I much agree with you. I was getting flashbacks from Dr. Sapolsky's lecture series. Dr. Fleischman tries her best to condense Sapolsky's roughly 30 part & over 1 hour per part series into an 80 minute romp. I think she performed admirably well.
Do you think burial practices came about in association with our disgust response? A body left unburied creates many of the scenarios you were describing that trigger our disgust response. Putting it in the ground prevents that. Ceremonial associations could be a bi-product?
Can someone plz tell me how to be involved in this field--I truly feel like this is what I've been looking 4 my whole life, and I'd like to expand my knowledge and participation in this field to contribute to our existence
Low reproductive potential and/or a sense of burdensomeness to kin, thats why it happens most frequently with youth/young adults and older age 70+ folks. This is per David Buss’ textbook on evo psych
People who have functional bodies and suicide.. hmmm I think it's a by-product of our ego and self-awareness really. It could also be remnant of heroic behaviour where let's say one person sacrifices for the good of their community, or as a way to not be a burden, but that would be a stretch in regards to modern suicide. This would also assume they lived enough to have offspring to pass suicide genes.
@David Wolff Yes, that seems like the best explanation we got. The heroic suicide happens in a way different archetypical situation anyway. Maybe suicide is a manifestation of increasing (non-selected for) hereditary neuroticism (+ modern supernormal stimuli) that leads to fatalistic ideation. I guess many people who back then were born with certain problems (including psychological) died young, or weren't sexually selected and didn't have a chance to pass their genes, but now they aren't dying, so this maladaptive emotional programs increase in our population. Suicide could bring fitness gain in many situations, even non heroic, so it would be interesting to find if there are some combination of cues that may trigger that.
I read Buss' book, (Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating) and I believe he did find that men universally desire lower sex partners (in long-term mating) cross culturally but the specific numbers considered "low" varied from culture to culture. So even in Scandinavia men preferred that their long-term mates had lower numbers of sex partners but what was considered low differed within each culture. There were no cultures where men preferred women to have a high number of sex partners in long-term mates. However, sexual promiscuity was a desirable trait for short-term mating, as it signaled ease of sexual access. From what I remember reading, across human cultures, the more sexual partners a woman had the more it lowered her desirability for long-term mating, and the more it raised her desirability for short-term mating. That's what I remember from the book anyway, perhaps new evidence has come to light.
People don't react well when I talk to them about evolutionary psychology. Most folk want to believe the human mind is a blank slate, that they're in total control of the way that they think. They don't even want to accept that they're afraid to die, despite their whole body having evolved to avoid death. "I've accepted my death," they tell me. No, cancer patients accept their death. And when they do, they live life to their fullest because their looming death is salient. If you're working a lousy job you hate, abusing substances to cope with day to day stress and trying your hardest to assert your dominance in every situation, you haven't accepted your death. You've blinded yourself to it. And there's evolutionary reasons for why you do that.
Sorry to hear your cancer but what would you do if you found out medical have found the cure of the uncurable would you explore the path and show medical have been negligence to not share there finds can I share something with you 1) vitamin c antidote that's IV vitamin c ( but for home remedies vitamin c powder and bicarbonated of soda and mineral water. Vitamin c powder and bicarbonated of soda not vitamin c tablets go for vit c powder and bicarbonated of soda . 2) Fenugreek oil eat it , powder, and sprouts 3) cinnamon essential oil and carrier oil put extra essential oil it might burn but its a healing burn do put much but put extra drops inn 3) beetroot raw grated 4) antil fungal oils like myrrh essential oil and carrier oils carrot oil . 5) slippery elm powder it's a tree bark powder drink it ... The more herbs what are healing it's time to beat cancer and evolve yourself we can do it anti viral medication helps too it's called prep ask your hiv clinic but don't tell them.about cancer just ask to go on it if they ask why just say you slept with someone with hiv and you need prep it will evolve your immune system 😉 sorry alot of info but I hope you research more essica tea has cured cancer in the 50's hope you research more, program call superfood evolution fenugreek!
@@derrickjohn3684 Sorry, I think there was a miscommunication. I don't have cancer, I was just bringing up cancer patients to make a point 😅 All good advice for anyone though, cancer or not.
More Sapolsky Stanford Lectures study is needed. During the whole lecture, the phrase “an idea is…” every time an explanation on a human behaviour is attempted
This actually gives me more reason to believe in culture having more of an impact than evolution when it comes to behavior. This seems too much of post hoc rationalization for my taste. Sciences des bros.
@@justanothernick3984 definitely not science. Science is not about “an idea is….” when explaining human behaviour. These are just stories based on animals. Whoever has the better story wins
@@jsksia2902 Doesn't fit here but it's from a Sapolsky video on EvPsych I commented on. " I don't think we can measure it in synapses in the brain and I'd like to see someone take another approach, through consciousness (I might have meant sentience here), what it means and what "built in features" it holds with the active neocortex and the subconscious, self-preservation and all of those things. I wouldn't know where to turn. "
@@justanothernick3984 Granted we are certain we're an evolved mammal with a nature that is flexible but nonetheless constrained, to me this field and method of enquiry is essential. Studying human behavior is after all difficult no matter the approach. Psychology research already has extremely poor reproducibility of results. We have learnt much about the brain and mind but ultimately (as we would expect dealing with something so complex) we have so much left to learn. Major contributors to the field (such as Freud) haven't really left us with theories that easily testable. Ultimately there is no viable option but careful and considered exploration of evo psych theories. Unless we want to pretend we're not animals, haven't evolved and just happen to be the only blank slate species on the planet.
@@jameslancet174 I don't see the reason to doubt we evolved from other species into this form we currently hold and I don't think a blank state represents it correctly either. What I'm considering is some inherent drive necessary for sustaining this body on a psychological level that regulates us fundamentally (I'll try to give a futuristic though experiment in the end). This drive is something Freud was exploring too, I can't tell the difference between the id, ego or superego just to tell you how I'm roaming around in darkness here. But this drive is something that just is. And when in contact with others (culture) adapts to find its place in some hierarchy, because the way I imagine it, needs validation and sustainability as too aggressive approach will squash it. So I'm seeing culture as another fundamental force too. Yes, mutations do occur, like skin color adapting to radiation and other things I'm too ignorant of knowing but I think this is fascinating and just not buying this hypothesis they (Evo Psychs) are trying to convince me of. Too many contradictions. The though experiment: A sophisticated AI program knowing enough of itself to know it's finite. Would it try to sustain itself by any means necessary if it had the possibility to do so? That would be a sort of created state of ego, or am I thinking too far outside the box here? And coupled with that... If it got to that state, would the AI use a central governing hub to protect the core circuits, think Terminator-fiction like Skynet here or would every individual program have it's own sustainable drive building factions, think Transformers-fiction like Autobots and Decepticons? Maybe the wheels fell off completely at some point during this comment. If so, I apologize. 😃
That's the funny comment have read this day lolol. Am still laughing, after when gonna buy some groceries, if people will notice gonna laugh without reason and will be close in asylum, myself will remember your comment. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
To be consistent with the worldview embodied by this field, you should really hate her, just look at her last name, you shouldn't like those, you should believe they are genetically inferior and plotting to breed your ethnic group out with their sneaky ways, because evolution
@@juliaabadi6812 Leave aside the impact on knowledge directly, think of how society would look if women's preferences were given more importance. The following is a simplistic and slightly extremist imagination of the human society that we might have: It would be highly competitive and stressful for males, but society would have much lesser physical and sexual violence; every logical rule or law would have a dozen empathetic exceptions; life in human society would have a lot more nuance; mentalists would become very common and non-verbal communication would be a first-class subject in all schools; courtship would be a complex multi-doctorate science as well as a performing art; comedy (i.e. benign violation) would not be so popular; choice, variety and novelty would be valued much more; we would probably move to a world government and more socialism quicker; basic needs would be fulfilled first while we might put off space exploration or faster computers till after major glaring socio-economic flaws were fixed; there would be lesser wealth inequality and more focus on healthcare. On the flip side, men with violent or unethical behaviours might end being treated as disposable and outcasts, punished with gentle or forced "schooling", prisons would involve reform lectures, reform training, routine testing; freedom and liberty would not be as important as correctness and compliant behaviour. This is just my imagination, not trying to prove anything or conclude anything.
