Evolutionary psychology is mostly garbage.

[@neurotransmissions]

Sorry about the audio from 4:39 to 7:39. Those clips got boosted accidentally, so apologies if it blows out your eardrums!

[@8lec_R]

I was wondering why the noise floor was so high... Luckily I was on low volume hehe 😅

[@wecare838]

Thank you Neuro. I risked going down a rabbit hole and rewire my thinking a particular way. Like me I suspect a lot of people not trained in the field(but maybe trained in an other field such as engineering or comp science) would also be persuaded by the pop articles and even some youtube lectures but never would consider the valid counter arguments. Your video is crucial in this way, that you have straight up countered issue and provided the alternative viewpoint. And this type of video is rare in youtube(which is why we need to encourage and appreciate the effort). Also it raises bigger questions on pop science and its transmission. Shouldnt be these things, which are still very much under developement(and have potential to impact the society in a big way) be confined within the scientific community? What purpose those articles like "thanksgiving evolutionary psychology" serve other than to propagate a false notion among the general public. I think first debate needs to occur among the scientific community about these things before they are let out in the public...

[@snowy9764]

I'm an Autistic/Asperger's Neanderthal

[@snowy9764]

I believe math never existed its only a human observation on how we can make sense of it all.

[@snowy9764]

I'm a Neanderthal hybrid born into a Cro-Magnon's kingdom

[@rodriguezelfeliz4623]

I think that Robert Sapolsky explains it well... it's just one of the many buckets we have to explain behaviour. On it's own it's not that great, but in the context of all other buckets it can help us to understand behaviour.

[@spiralsun1]

Evolutionary psychology is the key 🔑 to human transcendence and power. When we separate what is necessary for us to be here from the higher organizations and purposes of the human intellect, then we can do anything. The key is understanding yourself. What worked in the past in tribes of hunter-gatherers, and the patterns of male rivalries doesn’t apply now. Doesn’t work to place people in proper occupations or anything. To be able to see them for what they are and how these things work, allows us to go beyond them. Maternal nurturing and safety behavior as well. Women can learn to take more risks too-bring cooperation tendencies to a higher level by doing so. Evolutionary psychology is really the foundation of the future if we use it in this way. Temet Nosce-know thyself

[@T_Party_]

@@grapenut6094 He was refreshingly unpolitical after that though. I can't believe I forgot genetic drift and bottlenecks until he mentioned these. Considering GD/bottlenecks etc. puts these evopsych theories into more pseudoscience areas; the same way that development in neuroscience put phrenology (studying skulls) in the trash.

[@Nerobyrne]

@@spiralsun1 I'm sorry, I don't use religion to make scientific predictions

[@marioalejandromendez725]

@@grapenut6094 look up for applied behavioral analysis or interconductism

[@rodriguezelfeliz4623]

@@brianboru6685 I mean, not really... in his Stanford lectures he explains some of the same limitations and mistakes of evolutionary psychology. He is actually very critical of the field... but he also states that it can be usefull to explain some behaviours.

[@goclbert]

Humans evolved as social animals and they derive value from caring relationships. The fact that we care for a pets is a byproduct of our relationship with our own species. Pets initially provided a material benefit of keeping pests away, etc but now this emotional comfort is the primary driver of pet ownership.

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

While that is part of the story, I think a lot of empathy actually comes from getting better at predicting the behavior of prey. You make better decisions on it if you think of them as living things than just flesh. It has the side effect that humans and dogs feel bad about killing stuff and would rather not (if we could get meat without killing animals almost no one would). It is also useful for certain social interactions, especially with non-humans.

[@wayfa13]

@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana I beg to differ, I personally know and have seen many meat eaters say that openly acknowledge that they are animals and feel pain no differently from the ones they eat, AND some will also or even smirk and say that they just enjoy the taste of meat so they will never stop eating animals regardless of if there are good vegetable alternatives; maybe it'd change if/when vat grown meat with giant hamster serum becomes a thing. The egg and milk industry are rather disgusting, possibly even more-so than the meat one, and yet as it doesn't involve death, vegetarians just don't GAF vOv (and fish supposedly don't have feelings too??? which is total BS). Morality has more to do aesthetics than most would admit. Edit: Pack of Wild Painted Dogs seem happy when they down a large antelope or wildebeest. I see no bad feelings felt. They seem overjoyed that they and their family, offspring and extended relatives, eat well for the next few days and survive longer to pass on their genes.

