I can't say I'm a big fan of Pinker. RationalWiki goes over the multiple reasons: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker
The biggest (non-personal) one though is that Evo Psych is garbage.
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
35 points (100.0% liked)
Skeptic
1519 readers
1 users here now
A community for Scientific Skepticism:
Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism, sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.
Do not confuse this with General Skepticism, Philosophical Skepticism, or Denialism.
Things we like:
- Civility
- Thoughtful discussion based on evidence and facts
- Humor
Things we don't like:
- Personal attacks or disrespectful attitude
- Wild speculation on events with no evidence
- Low-effort comments and posts
Other communities of interest:
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -David Hume
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Oh my, what happened to rationalwiki? Reading that you wouldn't have the first clue about who Pinker is or what contributions he's made. It's just a list of quote articles from critics of varying levels of note.
His work on linguistics and cognition is seminal. I would heartily recommend "the language instinct" and "rationality".
On evo-pysch, lots of garbage gets published because the tabloids love "women enjoy shopping because science" stories, and the field itself suffers from charlatans that grift in it. The principle behind it, namely that animal behaviour is subject to evolutionary forces, however is of course true.
Sorry... you don't think printing what notable critics of Pinker say about him is relevant? Is his so-called science above criticism? Is the racism much of his so-called science is based upon also beyond criticism?
And no, evo psych is garbage because it's garbage. Or at least mostly garbage.
Let's start with the Center for Inquiry. I hope, as someone posting in a skeptic community, you consider them a valid source: https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2006/03/22164612/p23.pdf
But in case you don't, here's more, from numerous sources and of varying degrees of complexity:
https://philpapers.org/rec/ESMIEP-2
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10113342/
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/04/09/i-almost-felt-pity-for-evolutionary-psychology/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201412/how-valid-is-evolutionary-psychology
Sorry... you don't think printing what notable critics of Pinker say about him is relevant?
It should not form 100% of an encyclopedia article about anyone. And they aren't notable, it seems as if tue one editor who's been running that page since last year added every possible article they found through Google.
It would be worth including his seminal work such as his 1990 paper on th evolution of language (worth a read)
Is his so-called science above criticism?
No one is above criticism but an encyclopedia is meant to be comprehensive.
Is the racism much of his so-called science is based upon also beyond criticism? And no, evo psych is garbage because it's garbage. Or at least mostly garbage.
Well now we're just being silly. You can't seriously believe that animal behaviour has no evolutionary component? You believe in souls instead?
Let's start with the Center for Inquiry. I hope, as someone posting in a skeptic community, you consider them a valid source: https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2006/03/22164612/p23.pdf
Well that's not CFI that's Skeptical Enquirer and it's an article from Massimo Pigliucci and the headline is subject to Betteridges law of headlines.
But in case you don't, here's spam
Please don't spam, I'd rather hear you articulate your reasons rather than resorting to other people to do the work for you.
(Although all those articles follow the same formula: find some garbage evopsych publications => conclude the whole premise is nonsense)
Evolutionary psychology is as scientific as phrenology.
That is rather unwarranted given its still an active field and is the only accepted explanation for the origin of animal behaviour.
is the only accepted explanation for the origin of animal behaviour.
This is not true. Ethology is the general study of animal behavior. Evolutionary Psychology is specific to human behavior and is not the only approach to studying it either. Sociobiology an example of a less criticized field studying human behavior based on evolution.
This is not true. Firstly, Evolutionary Psychology is not involved with "animal" behavior in general, it is specific to human psychology.
Most of the field focuses on primates because, unsurprisingly, that's where we find most of psychology. It is wrong to say it has nothing to do with animals.
Ethology is the general study of animal behavior.
And botany is the study of plants? Every field in biology overlaps with evolution.
Also Evolutionary Psychology is not the only approach to studying human behavior either.
That's not a challenge to the premise of evopsych. If anything it sort of supports it.