I love ❤️ this lecture it's an holistic approach where science and nature has finally done a figure of eight science went one way and nature mysticism went another way but they amazingly the meet in the middle... from reflexology to psychology or in her words psychology and biology coming together ❤️ 🤔 it's sounds like heaven ... coming together is a step forward rather than going backward ...
I really enjoy to learn with her, but I have to say that the example used by her about fourteen year old girls kidnapping in Brazil is mistaken. There is a lot of wrong things about Brazil and this isn’t one of them.
Even in the first basic section where she talks about EVP "ultimate" explanation shows the field's claim adds NOTHING to the understanding to the behavior that cannot be explained by sociology. This is the emptiest field but then hard scientists trying to explain human behavior always believe they have found the perfect algorithm for that behavior. Cf Newtom and alchemy.
Hi folks, The beginning of this lecture is giving me flashbacks from Dr. Robert Sapolsky's lectures. His lectures on Human Behavioral Biology are quintessential. Parts of this lecture sound so similar to Dr. Sapolsky that I almost want to say it's plagiarism, but maybe their content is so similar that it's unavoidable. I'm not accusing anyone yet.
Common Fleishman you use "evolutionary" like they use "quantum" now or "atomic" last century, in a marketing way. Most of what you qualify as evolution is mere adaptation.
@David Wolff Because Natural Selection can only work within a set of identical Chromosomes, but doesn't overlap into speciation. That's yet another sophistic "magic" trick.
Robert Sapolsky writes about the merging of Psychology and biology in his book "Behave: Human Behavior At Our Best And Worst" he doesn't talk about the merging of Psychology and Biology in Robert Sapolsy's RUclips "Behave: Human Biology At Our Best And Worst". Men are not taller than women. it's a generalized over exaggeration. i'm a little short to be a stormtrooper. But i'm the right height for living in Japan. i don't hit my head on doorways. Except at Matsuo Basho's House in Ueno Iga.
Fascinating stuff from Diana. I've only just discovered her so I've got lots of catching up to do. I disagree though with her view that looking at pornography is comparable to dogs looking in a mirror. Hope I'm not misunderstanding her but aren't we capable as humans of objectifying images and representations ? Don't we do that with Art ? Isn't it also connected to dreams, fantasy, music, religion etc.
What do evolutionary psychologists think about the idea, highly evidenced idea, of existence precede s essence? Do these psychological essences have pre determined routes of development, independent of experience?
Darwinism and natural selection, equals the basic ways life evolved within complex systems and determined by high improbabilities. The mind and it's evolutionary as well as individual life development is far too complex to be explained by overarching evolutionary psychology. The brain is one of, or the most complex systems in evolution w which has deterministic developmental processes in interaction with multitudes of internal and external phenemona. Individual differences are influenced by genetic interaction with the environment and these are highly dynamic rather than fixed within determined systems. The world or culture we exist within can make us see and think.othetwise, making people believe they are pre destined to be who they are, much the way Christianity teaches people. This centres thinking about who we are within a fixed individualist parameter that cannot successful account for culture and the self as other and back again. Existentialism then teaches us, once we have true agency, to be free to choose, and take responsibility for those choices. Of course there is social Darwinism, which has at times in history been a complete disaster. Plus I am quite sure social Darwinists have often kept the gene pool fairly narrow, which I am quite sure doesn't strengthen the gene pool. Not do I know how social Darwinists explain the impact of culture on genetic expression and individual difgerences. Perhaps you could enlighten me.....
Well if essence precedes existence biological make up determines who we become rather than experience determining who.we become or can be. That suggests pure nature is how people should be understood, rather than nurture and nature in interaction. Yet, human nature can have many faces and human nurturing can have limitless consequences in interaction with many other natures brought about by limitless outcomes of nurture. How can EP create a valid quantifiable set of theories to explain human thinking about behaviour and therefore individual differences between social groups. For instance, the lecturer made the claim that Hunter gatherers were more violent than farming and industrial societies, claiming that accounts for their lack of success and intelligence. Yet, this is a hypothesis or statement based on very selective evidence to such an extent that it can be completely falsified. Moreover, evidence is available to suggest the opposite, that violence led to greater success and then power hierarchies were built to maintain and control populations and therefore violence now takes on different forms through power relations. However, she makes the point that violence is an innate aspect of being human. I am just trying to work out how EP can explain the quality of being human, when it is based entirely on objective principles. And a set of predetermined rules to explain human behaviour. Is it suggesting universal rules to explain individual difference and life outcome that can be personalised and measured with validity and replicability?
She made a claim that female psychopaths are rare. Id like to see her source for this claim as studies have found it's far from rare. Approximately half as popular in female as males. For example studies show female inmates with psychopathy make up 11-17% of the overall prison population, compared to their male counterparts at 25-30%. She then goes on to say most snakes are poisonous. This is incorrect as well. First they aren't poisonous they are venomous and that only represents 20% of all snakes.
I think they should look into this deeper. Women are hypergamous. Hypergamy is not necessarily psychopathic but there is a selfish coldness to it. Studies have shown that females do not bond emotionally as much as males. Studies very much prove women are in relationships with men not for an emotionally bonded partner but for resources and offspring. Women are manipulative and emotionally detached. I think the whole narrative of women being low on the Robert o Hare checklist is in need of being reevaluated
She says that a lot of bad people of evolutionary psychology get a lot of media coverage. I think she was talking about herself. Cant belive she is a student of Buss.