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

​@@wayfa13 I said almost everyone. For example, some people still use fur or want whaling, but they are not the majority. The want or hunting success usually outweighs the feeling bad, but if given an equivalent, or even close equivalent, alternative both humans and dogs prefer not killing. Although this is more true of other Eutherians, because we are a lot more intelligent and social than most other animals. Also, people don't hunt nowadays, so they don't have to use (and thus improve) their empathy to predict prey behaviour, so will feel less bad about killing.

[@istvanczap3004]

@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana omnivores in general would rather avoid hunting if possible, and only do it when necessary, of it they don't need to puch too much effort in it. It is only obligate carnivores that "enjoy" the hunt. But the reasons are more about conserving energy and most likely not a side effect of empathy.

[@it6647]

We need to also consider distinguishing between what section of humanity you are referring to Love for dogs and cats isn't as universal as many think as there are entire communities that don't love them or consume them

[@comradetortoise]

Note: I'm an entomologist and behavioral ecologist. I don't think there *is* a strictly adaptationist explanation for our keeping pets. I can't even come up with a Just-So Story about it. My brain just refuses. It's a combination of exaptation and spandrels that itself may have been the subject of diffuse selection pressures and co-evolution. We are incredibly social. Humans will form parasocial bonds with a mars rover because its optical sensors give it a cute face. That's probably a spandrel. It's just a byproduct of the fact that our brains want to form social bonds. Some bold/friendlier wolves begged for campfire scraps. Those wolves were selected for because we thought they were cute and fed them. It turns out, having wolves in your corner helps you hunt and fend off predators. That's an exaptation. So we integrate our social groups with these friendly wolves, and start co-evolving with them. It's a similar story with cats when we started doing agriculture (except now, the expansive sense of empathy we have has been defininitively extended to non-humans) and on it goes.

[@Fearia6]

Very well said

[@t111ran3]

Great comment

[@ProfBoggs]

TIL: definition of spandrel. Thank you!

[@SebastianAdamss]

" Humans will form parasocial bonds with a mars rover because its optical sensors give it a cute face." How is this not an Evolutionary Psychological theory? EP often hypothesizes spandrels, just as you did, and then goes seeking evidence for it. For example, your pets = spandrel theory could be interrogated by looking for correlations in the evidence for hunting activities and animal keeping. Congratulations - you just kicked down this videos' greatest straw man by engaging in some perfectly respectable EP.

[@mymayjailer]

A trait originating as a spandrel or exaptation doesn’t exclude it from EP, especially if that trait ended up providing a survival/reproductive advantage which led to its genetic or cultural* propagation. Our friendliness to wolves may have only been a by-product of being a highly social species, but that trait was brought on by evolution in the first place. This led to the co-evolution of dogs and humans, evidenced by a list of parallel-ly developed genes. Not to mention the fact we are focusing on the human’s perspective, ignoring the wolf’s. Being friendly and cooperative with humans provided a survival advantage to wolves willing and capable of acting in such a way. This of course led to the speculation of dogs through selection of genes, because an unfortunate truth is that genes can and do influence animal’s (and human’s) behaviour to varying degrees. Not only did dog’s biology change during speciation, but their psychological and social profile too; an example of non-human EP in action. *Note how I said culturally propagated, as well as genetically. EPs are rarely genetic reductionists or determinists, even though critics claim they are. Of course culture influences how we act in ways which are either too varied or too recent to have affected our genotype. EP is still a valuable approach because there are other aspects of human (and non-human) behaviour, universal in all cultures, which can be explained through natural and sexual selection. Not to mention dual-inheritance theory, which proposes that culture itself can be explained in terms of non-genetic “cultural evolution” and “cultural selection.” Hopefully these ideas will become part-in-parcel with EP one day.