That’s not a challenge to the premise of evopsych. If anything it sort of supports it.
It was in response to your claim that Evolutionary Psychology is the "the only accepted explanation for the origin of animal behaviour." If you want to make that claim you need to support it with some kind of reference.
It was in response to your claim that Evolutionary Psychology is the "the only accepted explanation for the origin of animal behaviour."
Well it doesn't refute that.
If you want to make that claim you need to support it with some kind of reference.
Well ok, perhaps "only accepted explanation" was claiming too much given that a large proportion of the population believe in souls or pure blank-slatism for human behavior.
For the non-human animals though, it certainly isn't controversial to say evolution is the only explanation for the origin of behaviour. What else could it be?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Phrenology wwas an active field until it wasn't.
Evolutionary psychology does start with a reasonable starting point, that some behaviors are passed genetically, but then uses that to give excuses to things that are primarily learned or discourged through social and environmental pressures. It takes something that is reasonable to speculate about as part of being biological but then twists it into justifications for racism and sexism by painting with broad brushes.
Evolutionary psychology does start with a reasonable starting point, that some behaviors are passed genetically,
And that's the entire premise, evolution affects behaviour as well as physical attributes. The brain is not insulated against evolutionary pressures.
but then uses that to give excuses to things that are primarily learned or discourged through social and environmental pressures.
And that's where the (well earned) criticism comes from. As I said, loads of garbage is printed with "just so" stories. That does not make the premise invalid.
It takes something that is reasonable to speculate about as part of being biological but then twists it into justifications for racism and sexism by painting with broad brushes.
That's the same as saying darwinism is garbage because it led to eugenics.
Quantum mechanics isn't a garbage field because Deepak Shopra thinks it can cure baldness.
That’s the same as saying darwinism is garbage because it led to eugenics.
Quantum mechanics isn’t a garbage field because Deepak Shopra thinks it can cure baldness.
Evolutionary psychology at its core twists the concept of genetic inheritence into justifications for racism and sexism, like phrenology before it. These two examples are people taking existing science and misapplying them to things they don't have anything to do with.
Evolutionary psychology at its core twists the concept of genetic inheritence into justifications for racism and sexism, like phrenology before it.
That is not evopysch "at its core".
Again, you may as well describe darwinism as racist at its core.
These two examples are people taking existing science and misapplying them to things they don't have anything to do with.
Misapplying science doesn't make the science wrong.
Your reading comprehension is lacking.
There's no need to be impolite. You seem to basing your opposition to the premise of evopsych entirely on exames where it has been applied badly.
If you accept that behaviour is subject to evolutionary pressures then we are on the same page.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(19 replies)
(Although all those articles follow the same formula: find some garbage evopsych publications => conclude the whole premise is nonsense)
Wow, you read those articles that you labeled as "spam" very quickly.
Or did you not read them and thus not know what they said?
Seems dishonest either way.
But I am amused by your CFI is not the Skeptical Inquirer claim when that's literally the publication put out by CFI.
Edit:
And they aren’t notable
Now I know you're being dishonest. Not only does the article state their qualifications and link to where they wrote it, suggesting Stephen Jay Gould is not notable is ludicrous.
(Although all those articles follow the same formula: find some garbage evopsych publications => conclude the whole premise is nonsense)
Wow, you read those articles that you labeled as "spam" very quickly.
I've read two of them before and skim reading doesnt take much time. I've been reading Pharyngula for 20 years.
Spamming as a verb != spam the noun. You can spam 20 perfectly good systematic review articles.
Or did you not read them and thus not know what they said? Seems dishonest either way.
This would be the "engaging in bad faith" flag. I'm interested to hear how you articulate the flaws in the premise behind evopysch.
But I am amused by your CFI is not the Skeptical Inquirer claim when that's literally the publication put out by CFI.
Granted that was semantic.