I’m curious about the socialization vs evolution question. So putting my question into context; when a baby boy / girl is born isn’t it the work of the brain to mimic traits, characteristics and behaviors of the parent who looks like them? Then wouldn’t that be a socialization thing? Like once the child recognizes what gender they are being categorized as, they’ll start to copy the behaviors of the parent in that category. Wouldn’t that imply that the child had been socialized to act like his fellow gender as opposed to it being an evolutionary thing that he is say “better at spatial stuff” than his sister. I can accept that it’s a evolutionary thing for the brain to pick up on information relating to gender cues but what I’m skeptical about is the claim that the resulting behavior that the child has picked up is based on evolution and not socialization 🤷🏽♀️
Boys of single mothers are often more manly than those with both parents. I am a single father of three and have witnessed first hand that countless gender traits are not socialized, but can be seen in the smallest babies, no matter how you treat them. I certainly didn't teach my little daughter to behave feminine, she just does it on her own. There is some socialization, of course, but in the fields of sex and gender there are measurable biological differences everywhere you look. The narrative that it's all nurture, not nature is promoted by marxist ideologues who unashamedly lie to get their way. Scientists should be wary of these types.
@@moschekiesberg7943 Again that's the essence of the brain, its the source of intelligence that helps a child know subconsciously when there is an imbalance in energy. she's automatically balancing that energy because her brain is doing what its supposed to do. where as if there was a balance of energy and both sides of her brain was being sufficiently stimulated, you'd see her pick up both characteristic's as opposed to trying to balance it out. I imagine she's still young?
@@temidayoakogun1439 So if there is a mother, the female child emulates her, if there is no mother, the female child balances the male energy out, in both cases the end result is a female child and it's all the environment and no genetics involved? Sorry, I am not interested in magic, but in science.
Honestly I can’t prove it, I’m not a scientist at least not yet and from my knowledge of psychology howbeit limited, when i think about this particular feminine-masculine dynamic, that’s how I imagine it works. It’s an interesting one and I’ll remain curious about it. Thanks for engaging my curiosity though. Goodluck 🙂
Is anyone else bothered by the fact that when she claimed that her dissertation could have been wrong she explained why at least briefly yet other studies she claimed to be falsified she offered no evidence whatsoever I hate it when they do that now she sounds like she's the one falsifying information
Got recommended this video after watching Munecat's video where she completely destroys this "academic field" with actual science. Evolutionary psychology is pseudeoscience, and its proponents are grifters. But it sure is entertaining.
Ooo scary a youtuber "debunks" science on social media🤓☝️ lrobab got rejected hard from evolutionary psychology discussions lmao and coping about it on RUclips
So being angry at conservative pundit is not debunking. Conservative pundits would be idiots if they used sociology too. They are making an ethical fallacy from origin. These video essayist are being reactionary.
Which issues might that be? That diversity and equity will lead to chaos und poverty and there are biological reasons for that? Not really the fault of the scientists.
If you are going to include animals, you should also consider plant life and its extremities, perhaps even machines. (I had a career as an auto mechanic)
The gay uncle theory was always the example of what some wanted to believe because starting -2.5 down to reach 5 to break even never made sense, and as seen with modern associations, it doesn't seem to promote fertility, quite the opposite.
I have my doubts with the study that she mentions about male humans not caring if the female humans are promiscuous, maybe the Scandinavian males just lied to seem more egalitarian.
@Endless Nameless Totally agree with you, it is the narrative they want to implant in males, but such instincts cannot be rationalized, some I think are possible but not this one. I don't know if in this presentation or another where she says that humans should attempt to outsmart some instincts based on certain "morals", funny enough those "morals" are mostly convenient to the feminine imperative.
It would be interesting to calculate just how much information would be lost from this lecture by the elimination of the word "evolutionary" - potentially none.
I removed a video from this as it was beginning to go viral... I was hoping to direct traffic to your page as I am more interested in the expansion of knowledge in this area rather than monetary gain. So it was a shame as the algorithm does not boost videos to that extent easily. If I present my own commentary so it falls under fair use in addition to referring your page on your terms will you be ok with me using this video? I understand this could be an issue of simply involving several people and being more of a pain than it's worth (and there are many other videos I can use so it's no problem)... Thank you for your response
Also to clarify the intent of my page as I know at a glance it can seem to rely on sensationalism... I use trigger media in order to gain traction and to prove a point but I am very passionate about using psychology and evolutionary insight in order to understand how men and women are re-writing our morality autonomously in a post internet society- the ultimate goal is to push disenfranchised men in positive directions and improve the relations between men and women. My goals are very much positive
Yanomami have warriors and practice slash-and-burn agriculture. They are not hunter gathers but a tribe that possesses land. True hunter gathers, like the ancient San people in Africa, are nomadic and do not possess land. Also, they move on if violence threatens them as they do not have warriors. They are peaceful and egalitarian. The Yanomami, like us, live in a culture that uses a dominant status hierarchy, which was adopted because of land ownership. We did not evolve as land owners but as peaceful nomadic hunter gathers.
Anyway it dosn't even matter. The only way to responsiblility handle the idea that your political/ethicaly found to be dangerus or even just peoblematic behaviors is by treating it as social. There's litteraly no other option, therefore it dosn't matter
@@moschekiesberg7943 evo psych is not how science works either. Its just-so stories are unfalsifiable, and its assumptions are based on a 19th century intepretation of evolutionary biology, which was already entagled with the ideology of the time, and the protestant roots of anglo-american culture. The recent fall of the central dogma of molecular biology, and the entire discipline of epigenetics make evo psych ideological underpinnings pretty apparent. The current understanding of evolutionary biology is based on systems theory, complexity theory and emergence, all paradigms that are incompatible with evo psych. However, evo psych confirms a conservative view of human nature, so it'll keep existing, and be supported by right-wingers
An IQ of ~120 would mean there's a reasonably large percentage of people left to continue humanity, but intelligence would have made a giant leap assuming the biological factors are right. Further making the assumption that a higher intelligence will be needed in the future or now because of the development of information tech that can only be well handeld by persons with >120 IQ, it's generally benefitial and we need a reason to reduce the liklyhood of war because nukes and it truns out that helps. Would you be in favor?
Oh ya that’s unfair to you that they just asked people to imagine stepping in dog poop. Just asking someone is one thing but showing a picture and getting a visceral reaction is completely different. It’s why in the movies cops always show pictures of the dead guy to see if there’s a reaction. If there’s a real reaction then the guy might not be the murder whereas if there’s no reaction he’s either insensitive or a murder cause most people react to dead bloody crime scenes and bodies.
That’s interesting your slide said people think the discipline has a conservative bias. It’s like look at economics. Keynesian va Austrian school of thought. Like there’s massive bias in both systems, but that doesn’t mean neither or true or false. Keynes has worked, but inflation and massive debt means it’ll fail eventually as all fiat currencies do. Now that maybe a bias towards the Austrian school of thought but it’s TRUE in the long run. But like Keynes said in the long run WERE ALL DEAD. So you maybe wrong. Keynes admits ya in the long wrong maybe I’m wrong but I’ll be dead before the truth or final result ever comes around. So even if you’re right it may not matter for a century or two. We’ve only been off gold for 50 years and most fiat currencies end by that time. So if we last another 50 years with having to reset the monetary system it truly will be surprising.
