want to believe anything about the field because they already have their minds made up. Count me out of that altogether. I'm going to ask what I want, I'm independent and smart enough to go look up anything anyone claims and find good sources to see if they are bullshitting me or not. I'm not saying I know anything about this field. I haven't even made a claim about anything in this field because I really don't know. But I'm not going to pretend to know just because it feels like the right answer to me.
Is it not possible that cultural influences alter gene expression, epigenetically?
I think humans began to keep pets for a variety of reasons. Ask anyone with a pet why they got a pet and you'll get so many answers For companionship, for work, for protection, for pest control, to signify wealth. There is no one reason why humans have pets.
I stopped watching the video at 20:00. Just BS.
You missed the entire issue I have with EP then.
Gonna watch the whole video but the intro seems written by someone who never read a actual book on evolutionary psychology
I can’t even watch this whole thing. It’s absolutely ridiculous how much you let your own subjective morals infringe on science. Yes, I completely agree that bias can play a role in what ideas evolutionary psychologists endorse, but your bias also can play a role in what ideas you reject. The modern scientific world is truly suffering a great deal from moral and political infringement
"Everything is an adaptation" - it's not evopsych stance at all.
Because those that had pets had more protection and were more likeley to survive. Yeah it could be anything
From what I understand, it seems as though you're only tackling this video as an argument against the Jordan Peterson-type hypotheses. You mention plenty of roadblocks to your reasoning, but that's it, you simply continue without seriously reinforcing why you're right. It feels honest, but also lazy.
As a working class white man, the study of evolutionary psychology is important to me since the majority of the prefrontal cortex and the human conscience didn't evolve at all in the past 10,000 years, but before the advent of widespread agriculture, before any hierarchy at all. I look to evolution psychology to back up my desire for the world to become a completely egalitarian society through worker co-ops (or in the shorter term, labor unions).
Dedicating an entire video to chastising the way the general public interprets scientific studies is just virtue signaling. There is no actionable way forward if you only tell people not to use scientific studies wrong in a RUclips video, and your authoritarian and condescending way of speaking may end up further invigorating your opposition.
I would recommend the book Civilized to Death by Christopher Ryan. It's a very good book, even if it doesn't get too far into specific behaviors, but rather into culture instead.
I’m not chastising how the general public consumes Evo psych, I’m chastising evo psych researchers for doing bad science. And yes, that includes authors or public figures that cherry-pick data or gloss over counter arguments. Kind of like Civilized to Death, which is provocative, but not convincing. It’s simply more evolutionary storytelling. If you’d like to resort to ad hominem attacks by saying I’m virtue signaling, then we’re not really talking about the arguments I made in the video. Though based on your comment, it doesn’t feel like you fully grasped the conclusion I laid out regarding the field.
I'm sorry, I wish I hadn't been so aggressive in that comment. I honestly didn't watch past the twenty minute mark until you replied.
I enjoy how you're encouraging the addition of more nuance to the concept of this field and I hadn't thought of the idea that the adaptation equation could flat out be incorrect. I know it's not the style of this video, but I would prefer a couple specific references to prove wrong that equation and the genetic changes within 450 years thing (and anything you would like to disprove to the audience), since that would immediately implicate genetic historians' current claims on the timeline of human evolution.
I do disagree somewhat, though, that all academic work in this field must be strictly quantified. I personally believe more differing hypotheses would be better than completely eliminating those with possible logical holes. That leaves research in the future more open. But I'm sure the current Evo Psych researchers could use much more of your caution to view the field from more angles. Blind spots are called blind spots for a reason.
But other than that and the majority of the significant content being so far into the video, I have no qualms anymore, so I apologize for being an idiot in your comments section.
@@Dkdudeman it’s all good man. I appreciate your comment and critiques. I think it’s these kinds of conversations that improve our understanding and decrease our blind spots, so thank you.
Truth claims definitely get picked up and tossed around in harmful ways. Unfortunately, this is true across the sciences in general where correlation becomes causation. My understanding, which is probably novice at best, is that multilevel selection and contextual pressure interact in a dance we call evolution. I would have loved more discussion about culture and I am sure editing is hard. I do find utility in exploring the function of adaptive human behavior within a broader biopsychosocial context. Maybe I've read too much David Sloan Wilson and EO Wilson. I try not to make too many big T truth claims. Thanks for the thoughtful work! Explore humbly!
Wow, someone with my last name! Rather a spelling variation, but I've never seen one before. On another note, I think you summarized my feelings well.
David Sloan Wilson's work is great!
You should read Peter Joseph's The New Human Rights Movement then.
Why the hell the video starts for so long, it's so irritating...
Be warned this is basically click bait with incoherent arguments. Steve Pinker or Gad Saad would destroy these poorly formed arguments.
I always try and seek out those that have a different perspective so I can understand both sides of the argument. Unfortunately this one is basically just diatribe With very little substance
Could you sum up the main problems with this video! (Also a fan of Gad Saad lel)
I don't think it's clickbait at all. I literally am saying evo psych is mostly garbage and explain why. You can say the arguments are incoherent if you like, but I'm curious what doesn't make sense to you or what you think is poorly-formed.