Edit:
And they aren’t notable
Now I know you're being dishonest. Not only does the article state their qualifications and link to where they wrote it, suggesting Stephen Jay Gould is not notable is ludicrous.
Genuine typo there should read "they aren't all notable", that's dyslexia for you.
You didn't answer my question.
Did you read all of those articles extremely quickly or not, and if not, how do you know what they said?
Also, calling your absolutely ludicrous claim about CFI "semantic" is pretty damn dishonest too.
You didn't answer my question.
Wow, you read those articles that you labeled as "spam" very quickly.
I've read two of them before and skim reading doesnt take much time. I've been reading Pharyngula for 20 years.
What was my "ludicrous" claim about the CFI?
Ah, so you've read two of them and yet you claim you know what they all said.
Dishonest.
You dismissed my CFI link because "Well that’s not CFI that’s Skeptical Enquirer and it’s an article from Massimo Pigliucci and the headline is subject to Betteridges law of headlines."
And please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that you said "well that’s not CFI that’s Skeptical Enquirer" but that wasn't a dismissal of the article.
It's also dishonest because you mention Dr. Pigliucci as if he's some nobody who doesn't know what he's talking about rather than a biologist.
Ah, so you've read two of them and yet you claim you know what they all said.
And skimmed the other two and found the same problem i mentioned earlier. Note, you aren't refuting that.
Dishonest.
Lazy maybe.
You dismissed my CFI link because
A correction is not a dismissal.
the headline is subject to Betteridges law of headlines."
Yes given that author concludes that evopsych has problems but isnt a pseudoscience. Sorry I thought you had read it.
And please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that you said "well that’s not CFI that’s Skeptical Enquirer" but that wasn't a dismissal of the article.
It's a semantic correction. CfI puts out press releases and policy documents and this was an invited article from a third party, not unworthy of clarification.
It's also dishonest because you mention Dr. Pigliucci as if he's some nobody who doesn't know what he's talking about rather than a biologist.
I implied none of what you allege. Its probably more correct to describe him as primarily a philosopher than a biologist but that's not a criticism.
Its probably more correct to describe him as primarily a philosopher than a biologist but that’s not a criticism.
STOP BEING SO FUCKING DISHONEST
In 1997, while working at the University of Tennessee, Pigliucci received the Theodosius Dobzhansky Prize,[12] awarded annually by the Society for the Study of Evolution[1] to recognize the accomplishments and future promise of an outstanding young evolutionary biologist.
Sorry, you don't get to say that it is incorrect to say someone with a degree in biology who won an award for being an evolutionary biologist is not a biologist. Not if you wish to be called honest.
In fact, I would place a wager on his having more education in the biological sciences than you, considering:
He has a doctorate in genetics from the University of Ferrara, Italy, a PhD in biology from the University of Connecticut, and a PhD in philosophy of science from the University of Tennessee.
TWO doctorates in biology, but let's just dismiss any criticism he might have of EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY.
Oh, I know, it wasn't a dismissal or a criticism when you responded to me with what was clearly a dismissal and criticism of that article. Give me a fucking break. I doubt you even read it so, much like the other ones you admitted you didn't read despite dishonestly claiming you knew what they said.
Its probably more correct to describe him as primarily a philosopher than a biologist but that’s not a criticism.
STOP BEING SO FUCKING DISHONEST
He's literally employed as professor of philosophy at City College New York
Maybe take a break from this?
Sorry, you don't get to say that it is incorrect to say someone with a degree in biology who won an award for being an evolutionary biologist is not a biologist. Not if you wish to be called honest.
Once again, I must remark upon your talent to insert words in place of other peoles'. At no point did I imply he wasn't a biologist, he is simply better described as primarily a philosopher given his work.
In fact, I would place a wager on his having more education in the biological sciences than you, considering: He has a doctorate in genetics from the University of Ferrara, Italy, a PhD in biology from the University of Connecticut, and a PhD in philosophy of science from the University of Tennessee.