Oh that’s HILARIOUS!!! Psychologists promoted a more progressive tax and wealth distribution. I have a democrat friend that wants that to support more government spending. I’ve thought about it a long time and Modern monetary theory or printing of money with no debt creation is great. It’ll redistribute some wealth for s few years and then we’ll hyperinflate as it always happens. Like Rick rule said in an interview. I didn’t benefit much from trump or Biden’s ppp loans or stimi checks. But he admits for decades of low interest rates the government has helped transfer wealth. Think on that. Sure tax more whatever. But why not fix the FREAKING PROBLEM??? The problem is artificially low interest rates not set by a free market. Look social security and don’t be dumb. There’s like 150 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Medicare running out of money by 2028 and social security running out by 2034 paying 76 cents on the dollar. Why has this happened? It’s because social security can only own government debt and the government has forced interest or returns on government debt artificially low. The government is SCREWING over all that pays into social security. Why can’t you see that? It’s not about taxing more. It’s about screwing over savers. Low interest rates also means anyone that can borrow will benefit way more. So sure if it cost 10% for a home mortgage ya there’d be less homes easily bought. But there’d be way less speculation, Wall Street wouldn’t own tens of thousands of homes and automatically there’d be less wealth inequality. I love how you used the metric of w progressive tax to see how caring your field of study was. But then again you got a PhD. So you’d be paying way more. How about schools just get paid less or subsidized less? But seriously go read the book creature from Jekyll island. Just understanding that inflation was known from the creation of the federal reserve the government and big businesses knew what they were doing. Now some businesses were against the creation of a federal reserve but those rich people literally died on the titanic, and J.P. Morgan was supposed to be on the titanic but ended canceling. Governments can only pay down their debt through inflation or print money to spend and as prices go up they tax more not because of new tax laws but because now you make more and food and everything has gone up. Inflation is the silent tax. It’s why in the late 1800s when gold was money and we had deflation that life was great. You worked and your wage didn’t increase a ton but your purchasing power increased. You could buy more goods as things became cheaper to make. The government doesn’t like that. The government can’t tax deflation or an increase in purchasing power. It’s great you guys are progressive but for the love of god do some reading. Learn about inflation. Because if you don’t learn for yourself well you may one day have no pension or social security and be wondering how did this happen!!!
You would have to imagine people stepping in dog poo while other people are watching or if you are alone. Tribalism is a evolutionary trait I would imagine.
She is very selective in her understanding of homicide among Hunter getherers. Plus shes a yank living on stolen lands gained through genocide. The apache culture was said to be very peaceful, and many others too. This is bias based on highly selective evedence.
That doesn’t make sense. If you can’t mate with someone you grow up with who in the he’ll does rural America survive? There’s a crap ton of people that marry people they knew since the second grade. Academically you maybe right, but I’ve lived in a small town and have seen people marry each other that knew each other their whole life. It’s like the whole idea of high school sweetheart. HELL go and watch FOREST GUMP. Like it’s ingrained to procreate. And like they say at church or counselors. The best marriages come from two people that are BEST FRIENDS!
Sure it makes sense people don’t want to marry someone they think is family if they’ve grown up together. But in a small town of 5000 I saw people marry people they knew since second grade. But then again a lot of people did move obviously for college.
Hi Kolton, I believe she means that there's a pattern of very early age (like baby and toddler age) friends, family, and community members learning that they're kin, and not mates. This sexual adaptation is a bit earlier than 2nd grade. On a personal note, I did have a "girlfriend" in 1st grade, but she moved away to a different city and I never saw her again. Maybe if we had been friends even earlier, like 3 or 4 years old, then maybe we would not bonded like that. The extent of our physical relationship was hugs, her sitting on my lap, and a little bit of kissing. We really liked each other a lot.
This professor is awesome! Super smart!
I saw her on triggernometry! She's great, really good sense of humour
Also a cuckoldress
Same
Dr. Fleischman is so insightful, warm, lovely, and brilliant. Thank you for this!!!!
this really is like an intro class to evolutionary biology
I much agree with you.
I was getting flashbacks from Dr. Sapolsky's lecture series. Dr. Fleischman tries her best to condense Sapolsky's roughly 30 part & over 1 hour per part series into an 80 minute romp. I think she performed admirably well.
My brain is lit up. What a fascinating subject! And also what a great speaker!
I think I just acquired a new academic crush. Amazing, mindblowing talk.
she is so compelling! I have an exam tomorrow and just needed the most basic definition of evolutionary psychology but I can't stop watching
I only recently discovered Diana but I’m so glad I did!
happy to hear your summery and humble willingness to carry on
Excellent and openly honest. She doesn't shy from her topic. Worth listening to
That was very fun to watch.
Pleasure is the greatest way to evolve...
Diana is on par with Douglas Murray to me, two great sources of knowledge
'Never seen her before this. She has an engaging and informative presentation style.
john mcwhorter too
Douglas is GAE
Do you think burial practices came about in association with our disgust response?
A body left unburied creates many of the scenarios you were describing that trigger our disgust response.
Putting it in the ground prevents that.
Ceremonial associations could be a bi-product?
Yes that... or just impatience :-)
Yes, and leaving a body left in the open is likely to attract scavengers or predators as well.
Is it by accident that burying the body makes the earth fertile for food or did it evolve as well?
Burning a dead body also prevents gradual decomposition. Pyres are the death ceremonies of choice in India and probably other cultures.
Some cultures leave the dead to decompose above the ground though, so not sure it is an adaptation as it isn't universal.
Great talk, Diana.
I like this presentation; it is comprehensive and illuminating.
Just finished the video. Damn, excellent introduction. I will definitely be looking more into evolutionary psychology.
Can someone plz tell me how to be involved in this field--I truly feel like this is what I've been looking 4 my whole life, and I'd like to expand my knowledge and participation in this field to contribute to our existence
Wow, I am thinking thr same.
@@janenitsch1652 let me know if u gain any insight if u would plz
Very Informative,.
Thank you for uploading this!
How does evolutionary psychology explain suicidal tendencies/self harm and suicide ?
Mutations or environnemental unadaptation.
Suicidal people feel they're not contributing to society. So it's almost like a voluntary, self-opting-out from natural selection.
Low reproductive potential and/or a sense of burdensomeness to kin, thats why it happens most frequently with youth/young adults and older age 70+ folks.
This is per David Buss’ textbook on evo psych
People who have functional bodies and suicide.. hmmm I think it's a by-product of our ego and self-awareness really. It could also be remnant of heroic behaviour where let's say one person sacrifices for the good of their community, or as a way to not be a burden, but that would be a stretch in regards to modern suicide. This would also assume they lived enough to have offspring to pass suicide genes.
@David Wolff Yes, that seems like the best explanation we got. The heroic suicide happens in a way different archetypical situation anyway.
Maybe suicide is a manifestation of increasing (non-selected for) hereditary neuroticism (+ modern supernormal stimuli) that leads to fatalistic ideation. I guess many people who back then were born with certain problems (including psychological) died young, or weren't sexually selected and didn't have a chance to pass their genes, but now they aren't dying, so this maladaptive emotional programs increase in our population.
Suicide could bring fitness gain in many situations, even non heroic, so it would be interesting to find if there are some combination of cues that may trigger that.
This is so interesting!!