[@shamanahaboolist]

The biggest problem with EP isn't EP. It's the interpretation of EP as a "so born this way" premise for justifying destructive behaviours. Genetic determinism is false. Genetic influencing there is a strong case for. The reality is that psychology is information. The overwhelming influencing factor behind it is environmental information. There is observably a feedback loop which preserves patterns forged in a living entity's life time and passes those patterns on to the next generations. Some point to epigenetics and there maybe clues there. But the truth is we don't understand the mechanisms behind preservation of behaviours into the genetic code (if that even really is a part of the mechanism since it only really preserves protein structure). All we can really say for sure by looking at studies of identical twins is that genetic influencing is a thing, but is absolutely overridden by environmental influence and the elusive "free will" or "qualia" which commands and directs the mind.

[@nickman9639]

molecular determinism mixed with quantum randomness would completely explain behavior, unfortunately we don’t understand anywhere near close to understanding how molecular interactions in the brain explain behavior. But the only thing we don’t have evidence for is the idea of free will. We can still make decisions but we can not choose how the the only things that can influence our behaviors, molecular and quantum interactions, behave.

[@UniversalSailor44]

On the contrary, we can with certainty that genes eclipse environmental influences in determining human behavior. There is no solid contradictory evidence.

[@biapac7849]

Really is genetics overridden in studies about twins? Like, did you see the Colorado Adoption Project of Robert Plomin? Did you see the data about IQ?

[@aidan-ator7844]

Great comment but free will and qualia are not the same at all. Maybe I'm not reading the comment right?

[@ThePatrykolus]

Not qualia nor free will directs or commands the mind. We may not understand what it is because our body and neurological system are to complicated to determine or predict exact behaviour but I believe our physical minds are deterministic(and probably random to some extent too) machines.

[@MaxMcAdams]

pet-keeping evolved so we had someone to practice our werner herzog impressions on

[@L4wr3nc3810]

lmao yeah

[@paulfoss5385]

Humans evolved to have pets to keep them calm during bad trips, enabling them to consume more shrooms which gave them a selective advantage because they were able to galaxy brain their non pet owning opponents back into the pre-stone(d) age.

[@ioannismalekakis2997]

FACTS

[@wilhelmu]

my pets always freak out when im on psychedelics

[@justaguy328]

Congratulations, you are an evolutionary psychologist lol. Making up stories is literally all they do.

[@chinmeysway]

absofuckinglutelay

[@michaelmills3679]

I am an evolutionary psychologist (one of the 6 who watched it). We have heard many of these critiques repeatedly... and it is tiring to repeatedly rebut the straw men args, misunderstandings, misperceptions, mischaracterizations, etc.. Suggest those interested do web searches for these articles: “Yes, but…” Answers to Ten Common Criticisms of Evolutionary Psychology Seven Key Misconceptions about Evolutionary Psychology

[@jaidathompson7089]

Thank you

[@honeyrose7663]

​@@jaidathompson7089u actually believe this person..wow 😂 sorry but most of Evo psyc is hillsrioudly stoopid

[@CharlesPonsford]

Cheers

[@SoullessAIMusic]

Oh I am sure you are just another straight white conservative trying to save his racial hierarchy. Or at least that's what this video would have me believe.

[@arjay9745]

Appreciate this.

[@MegaSudjai]

21 minutes in: a significant anti-bias bias, which explains the obviously click bait headline. There is a fundamental flaw in the "essence" part of this argument: the impact that chronic Fear has on how organisms evolve/de-evolve. Something that this guy is high in I think

[@carloslunaofficial]

I usually love the content in these videos. My only issue with this one is assuming that the current field of evolutionary psychology just focuses on cognitive psychology from an evolutionary or “adaptiveness” standpoint. As a neuroscientist who was thought by people such as Louise Barrett (would definitely recommend her book and articles on these issues) and Peter Henzi, I found that even though many researchers and academics seem to fit into the “Swiss army knife” analogy or “the gene for” etc. with reductionist models (which true, this is a very common misconception and I don’t agree with many of these ideas) these aren’t the only approaches to evolutionary psychology and they are often critiqued by evolutionary psychologist themselves. People such as them and many others (can definetely reference them as a student on this field as well). I would definitely recommend reading into these views as they could bring a more scientific, clear, reliable and more complete approach to evolutionary psychology. These views often build themselves from the behaviour itself and not from antropocentric views seeking to be confirmed through an evolutionary lens (like the examples you reference in the video). So I appreciate clearing out the garbage in the field but I think it’s a bit unfair to reduce the field to the mistake some people made in the field. So I wouldn’t say this field is mostly garbage. In fact, these perspectives are growing among researchers and are finding a stronger place in science. Just my thoughts, I hope this sparks some discussion or looking more into this :)