I mean he probably does? He's probably got a nicer house than me as well.
Did you read the article you posted where he concluded evopsych wasn't a pseudoscience? I'm not criticising him at all, he's actually supporting my point. I am beginning to suspect you didn't actually read it.
TWO doctorates in biology, but let's just dismiss any criticism he might have of EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY.
The use of caplocks is really helping get your point across.
Oh, I know, it wasn't a dismissal or a criticism when you responded to me with what was clearly a dismissal and criticism of that article.
I can't help you
Give me a fucking break
Gladly, you've been deeply unpleasant and our time is limited.
I mean he probably does?
And yet you know more about evolutionary psychology than he does. Or at least enough to not bother actually reading what he has to say about it.
Also, your obvious sealioning is not fooling anyone.
In my experience it's just plain old greed.
I have a lot of highly educated and very intelligent friends. The kind of people that can tell me a lot about things like art history, politics, science, physics and medicine. And almost all of them are conservative politically with a mindset that frames the world only for themselves.
They show empathy but only in the immediate circumstance. They will be kind open and caring and honest with someone in person at the moment. But get them to have a conversation about their feelings about wealth inequality and they cringe at the thought of giving up a penny for anyone.
There is that for sure, but "smart people believing stupid things" occurs outside the political/economic realms as well.
I have seen my share of book smart university educated people doing absolutely stupid things.
Greed certainly influences a lot of behaviour that we'd otherwise consider....questionable.
Do you tend to find they believe in conspiracy theories and nonsense that benefit them personally?
That's the contradictory part .... they are intelligent enough to see through the outlandish conspiracy theories and fringe fascist ideas but at the same time, they are the kind of people that wouldn't mind if a more conservative or even fascist government took over if it meant they could pay less taxes or 'get rid of the poor'.
I remember once having a talk with a friend of mine with a great education in physics and science. He works in power generation as a major contractor making him a small millionaire. I talked to him about wealth equality once and he claimed that the work he does, he enjoys and doesn't really do it for the money but to apply his knowledge and expertise. I suggested the idea of providing a wealth cap to the richest people in the world ... to cap off wealth at $100 million and cut the person off from everything after and let them live their life to make way for others. He cringed at the thought and told me 'but that would remove the incentive for anyone to do anything in any field. Why work all your life only to be stopped by a cultural limit to wealth?'. I reminded him about his comment about not working for the money ... and our conversation became an exercise in complicated twisted logic to explain away why no one should be limited with their wealth. It ended by him casually, playfully but not directly referring to me as a communist.
They represent the third of the population that would causally stand by and watch the world burn if it meant that it wouldn't affect their wealth or position in life. They would rather watch a fascist third take over with authoritarian government, fight the bottom third ... as long as no one bothered them.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Is it because they're not really smart and they try to learn things from youtube rather than reading?
What if I read the transcript in book form?
You're attacking the medium rather than the content. You can learn things from video just as you can a lecture.
Books aren't special. And they can be very wrong too.
You can learn things from video just as you can a lecture.
So...
You think people walk into lectures completely unprepared, listen for 25 minute, and walk out and they magically have learned stuff?
Maybe you're just still in highschool, or never took a serious class in college.
How it works is:
-
Do the reading.
-
Attend the lecture while taking notes.
-
Review the notes
-
Then later, after doing this with different topics, reviewing the same information again.
Books aren’t special. And they can be very wrong too.
There's a lot bigger barrier of entry, compared to uploading a video to fucking YouTube.
You know what's crazier? There's still a shit ton more reasons, but I already know that even if you have managed to read this far, you can't remember the 1-4 steps without looking back up.
Reading let's you do that, quickly scan the text for what you want and referring to it.
Maybe you’re just still in highschool, or never took a serious class in college.