Absolutely wonderful, information laden talk.
Thank you Dr. Fleischman I've been looking forward to this
'Men are served better' sounds like a metaphor. This is very literal in its knowledge of human thinking ect, when much of human thought is abstract
rather sad that the audience is quite old. it's really the youngsters that need this kind of education.
I’m a teenager and find it all super interesting, talk to some of my friends about these topics too
thats why we have it on YT
There is a large movement against it amongst younger commentary.
I read Buss' book, (Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating) and I believe he did find that men universally desire lower sex partners (in long-term mating) cross culturally but the specific numbers considered "low" varied from culture to culture. So even in Scandinavia men preferred that their long-term mates had lower numbers of sex partners but what was considered low differed within each culture. There were no cultures where men preferred women to have a high number of sex partners in long-term mates. However, sexual promiscuity was a desirable trait for short-term mating, as it signaled ease of sexual access. From what I remember reading, across human cultures, the more sexual partners a woman had the more it lowered her desirability for long-term mating, and the more it raised her desirability for short-term mating. That's what I remember from the book anyway, perhaps new evidence has come to light.
Not sure what she meant aound 1:17:00 ... does she mean the traditional woman from 1950s is what nature intended?
I've never heard of evolutionary psychology b4 2night, I've never wanted to be a apart of something as I do in that field
Wish they would’ve fixed the sound issue…keeps cutting out…but awesome info!!!!
People don't react well when I talk to them about evolutionary psychology. Most folk want to believe the human mind is a blank slate, that they're in total control of the way that they think. They don't even want to accept that they're afraid to die, despite their whole body having evolved to avoid death. "I've accepted my death," they tell me. No, cancer patients accept their death. And when they do, they live life to their fullest because their looming death is salient. If you're working a lousy job you hate, abusing substances to cope with day to day stress and trying your hardest to assert your dominance in every situation, you haven't accepted your death. You've blinded yourself to it. And there's evolutionary reasons for why you do that.
Sorry to hear your cancer but what would you do if you found out medical have found the cure of the uncurable would you explore the path and show medical have been negligence to not share there finds can I share something with you
1) vitamin c antidote that's IV vitamin c ( but for home remedies vitamin c powder and bicarbonated of soda and mineral water. Vitamin c powder and bicarbonated of soda not vitamin c tablets go for vit c powder and bicarbonated of soda .
2) Fenugreek oil eat it , powder, and sprouts
3) cinnamon essential oil and carrier oil put extra essential oil it might burn but its a healing burn do put much but put extra drops inn
3) beetroot raw grated
4) antil fungal oils like myrrh essential oil and carrier oils carrot oil .
5) slippery elm powder it's a tree bark powder drink it ...
The more herbs what are healing it's time to beat cancer and evolve yourself we can do it anti viral medication helps too it's called prep ask your hiv clinic but don't tell them.about cancer just ask to go on it if they ask why just say you slept with someone with hiv and you need prep it will evolve your immune system 😉 sorry alot of info but I hope you research more essica tea has cured cancer in the 50's hope you research more, program call superfood evolution fenugreek!
@@derrickjohn3684 Sorry, I think there was a miscommunication. I don't have cancer, I was just bringing up cancer patients to make a point 😅 All good advice for anyone though, cancer or not.
Are there any books which are related on Evo psy and for further information?
Best introduction is David Buss - "Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind" (6th Edition: 2019).
Hand book of evolutionary psychology by Buss as well, very pricey tho
Danke schon.
31:50 What the mind evolved to do
Heros do not always wear capes.
Thanks.
37:00 I wonder how many people feel called out. Lol
DELET THIS
More Sapolsky Stanford Lectures study is needed. During the whole lecture, the phrase “an idea is…” every time an explanation on a human behaviour is attempted
This actually gives me more reason to believe in culture having more of an impact than evolution when it comes to behavior.
This seems too much of post hoc rationalization for my taste. Sciences des bros.
@@justanothernick3984 definitely not science. Science is not about “an idea is….” when explaining human behaviour. These are just stories based on animals. Whoever has the better story wins
@@jsksia2902
Doesn't fit here but it's from a Sapolsky video on EvPsych I commented on.
"
I don't think we can measure it in synapses in the brain and I'd like to see someone take another approach, through consciousness (I might have meant sentience here), what it means and what "built in features" it holds with the active neocortex and the subconscious, self-preservation and all of those things.
I wouldn't know where to turn.
"
@@justanothernick3984 Granted we are certain we're an evolved mammal with a nature that is flexible but nonetheless constrained, to me this field and method of enquiry is essential. Studying human behavior is after all difficult no matter the approach. Psychology research already has extremely poor reproducibility of results. We have learnt much about the brain and mind but ultimately (as we would expect dealing with something so complex) we have so much left to learn. Major contributors to the field (such as Freud) haven't really left us with theories that easily testable.
Ultimately there is no viable option but careful and considered exploration of evo psych theories. Unless we want to pretend we're not animals, haven't evolved and just happen to be the only blank slate species on the planet.
@@jameslancet174
I don't see the reason to doubt we evolved from other species into this form we currently hold and I don't think a blank state represents it correctly either.
What I'm considering is some inherent drive necessary for sustaining this body on a psychological level that regulates us fundamentally (I'll try to give a futuristic though experiment in the end). This drive is something Freud was exploring too, I can't tell the difference between the id, ego or superego just to tell you how I'm roaming around in darkness here. But this drive is something that just is. And when in contact with others (culture) adapts to find its place in some hierarchy, because the way I imagine it, needs validation and sustainability as too aggressive approach will squash it. So I'm seeing culture as another fundamental force too. Yes, mutations do occur, like skin color adapting to radiation and other things I'm too ignorant of knowing but I think this is fascinating and just not buying this hypothesis they (Evo Psychs) are trying to convince me of. Too many contradictions.
The though experiment:
A sophisticated AI program knowing enough of itself to know it's finite. Would it try to sustain itself by any means necessary if it had the possibility to do so? That would be a sort of created state of ego, or am I thinking too far outside the box here?
And coupled with that...
If it got to that state, would the AI use a central governing hub to protect the core circuits, think Terminator-fiction like Skynet here or would every individual program have it's own sustainable drive building factions, think Transformers-fiction like Autobots and Decepticons?
Maybe the wheels fell off completely at some point during this comment. If so, I apologize. 😃
Really interesting Video! Very engaging and insightful
Thanks ❤
Came here from tryggernometry, this is awesome.
Diana Fleischman is living proof of evolution in action - she's American, but moved to the UK and became more intelligent!
how does a snake apply mascara ? how peacock is that ?
Oh, look! The narcissism of small differences.
Richard Dawkins must have pressed the like button 😏
That's the funny comment have read this day lolol. Am still laughing, after when gonna buy some groceries, if people will notice gonna laugh without reason and will be close in asylum, myself will remember your comment. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
He selected the orgasm emoji :)
Richard Dawkins needs Jesus. It’s gonna be real hot where he’s going
@Homo_sAPEien I’m kidding. I’m a huge Dawkins fan. I’m just making fun of the ignorant religious nuts. Lol
@@Scorned405is he visiting Africa?