[@carloslunaofficial]

Agreed in that some fundamental issues have to be rethought by the mainstream in the field. And things like cognition are fundamentally rethought with 4e cognition by thinkers like Francisco Varela. Again, I would definitely encourage reading Barrett. Other than that, this was a great analysis 👏

[@AlexIncarnate911]

His critique is more of an attempt to defame evolutionary biology because of the current political agendas whose narratives are threatened by the advances made in this field. I don’t think they’re very interested in knowing more…

[@dantheman2907]

Man, you absolutely nailed the Werner Herzog narration!

[@neurotransmissions]

Honestly, this comment made my day. 😊

[@8lec_R]

@@neurotransmissions i genuinely thought you called on Jordy Vandeput to do the voiceover. It was very good

[@MIOLAZARUS]

Hear hear !!

[@sednasix6608]

Does that make his argument more credible ?

[@dantheman2907]

@@sednasix6608 obviously. One's ability to imitate a famous voice is 100% correlated to the credibility of one's argument. It's just how science sciences.

[@seanbeadles7421]

This is a great video. Evolutionary Psychology research routinely put forth untestable hypothesis, and then when the observations match the hypothesis they claim it’s true. So many aspects of human evolution are inherently unknowable, and that’s something that can’t be overlooked. Past unattested behaviors and psychology are mostly conjecture, which is why you see the meme of “archaeologists always say something is a ritual that’s lazy”. No, it’s intellectually honest. Nothing more can be discerned from the evidence. There are limits to our knowledge and that’s something that has to be acknowledged. Evolutionary Psychology is a useful tool, but it shouldn’t be the only tool to understand our past. It’s a hammer, but it should only be used for nails that need it. If it needs a mallet, leave it alone.

[@synchronium24]

@@boydhooper4080 Gad Saad is one of the more unscrupulouos evolutionary psychologists. Pinker is a lot better.

[@8DX]

My plausible evolutionary explanation of pets: Humans are pattern-seeking social mammals who's tool use and collaboration allowed us to reach the top of the food chain. Part of our pattern seeking is intuiting agency and we are also good at forming social bonds and attachments (for example to children). Coupled with general curiosity and meeting other animals in our environment being a common experience, there is nothing stopping humans from treating an unthreatening animal as a friend, intuiting agency and thoughts in that animals head, and caring for it as we do for our own offspring - especially when finding abandoned baby animals in the wild. Where keeping pets has entered human culture, like any other behaviours it has become codified and refined. Keeping pets is just a human thing to do, like worshipping rocks, or seeing faces in the clouds, or caring for orphans, or making found family, or falling in love with a fictional character, or talking to a machine.

[@ishkalola]

This is a better version of what I tried to say

[@ggggg77273]

Yeah, delusion that an animal could somehow feel the same emotions as a human is not impossible through evolution. The arguments against this are anti-science, just because they damage left wing sensibilities.

[@kevinstull7032]

I started writing a novel angrily calling you out for straw manning because I conflated evolutionary biology (Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith ect) with evolution psychology. Books like the "Selfish gene" or "evolution and the theory of games" are my bible and I was ready to go for the throat. Especially when you showed books that looked like they were co-authored by Deepok Chopra. Now I see that there is an important distinction thanks to your video and I mostly agree. The Current state of evo- psych has a very Freudian feel. Probably because the human brain is so complex and its causal mechanisms are so poorly understood. I also believe that behavior in humans has been informed by evolution. I have a friend who is a speech pathologist so there are lots of interesting areas of research within the realm of linguistics that might be applicable. The idea that there are areas in the brain specialized for verbs, adjectives, phonemes and the like gives some hope that the field isn't completely baseless. On a side note, I'm not really a fan of clickbait / inflammatory titles for science related content. In my opinion, it weakens your position an unbiased commentator but hey, its your vids and I'm a purist who's not trying to make a career on KZbin. Thanks for the content as always.