Yeah, I hope you're not expecting a response with a tone like that. Bye
load more comments
(1 replies)
Not a bad guess. The moving picture medium has been around for a while though and complements the written word, rather than supplant it, as a tool for learning.
You want to learn how to get a garbage disposal unstuck?
Watch a YouTube video.
You want to learn to learn about psychological concepts in 25 minutes by watching a video?
Cool, it won't ever work but I respect your wishes.
But no smart person would believe just watching a quick video is actually learning anything more advanced then: there's a place for an Allen key under the disposal
You want to learn to learn about psychological concepts in 25 minutes by watching a video? Cool, it won't ever work but I respect your wishes.
It's an interview with an eminent scientist discussing some key ideas. No, you won't walk away with a comprehensive knowledge of the entire field, the format isn't designed for that.
But no smart person would believe just watching a quick video is actually learning anything more advanced then: there's a place for an Allen key under the disposal
So documentaries are garbage as well then? Anything using video as a medium? Do you attend lectures in person or do wait for the transcript?
As someone who has worked on documentaries, depending on your definition of "garbage," yes. They are. Because all of them, every single one, is not only edited to show the biased perspective of both the director and the producers, along with the editor themselves, they are also filled with things like added sound-effects, narration that misconstrues what is going on or just adds emotion when emotion is not warranted based on the original footage, taking things out of context to improve the storyline, etc.
For example, the best David Attenborough nature documentary you can think of is full of artifice. Almost none of the animal sounds in nature documentaries were collected at the same time as the video because they're usually shooting from quite a distance and either the microphone is too directional, in which case you have to add background noise in post or they don't have enough of a directional microphone, in which case you have to add the noise you want in post. Occasionally, these days, software is used to isolate certain noises. That, again, is artifice.
So no, you cannot trust anything you see in a documentary. Ever. The only truths you should ever trust in a film of any sort is the truths you learn about yourself from watching it. Anything else could be a lie.
Almost none of the animal sounds in nature documentaries were collected at the same time as the video because they're usually shooting from quite a distance and either the microphone is too directional.
That doesn't make it garbage.
every single one, is not only edited to show the biased perspective of both the director and the producers, along with the editor themselves
With that restriction, all education is garbage. Professors have bias, even in hard sciences.
load more comments
(9 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Garbage psuedointellectual analysis.
Absolutely ridiculous to compare the Warren Commission to established scientific theories. Months before Kennedy's assassination, Allen Dulles, the man who turned the CIA into an organization that specialized in assassinating world leaders and covering it up, was fired by JFK. After his death, Dulles was placed on Warren Commission, in charge of investigating the event. Aside from this blatant conflict of interest, the commission proceeded to make an absolute joke of the proceedings, with key evidence such as the bullet that killed him having a breach in the chain of custody. There are real causes to be suspicious of the official story, and it's not really possible for anyone to conduct an independent investigation, basically the whole thing requires the assumption that Dulles is above suspicion.
Science does not do that. In science, you don't have to trust any one individual, because experiments are meant to be replicated and subject to peer review. By placing these things on the same level, Pinker is lending credibility to the US government and intelligence community at the expense of science.
He then goes on to lend credence to ridiculous COVID conspiracy theories and minimizes far-right, pro-Trump conspiracy theories, including Alex Jones.
Then he starts talking about Russia, "You see that Russia has tsars, then the Soviet Union, then Putin, so there's this historical continuity there," which an absolutely insane thing to say, arguing that Russians are just innately prone to rejecting "Enlightenment values" and to "authoritarianism." It's an extremely trite and lazy analysis which simply doesn't care about the vast historical differences between those three forms of government of the vastly different philosophical framework behind each. Has Stephen Pinker considered the possibility that the reason smart people believe stupid things is that overconfidence causes them to make broad sweeping judgements about fields outside their expertise without doing a thorough investigation?
Stopped watching as they start going into AI, not worth my time.
load more comments
(8 replies)
view more: next ›