Turns out this field is unbelievably based
?????
on facts.
To be consistent with the worldview embodied by this field, you should really hate her, just look at her last name, you shouldn't like those, you should believe they are genetically inferior and plotting to breed your ethnic group out with their sneaky ways, because evolution
@@sednasix6608Agreed, but even this field is not free from cultural biases and cherry picking.
Yes! Brilliant explanation
It has a ''bad press'' cause it reveals EVERYTHING and people hate that more than anything else.
Insightful!
Soooooo... have you seen the munecat video?
Why?
Love her voice
Dr. Fleischman's lecture adds nicely to what LU's (Stanford) Dr. Kathryn Molohon taught me in Cultural Anthropology. Women are shapers.
Intelectual endeavours within intelectual arenas are gender neutral. Gifted, dedicated, educated and honed humans are shapers.
@@sithlordarkanon3345 Think of all the progress in knowledge we may have missed out on because this fact has not been recognised.
@@juliaabadi6812 Leave aside the impact on knowledge directly, think of how society would look if women's preferences were given more importance. The following is a simplistic and slightly extremist imagination of the human society that we might have: It would be highly competitive and stressful for males, but society would have much lesser physical and sexual violence; every logical rule or law would have a dozen empathetic exceptions; life in human society would have a lot more nuance; mentalists would become very common and non-verbal communication would be a first-class subject in all schools; courtship would be a complex multi-doctorate science as well as a performing art; comedy (i.e. benign violation) would not be so popular; choice, variety and novelty would be valued much more; we would probably move to a world government and more socialism quicker; basic needs would be fulfilled first while we might put off space exploration or faster computers till after major glaring socio-economic flaws were fixed; there would be lesser wealth inequality and more focus on healthcare. On the flip side, men with violent or unethical behaviours might end being treated as disposable and outcasts, punished with gentle or forced "schooling", prisons would involve reform lectures, reform training, routine testing; freedom and liberty would not be as important as correctness and compliant behaviour. This is just my imagination, not trying to prove anything or conclude anything.
Greatly appreciated :)
I love ❤️ this lecture it's an holistic approach where science and nature has finally done a figure of eight science went one way and nature mysticism went another way but they amazingly the meet in the middle... from reflexology to psychology or in her words psychology and biology coming together ❤️ 🤔 it's sounds like heaven ... coming together is a step forward rather than going backward ...
I really enjoy to learn with her, but I have to say that the example used by her about fourteen year old girls kidnapping in Brazil is mistaken.
There is a lot of wrong things about Brazil and this isn’t one of them.
Even in the first basic section where she talks about EVP "ultimate" explanation shows the field's claim adds NOTHING to the understanding to the behavior that cannot be explained by sociology. This is the emptiest field but then hard scientists trying to explain human behavior always believe they have found the perfect
algorithm for that behavior. Cf Newtom and alchemy.
Why didn't anyone move that chair?
@weevie833 Actually, that chair WAS removed - at 37:30 (out of total runtime of 1:44:36).
Hi folks,
The beginning of this lecture is giving me flashbacks from Dr. Robert Sapolsky's lectures. His lectures on Human Behavioral Biology are quintessential.
Parts of this lecture sound so similar to Dr. Sapolsky that I almost want to say it's plagiarism, but maybe their content is so similar that it's unavoidable. I'm not accusing anyone yet.
Thank you for this.
so fun to hear a few years after Robert Sopolsky lectures at Stanford. thank you!
Bookmark : 48:00
Common Fleishman you use "evolutionary" like they use "quantum" now or "atomic" last century, in a marketing way. Most of what you qualify as evolution is mere adaptation.
@David Wolff Because Natural Selection can only work within a set of identical Chromosomes, but doesn't overlap into speciation.
That's yet another sophistic "magic" trick.
Smarts and beauty are becoming the new norm. She is absolutely beautiful as much as she is ridiculously intelligent.
Idk she has a high hip to waist ratio going on...
Dude just stf up lmao, you drooling on her body is cringe enough, so, just leave "intelligence" out of this whatever tf it means
Very good
55:00 - 56:12
Nice ❤
thank U giving Psychology an anotjer face.. Last fifty years we'we been dealing with commercial Psychologiy with Secrets..
Robert Sapolsky writes about the merging of Psychology and biology in his book "Behave: Human Behavior At Our Best And Worst" he doesn't talk about the merging of Psychology and Biology in Robert Sapolsy's RUclips "Behave: Human Biology At Our Best And Worst".
Men are not taller than women. it's a generalized over exaggeration. i'm a little short to be a stormtrooper. But i'm the right height for living in Japan. i don't hit my head on doorways. Except at Matsuo Basho's House in Ueno Iga.
Fantastic!
wonderful
Fascinating stuff from Diana. I've only just discovered her so I've got lots of catching up to do. I disagree though with her view that looking at pornography is comparable to dogs looking in a mirror. Hope I'm not misunderstanding her but aren't we capable as humans of objectifying images and representations ? Don't we do that with Art ? Isn't it also connected to dreams, fantasy, music, religion etc.
What do evolutionary psychologists think about the idea, highly evidenced idea, of existence precede s essence? Do these psychological essences have pre determined routes of development, independent of experience?
Darwinism and natural selection, equals the basic ways life evolved within complex systems and determined by high improbabilities. The mind and it's evolutionary as well as individual life development is far too complex to be explained by overarching evolutionary psychology. The brain is one of, or the most complex systems in evolution w which has deterministic developmental processes in interaction with multitudes of internal and external phenemona. Individual differences are influenced by genetic interaction with the environment and these are highly dynamic rather than fixed within determined systems. The world or culture we exist within can make us see and think.othetwise, making people believe they are pre destined to be who they are, much the way Christianity teaches people. This centres thinking about who we are within a fixed individualist parameter that cannot successful account for culture and the self as other and back again. Existentialism then teaches us, once we have true agency, to be free to choose, and take responsibility for those choices. Of course there is social Darwinism, which has at times in history been a complete disaster. Plus I am quite sure social Darwinists have often kept the gene pool fairly narrow, which I am quite sure doesn't strengthen the gene pool. Not do I know how social Darwinists explain the impact of culture on genetic expression and individual difgerences. Perhaps you could enlighten me.....
Well if essence precedes existence biological make up determines who we become rather than experience determining who.we become or can be. That suggests pure nature is how people should be understood, rather than nurture and nature in interaction. Yet, human nature can have many faces and human nurturing can have limitless consequences in interaction with many other natures brought about by limitless outcomes of nurture. How can EP create a valid quantifiable set of theories to explain human thinking about behaviour and therefore individual differences between social groups. For instance, the lecturer made the claim that Hunter gatherers were more violent than farming and industrial societies, claiming that accounts for their lack of success and intelligence. Yet, this is a hypothesis or statement based on very selective evidence to such an extent that it can be completely falsified. Moreover, evidence is available to suggest the opposite, that violence led to greater success and then power hierarchies were built to maintain and control populations and therefore violence now takes on different forms through power relations. However, she makes the point that violence is an innate aspect of being human. I am just trying to work out how EP can explain the quality of being human, when it is based entirely on objective principles. And a set of predetermined rules to explain human behaviour. Is it suggesting universal rules to explain individual difference and life outcome that can be personalised and measured with validity and replicability?