[@8lec_R]

Yes. I also had my brain make connections between Freud and this

[@RacheyBabes]

The most plausible explanation in my eyes for us keeping pets is that as we initially developed symbiotic relationships with animals based on survival and utility (domesticating wolves to help us hunt etc) that the cognitive algorithms that predispose us to identifying with and empathising with other humans and our young had the side effect of us doing this to the animals as we kept close proximity to them (bit like how we can see faces in things that aren't even living because our brains are finetuned to find those patterns) - we began to relate to their experiences as if they were humanish essentially, anthropomorphising them enough to become invested in their wellbeing as sentient beings instead of just a means to an end, meaning we began to develop the care for them to some extent like we do now. This in turn increased our desire to breed them for more companionable/desirable traits as well as utility based ones, further increasing this dynamic by making this experience more mutual between the animal towards us. I'm typing this whilst being cuddled by a cat - she would not be doing so if her species had not been bred to be less hostile and more affectionate towards humans. I in turn give her pronouns and a name and talk to her much like I would a human child because of a part of my psyche sees her as some weird pseudo human to bond with and care for. In other words, I think pet keeping is an extension of human need to bond and nurture other humans and we domesticated animals enough that our brains experience them as being close enough to humans to want to care for.

[@justaguy328]

That's just making up a story. That's all evolutionary studies do. Just make up stories.

[@stewartsmith1464]

I don’t understand how people can think it’s a “stretch” for evolution to also be applied to Psychology and human behaviour. We have no reason not to think this, this is the default.

[@blankin576]

Because evolutionary psychology is reductive and works backwards from conclusions. Evolutionary biology is a complex field that relies on genetic data, while it does make theories, it doesn't propose that evolution is the explanation for everything in nature. Evolutionary psychology looks at a human behaviour and tries to rationalize an "evolutionary" sounding description for why that behaviour came about. It also doesn't address to the field of neuroscience, which makes the claim (backed by physical evidence) that rather than having evolved to have fixed behaviors, our brains have evolved to be adaptive to current circumstances. Basically, evolutionary psychology is speculation which is using the credibility of evolutionary theory to bolster unfounded claims. To address your point that to think evolution has not had an effect on our psychology is silly, I agree. But the field of evolutionary psychology does not actually have a relationship with biological evolutionary theory, which means that it's conclusions have nothing to do with how physical evolution has impacted our psychology. for that you need a complex understanding of how our psychical bodies (in recent years we suspect particularly the brain) relate to our states of mind, which, again, evolutionary psychology does not offer.

[@Peter.F.C]

I think he misses that the Haldane formula he quotes is about a constantly changing environment.

[@robertseavor4304]

​@@blankin576You could have just said, "Because evolution is bollocks". Because it is.

[@travisdeppe9172]

​@@robertseavor4304thats not his point, which is why he didn't say that. Did you mistake "evolutionary psychology" for "evolution"?

[@robertseavor4304]

@@travisdeppe9172 Nope. If you cannot understand my meaning then you probably believe in the religion of evolutionism.

[@dantheman2907]

I think, evolutionarily speaking, our relationship with pets began somewhat symbiotically, particularly with Wolves as they would receive food, warmth and the companionship of a pack while we used their heightened senses to help us hunt or alert us to dangers, and also for companionship. Edit: You tricked me! You knew I was going to write this!

[@samsalamander8147]

There is an awesome documentary I watched years ago on PBS called Dogs and how they got they way. They had a theory that dogs evolved from wolves that would eat at the human dumps. they evolved to be more friendly to gain more food. It makes sense. The first dogs that could be called dogs that they found in the fossil record where at the first human dumps. Dogs evolved with civilization.

[@zimzob]

@@samsalamander8147 *they evolved to be less aggressive, because humans killed the more aggressive ones they encountered when taking out the trash

[@KilgoreTroutAsf]

I think it was Stephen Jay Gould who said that the vast majority of traits in an animal are there not because they have been selected for but emerge from the interaction of other traits that have, like the empty space between the columns of an arc hasnt been "designed". A bit like there is no specific gene that makes you afraid of tigers. Evolutionary psychology seems to fall prey to this style of fallacious reasoning way too often.

[@cybercab]

EP can be useful but it also sounds like a “just so” story. The big problem is that there’s no way to prove a thing right or wrong. A non-falsifiable claim can grow and be used to oppress.