As for Gad Saad, I'm glad you bring him up. He's actually one of the people I would say manipulates evolutionary psychology to serve his ideology. He wields evo psych like a weapon, trying to "destroy" people as you put it. Jordan Peterson falls into this same camp. That isn't how science works. It's not about who is the best debater or who "wins". It's an instrument for examining the evidence and forming a more complete understanding of the universe, not a way to defend one's personal view of the world.
@@neurotransmissions you can't educate these people. they are bigots who want to justify their f-ed up beliefs through goofy """"intellectuals""" such as peterson. it is truly a sad existence.
I mean it's basically tautological to say that R4p3 is natural. It is a behavior exhibited by natural beings...ipso facto, etc.
It doesn't really have much to say about what we DO about it, however. Matricide is also natural.
Can’t we say rape? He did…
Firstly, can I say that as a Psychology student I really do appreciate you referencing the sources of information. Secondly, For a while there I thought your statement of "evolutionary psychology is mostly garbage" was driven by misconceptions. But you proved me wrong and I found myself agreeing with alot of points. Evolutionary Psychology cannot explain everything, and sometimes cant decide whether something is an adaptation or a by- product. This video was interesting to listen to and has provided me with some points to research for my assignment. (which is looking at the criticisms and limitations of Evolutionary Psychology. So thank you :)
You exaggerate and misrepresent evolutionary psychologists. None of them claim that "everything is an adaptation", neither do most of them ignore modern evolutionary biology principles. You seem to be erecting a straw man. Every hypothesis is a "just so story" until there is empirical evidence. Why is the "just so story" accusation not applied to social leaning theories or social conflict theories? I fear what you perceive as bad EP is research that challenges your existing world view, bias works in many ways.
A hypothesis is a starting point, a just so story is an ending point. They are not related in the slightest. Of course, for evolutionary psychologists, there is no difference between their first supposition and their conclusion, so I can see why you'd be confused, but they are supposed to be very different.
Great video 👍 & the narration was really good 😂
One request- Could you please make a video on BCI/BMI and talk about it's future applications & uses not only for the patients but also for the general public. Thanks for the amazing content ❤️
Great suggestion! We’ll take down a note.
@@neurotransmissionsWhile you're at it, might it also be possible to do a video on finding specifically trained therapists and treatments for childhood sexual trauma / CPTSD, i.e., SGB (stellate ganglion block), ketamine infusions.?
They are small and cute and look like babies
Here I, a layman, go writing a plausible evolutionary hypothesis for why did we started keeping pets, as requested: we relate to our animal companions with the same affections as we do to our human friends. The animals first domesticated were kept around for utilitarian reasons (meat, keeping pests and intruders at bay, help with hunting and other chores), but we formed bonds with them regardless, as kind of a residual for our adaptive social behaviours. And we just kept having more and more animals around, once we've started.
What’s your problem with Steven Pinker?
It seems fairly obvious to me that animals have been useful for us in different ways for a long time. Humans being social species, started bonding with animals, through empathy and many other animals have the same capacity of getting attached to humans. It started as a sort of symbiotic relationship, like dogs hunting along man, and birds being used for food production, or perhaps for delivering messages. This utility of pets then has reduced or changed with technological evolution, yet the potential of bonding with them has remained similar.
You certainly made it very clear who you hate.
I don't have any formal background (or understanding) of Evolutionary Psychology. I haven't read any papers or even books about it. But before watching this video I would have claimed to believe it, just because what I picked up through osmosis made sense to me. When you were laying it out, I was nodding along. But when you debunked it, you didn't address any opinions that I actually held. Or, I don't think you did? So now I think that Evolutionary Psychology may not be what I was referring to.
My concept of the field was trying to understand differences between the world we adapted to, and the world me made. That our society doesn't meet our own human needs very well. Sedentary life makes us depressed because we're wired to be trekking in a savanna all day long. We pig out on candy because if we didn't take advantage of that berry bush, we might starve by next week. We're lonely because we live alone in tiny boxes instead of with a tribe of close family who all work together every day to stay alive. These are all what I was calling Evolutionary Psychology.
I'm interested in understanding where we came from, how it shapes us, and how we can use that insight to make society healthier for us. What is that field called?
It's called evolutionary psychology. I understand the goal of this video being to criticize, but it has vastly reduced a field down to those things that are easy to knock down and ignores a lot of the nuance to it. Comparative psych relies on a lot of evolutionary psych principles. Animal psych relies on a lot of those principles, etc. If you asked any evolutionary psychologist, you'd get a slightly different synopsis of his or her field of study. I think this video relies on a very specific understanding of the field.
I'm curious to know what you feel was ignored in the video. I don't see how taking principles from a field makes it more valid. Modern medicine relies on principles of old medicine, but that doesn't mean we still think bloodletting is the ideal treatment for mental illness.