Amazing lecture.
She made a claim that female psychopaths are rare. Id like to see her source for this claim as studies have found it's far from rare. Approximately half as popular in female as males.
For example studies show female inmates with psychopathy make up 11-17% of the overall prison population, compared to their male counterparts at 25-30%.
She then goes on to say most snakes are poisonous. This is incorrect as well. First they aren't poisonous they are venomous and that only represents 20% of all snakes.
I think they should look into this deeper. Women are hypergamous. Hypergamy is not necessarily psychopathic but there is a selfish coldness to it. Studies have shown that females do not bond emotionally as much as males. Studies very much prove women are in relationships with men not for an emotionally bonded partner but for resources and offspring. Women are manipulative and emotionally detached. I think the whole narrative of women being low on the Robert o Hare checklist is in need of being reevaluated
She says that a lot of bad people of evolutionary psychology get a lot of media coverage. I think she was talking about herself. Cant belive she is a student of Buss.
I’m curious about the socialization vs evolution question. So putting my question into context; when a baby boy / girl is born isn’t it the work of the brain to mimic traits, characteristics and behaviors of the parent who looks like them? Then wouldn’t that be a socialization thing? Like once the child recognizes what gender they are being categorized as, they’ll start to copy the behaviors of the parent in that category. Wouldn’t that imply that the child had been socialized to act like his fellow gender as opposed to it being an evolutionary thing that he is say “better at spatial stuff” than his sister. I can accept that it’s a evolutionary thing for the brain to pick up on information relating to gender cues but what I’m skeptical about is the claim that the resulting behavior that the child has picked up is based on evolution and not socialization 🤷🏽♀️
Boys of single mothers are often more manly than those with both parents. I am a single father of three and have witnessed first hand that countless gender traits are not socialized, but can be seen in the smallest babies, no matter how you treat them. I certainly didn't teach my little daughter to behave feminine, she just does it on her own. There is some socialization, of course, but in the fields of sex and gender there are measurable biological differences everywhere you look. The narrative that it's all nurture, not nature is promoted by marxist ideologues who unashamedly lie to get their way. Scientists should be wary of these types.
@@moschekiesberg7943 Again that's the essence of the brain, its the source of intelligence that helps a child know subconsciously when there is an imbalance in energy. she's automatically balancing that energy because her brain is doing what its supposed to do. where as if there was a balance of energy and both sides of her brain was being sufficiently stimulated, you'd see her pick up both characteristic's as opposed to trying to balance it out. I imagine she's still young?
@@temidayoakogun1439 So if there is a mother, the female child emulates her, if there is no mother, the female child balances the male energy out, in both cases the end result is a female child and it's all the environment and no genetics involved? Sorry, I am not interested in magic, but in science.
Honestly I can’t prove it, I’m not a scientist at least not yet and from my knowledge of psychology howbeit limited, when i think about this particular feminine-masculine dynamic, that’s how I imagine it works. It’s an interesting one and I’ll remain curious about it. Thanks for engaging my curiosity though. Goodluck 🙂
@@temidayoakogun1439 Same to you, I appreciate your openness!
Thank You, it is captivating :-)
Is anyone else bothered by the fact that when she claimed that her dissertation could have been wrong she explained why at least briefly yet other studies she claimed to be falsified she offered no evidence whatsoever I hate it when they do that now she sounds like she's the one falsifying information
Its shame a lot of schools are trying to get rid of evolutionary psychology for social constructuralism.
Got recommended this video after watching Munecat's video where she completely destroys this "academic field" with actual science. Evolutionary psychology is pseudeoscience, and its proponents are grifters. But it sure is entertaining.
Same here
Ooo scary a youtuber "debunks" science on social media🤓☝️ lrobab got rejected hard from evolutionary psychology discussions lmao and coping about it on RUclips
Point one reason why is evolutionary psychology essentially ir not a pseudoscience, I'd be happy to know
So being angry at conservative pundit is not debunking. Conservative pundits would be idiots if they used sociology too. They are making an ethical fallacy from origin. These video essayist are being reactionary.
Are the issues many evolutionary biologist do have with some of the core assumptions of evolutionary psychology being addressed in this lecture?
Which issues might that be? That diversity and equity will lead to chaos und poverty and there are biological reasons for that? Not really the fault of the scientists.
@@moschekiesberg7943 No, that's Jordan Peterson nonsense/storytelling.
Interesting
Camouflage and trapping prey must surely be a root to what is lying for humans…?
If you are going to include animals, you should also consider plant life and its extremities, perhaps even machines. (I had a career as an auto mechanic)
Everyone she says evolutionary psychology let’s take a shot
The gay uncle theory was always the example of what some wanted to believe because starting -2.5 down to reach 5 to break even never made sense, and as seen with modern associations, it doesn't seem to promote fertility, quite the opposite.
Terrence McKenna was ahead of his time with the stoned ape hypothesis. I wonder what these modern evolutionary psychologists think about that
There's are difference between imagination or imagining as an experience, and actually fantasizing about killing someone. Ask a novelist.....
Self defense is all about that lol
I have my doubts with the study that she mentions about male humans not caring if the female humans are promiscuous, maybe the Scandinavian males just lied to seem more egalitarian.
@Endless Nameless Totally agree with you, it is the narrative they want to implant in males, but such instincts cannot be rationalized, some I think are possible but not this one.
I don't know if in this presentation or another where she says that humans should attempt to outsmart some instincts based on certain "morals", funny enough those "morals" are mostly convenient to the feminine imperative.
Surveys are useless, scientifically speaking. It is extremely hard not to avoid biases
It would be interesting to calculate just how much information would be lost from this lecture by the elimination of the word "evolutionary" - potentially none.
38:00 - 40:12
I removed a video from this as it was beginning to go viral... I was hoping to direct traffic to your page as I am more interested in the expansion of knowledge in this area rather than monetary gain. So it was a shame as the algorithm does not boost videos to that extent easily. If I present my own commentary so it falls under fair use in addition to referring your page on your terms will you be ok with me using this video? I understand this could be an issue of simply involving several people and being more of a pain than it's worth (and there are many other videos I can use so it's no problem)... Thank you for your response
Also to clarify the intent of my page as I know at a glance it can seem to rely on sensationalism... I use trigger media in order to gain traction and to prove a point but I am very passionate about using psychology and evolutionary insight in order to understand how men and women are re-writing our morality autonomously in a post internet society- the ultimate goal is to push disenfranchised men in positive directions and improve the relations between men and women. My goals are very much positive
Yanomami have warriors and practice slash-and-burn agriculture. They are not hunter gathers but a tribe that possesses land. True hunter gathers, like the ancient San people in Africa, are nomadic and do not possess land. Also, they move on if violence threatens them as they do not have warriors. They are peaceful and egalitarian. The Yanomami, like us, live in a culture that uses a dominant status hierarchy, which was adopted because of land ownership. We did not evolve as land owners but as peaceful nomadic hunter gathers.
37:30 Hypothesis Generation
What we are disgusted by is highly determined by cultural factors.
Anyway it dosn't even matter. The only way to responsiblility handle the idea that your political/ethicaly found to be dangerus or even just peoblematic behaviors is by treating it as social. There's litteraly no other option, therefore it dosn't matter
Evolutionary psychology gets a lot of bad press because it contains incredible amounts of ideological premises and far right political implications
Or rather, its hypotheses run counter to the utopian vision of marxist ideologues, so they can't be true? That's not how science works.
@@moschekiesberg7943 evo psych is not how science works either. Its just-so stories are unfalsifiable, and its assumptions are based on a 19th century intepretation of evolutionary biology, which was already entagled with the ideology of the time, and the protestant roots of anglo-american culture.
The recent fall of the central dogma of molecular biology, and the entire discipline of epigenetics make evo psych ideological underpinnings pretty apparent.
The current understanding of evolutionary biology is based on systems theory, complexity theory and emergence, all paradigms that are incompatible with evo psych.
However, evo psych confirms a conservative view of human nature, so it'll keep existing, and be supported by right-wingers
Good. Let's assume the premise that it would be good to kill anyone with an IQ under 120 emerges. What would that mean?
An IQ of ~120 would mean there's a reasonably large percentage of people left to continue humanity, but intelligence would have made a giant leap assuming the biological factors are right. Further making the assumption that a higher intelligence will be needed in the future or now because of the development of information tech that can only be well handeld by persons with >120 IQ, it's generally benefitial and we need a reason to reduce the liklyhood of war because nukes and it truns out that helps.
Would you be in favor?
Oh ya that’s unfair to you that they just asked people to imagine stepping in dog poop. Just asking someone is one thing but showing a picture and getting a visceral reaction is completely different. It’s why in the movies cops always show pictures of the dead guy to see if there’s a reaction. If there’s a real reaction then the guy might not be the murder whereas if there’s no reaction he’s either insensitive or a murder cause most people react to dead bloody crime scenes and bodies.
That’s interesting your slide said people think the discipline has a conservative bias. It’s like look at economics. Keynesian va Austrian school of thought. Like there’s massive bias in both systems, but that doesn’t mean neither or true or false. Keynes has worked, but inflation and massive debt means it’ll fail eventually as all fiat currencies do. Now that maybe a bias towards the Austrian school of thought but it’s TRUE in the long run. But like Keynes said in the long run WERE ALL DEAD. So you maybe wrong. Keynes admits ya in the long wrong maybe I’m wrong but I’ll be dead before the truth or final result ever comes around. So even if you’re right it may not matter for a century or two. We’ve only been off gold for 50 years and most fiat currencies end by that time. So if we last another 50 years with having to reset the monetary system it truly will be surprising.
Oh that’s HILARIOUS!!! Psychologists promoted a more progressive tax and wealth distribution. I have a democrat friend that wants that to support more government spending. I’ve thought about it a long time and Modern monetary theory or printing of money with no debt creation is great. It’ll redistribute some wealth for s few years and then we’ll hyperinflate as it always happens.
Like Rick rule said in an interview. I didn’t benefit much from trump or Biden’s ppp loans or stimi checks. But he admits for decades of low interest rates the government has helped transfer wealth. Think on that. Sure tax more whatever. But why not fix the FREAKING PROBLEM??? The problem is artificially low interest rates not set by a free market. Look social security and don’t be dumb. There’s like 150 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Medicare running out of money by 2028 and social security running out by 2034 paying 76 cents on the dollar. Why has this happened? It’s because social security can only own government debt and the government has forced interest or returns on government debt artificially low. The government is SCREWING over all that pays into social security. Why can’t you see that? It’s not about taxing more. It’s about screwing over savers. Low interest rates also means anyone that can borrow will benefit way more. So sure if it cost 10% for a home mortgage ya there’d be less homes easily bought. But there’d be way less speculation, Wall Street wouldn’t own tens of thousands of homes and automatically there’d be less wealth inequality. I love how you used the metric of w progressive tax to see how caring your field of study was. But then again you got a PhD. So you’d be paying way more. How about schools just get paid less or subsidized less? But seriously go read the book creature from Jekyll island. Just understanding that inflation was known from the creation of the federal reserve the government and big businesses knew what they were doing. Now some businesses were against the creation of a federal reserve but those rich people literally died on the titanic, and J.P. Morgan was supposed to be on the titanic but ended canceling. Governments can only pay down their debt through inflation or print money to spend and as prices go up they tax more not because of new tax laws but because now you make more and food and everything has gone up. Inflation is the silent tax. It’s why in the late 1800s when gold was money and we had deflation that life was great. You worked and your wage didn’t increase a ton but your purchasing power increased. You could buy more goods as things became cheaper to make. The government doesn’t like that. The government can’t tax deflation or an increase in purchasing power.
It’s great you guys are progressive but for the love of god do some reading. Learn about inflation. Because if you don’t learn for yourself well you may one day have no pension or social security and be wondering how did this happen!!!
You would have to imagine people stepping in dog poo while other people are watching or if you are alone. Tribalism is a evolutionary trait I would imagine.
When's the lecture on astrology? It's amazing that you can teach pseudoscience and become a doctor of it.
Are you religous?
She is very selective in her understanding of homicide among Hunter getherers. Plus shes a yank living on stolen lands gained through genocide. The apache culture was said to be very peaceful, and many others too. This is bias based on highly selective evedence.
Actually, humans have had a reduction in sexual dimorphism since we became domesticated😎
That doesn’t make sense. If you can’t mate with someone you grow up with who in the he’ll does rural America survive? There’s a crap ton of people that marry people they knew since the second grade. Academically you maybe right, but I’ve lived in a small town and have seen people marry each other that knew each other their whole life. It’s like the whole idea of high school sweetheart. HELL go and watch FOREST GUMP. Like it’s ingrained to procreate. And like they say at church or counselors. The best marriages come from two people that are BEST FRIENDS!
Sure it makes sense people don’t want to marry someone they think is family if they’ve grown up together. But in a small town of 5000 I saw people marry people they knew since second grade. But then again a lot of people did move obviously for college.
Hi Kolton,
I believe she means that there's a pattern of very early age (like baby and toddler age) friends, family, and community members learning that they're kin, and not mates. This sexual adaptation is a bit earlier than 2nd grade.
On a personal note, I did have a "girlfriend" in 1st grade, but she moved away to a different city and I never saw her again. Maybe if we had been friends even earlier, like 3 or 4 years old, then maybe we would not bonded like that. The extent of our physical relationship was hugs, her sitting on my lap, and a little bit of kissing. We really liked each other a lot.
What can be sexier than an intelligent woman?
Two intelligent women?
a Lyre Bird Woman
A pretty intelligent woman?
Riley Reid doing her pre-coitus routine on you.
I have zero doubts about what you'd find sexier.
@@mrawesomeDK Don't know who she is. I'm not American.
Based khazar queen
🔥