@@neurotransmissions In another comment, you said that your problem with evolutionary psychology research around rape is how it gets discussed with wider audiences. That discussion doesn't have any bearing on the validity of the research, but it sways your opinion of that research. I think it's a bit unfair to make that argument while saying that principles being used from a field don't make it more valid. Your former argument relies on applying opinions to the validity of an area of research. However, I do think that the principles taken from evolutionary psych that are applied to comparative and animal psychology are valid and evidence-based.
I think there's a lot of nuance in how evolutionary psychology is applied, and I understand why that wasn't fully explored in the video - no one wants to upload a two hour RUclips video! Very few people are pure behaviorists or purely deterministic. Looking through the lens of evolution has not meant ignoring the past 12,000 years. There has been a lot of research regarding evolution more recently and how we may be evolving with modern day pressures and how past evolution interacts with modern day pressures. Drawing a reasonably logical conclusion that our social behaviors evolve as much as our physical characteristics is not so far fetched as the four humors method of medicine. We have strong evidence that the four humors were nonsense. We do not have strong evidence that our behaviors are not influenced by evolution, and we do have research pointing to that. I don't think that's a fair comparison.
We can see a strong pattern of evolving behaviors and intelligence in the difference between other primates and ourselves based on when we diverged. The later the divergence, the more similar their intelligence and behavior is to ours. Bonobos who diverged from us 8 million years ago are less similar to us than chimpanzees who diverged 5-6 million years ago. That holds true with gorillas being less intelligent than bonobos and diverging before they did. Does that guarantee that our way of thinking and processing the world is evolutionary or that it continues to be? No, but it does suggest that the ability of a chimpanzee to use a lexigram keyboard to communicate compared to a gorilla's lack of capability has implications for our evolution as well. We are facing very different pressures for evolution today. We are not necessarily looking for strength in a mate, and modern medicine removes a lot of necessity for seeking a healthy mate. We are often seeking kindness, intelligence, empathy, etc. What will that mean for our evolution? I think that's an area of evolutionary psychology that is important and will continue to develop.
@@neurotransmissions Sorry to have written a small novel, didn't realize how long it was until I hit post. Just an area I'm interested in and worked in!
No worries! I appreciate the thorough response. First off, in that other comment, I was addressing the person's concern that they thought I was conflating what is "natural" with what is "right". I was making a point that you can discuss topics of rape without condoning or excusing them which, unfortunately, has happened a lot with evolutionary psychology in the general public. I specifically did not make that the focus of my video because plenty of others have more eloquently discussed that topic. However, I also presented some issues with the research itself, which was the primary critique I brought up in the video.
We are in agreement that you can take valid principles from another field, but what I was saying is that cherry-picking the valid principles from evolutionary psychology doesn't forgive the other principles that, frankly, result in a lot of poor research. By no means am I saying evolutionary psychology is nonsense like bloodletting, but bloodletting certainly advanced the development of phlebotomy and the study of our bodily fluids. Does that mean bloodletting should hold the same validity as phlebotomy? Certainly not. In the same way, evolutionary psychology has not necessarily earned its validity simply because other fields take principles from it.
I agree that evolutionary psychology very much focuses on modern day pressures, but typically within the context of genetic changes that happened during the Pleistocene and how they either synergize or conflict with our modern lives. Perhaps I am unaware of a surge of new studies about evolutionary trends occurring in more recent times? As stated, I don't think evolutionary psychology is invalid. I think it should be thoroughly scrutinized in order to rid the field of bloodletting-like research. As for your last paragraph, I think we are in agreement that the mind continued to develop and it is worth researching. However, as I make very clear, researchers must avoid evolutionary storytelling without having the rigorous evidence to back it up. I think that much of the best research in the field is yet to come as we continue to have a longer history of recorded time. I'll be curious to see where evo psych goes next.
no jordan peterson was harmed
Humans started kepping pets when they realised that doggies and kitties were cute 💕 and good bois.
(Just joking, great video!!)
P.s.: when you said "and that's the last time I'm going to say anything nice about Pinker" I screeched. As a Doctor in Linguistics I agree.
The orgasm of an all powerful God 😂
It would be naive to assume natural selection plays zero role in psychology, but surely, to focus entirely on the potential evolutionary history of psychologies while neglecting the environmental pressures that induces these possible evolutionary adaptations is inadequate.
I don't think anyone is genuinely doing that though. Evolution is a response to environmental pressures. We inherently have to consider those pressures to understand why certain adaptations carried forward. In applying evolutionary psychology today, we have to consider how those adaptations are interacting with our present day environmental pressures. There's no genuine separation there, and I haven't seen a paper published that argues it can be fully separated. We don't live in a vacuum, you know? Seems like a strawman.
@@beccam7298 No, that's actually pretty much what I'm trying to say.
Well the issue is that we have a limited understanding on how our hunter-gatherer ancestors live, let alone how they interacted with and were affected by the environment.