[@mystermont2019]

a 37 culture study observing the same patterns in mate selection from primitive tribes to developed nations over the span of 30 years is not 'just so'.

[@Flourfiending]

@@mystermont2019 what study is this? I want to look into it, thankyou

[@cybercab]

@@myself2noone Well that’s aggressive. And incorrect. It’s my perception of many past claims which turned out to be false. It’s science. Don’t act like a jerk.

[@atharchaudhry5725]

You explained the branch of evolutionary psychology very well. Further; much of your criticism against evolutionary psychology ia valid too. In the end you reached the conclusion that evolutionary Psychology is a mixed bag; it has it's valuable explanatory power but some limitations too. But then why you chose the title of your presentation so extreme? Why you called it garbage?

[@anonymousman107]

clickbait

[@kaemincha]

books have titles for a reason, to get you to pick them up and read them. videos are the same way. you watched this video did you not?

[@definitelynotcole]

Yeah but I just had an argument with a friend who took this literally. He now believes evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience. Which is incredible because in comparison to most psychology it is far more reasonable and approachable. In addition, utilizing simulated experimentation EP oversimplified can give great insight into things like developed altruism and selfishness and complex systems with independent agents.

[@thedudewhoeatspianos]

You need to push back on the overuse of a science with extremely limited explanatory power and no practical applications.

[@dannyvanhecke]

Not to trust everything you read or hear sure is good advise. The human mind is so complex we don't even understand ourselves, so a healthy dose of scepticism sure is advised.

[@agneshaycollection6129]

Do you mean: The human mind is so simple, we don't even understand ourselves ...

[@kristingallaty8301]

Good point. May I suggest "The human mind is so simple it don't understand its complexity"

[@cathy7382]

Only God is omniscient He knows what makes us tick

[@tylermacdonald8924]

An evolutionary justification for pets: That they aid hunting and combat, or served as companionship (improved emotional stability)

[@wayfa13]

and/or as they have better smell and hearing (dog analogues), guards that warn you of oncoming danger/threats that you don't even know about yet

[@Strange9952]

It really goes to show the level of ignorance in these types of people Yeah dogs have more than purpose of "seeming cute" 😂😂

[@terryyakamoto3488]

I was sceptical when I started watching this but I've been took to school, it's always good to be reminded that you know practically nothing

[@handsomebear.]

Cute bait ^_^

[@ArtturiSalmela]

Natural selection is survival of the fittest, though, "fittest" doesn't mean the 1st place as the word may imply. As Richard Dawkins put it "It is more of a survival of the good-enough." Also, implying the many traits our genomes provide us, like our appearance or behaviours, wouldn't affect selection completely ignores how humans choose their mates. There are certain things men find attractive in women and vice versa.

[@eaterdrinker000]

I am the goodest enough.

[@jamestang1227]

No one is implying all traits are neutral or nearly neutral, but let's not kid ourselves and pretend something as minor as whether earlobes are attached actually affects fitness in any meaningful way. No one is denying the definition of natural selection either, rather, there is a cost to selection in populations making it unlikely it is always the driving force of evolution. Especially not with so many neutral and nearly neutral mutations and traits that are accepted by by genetic drift.

[@harveyilling6646]

Firstly, can I say that as a Psychology student I really do appreciate you referencing the sources of information. Secondly, For a while there I thought your statement of "evolutionary psychology is mostly garbage" was driven by misconceptions. But you proved me wrong and I found myself agreeing with alot of points. Evolutionary Psychology cannot explain everything, and sometimes cant decide whether something is an adaptation or a by- product. This video was interesting to listen to and has provided me with some points to research for my assignment. (which is looking at the criticisms and limitations of Evolutionary Psychology. So thank you :)

[@maninalift]

I loved this balanced account and I absolutely agree. Some of the worst excesses of evolutionarily psychology seem to have gained ground in the popular imagination in the last decade, when I thought it had long since lost credibility. I admire your restraint in not naming the worst offenders. Something that you didn't give particular attention to was the was the the fact that genetics simply doesn't have the right levers to pull to direct cognition. Developmental cognitive neuroscience is fascinating, but when you look at how many layers of process separate DNA from cognition, it is clear that the attitude that "you don't need to worry about the details nature will find a way to encode cortical function" is naive. Linking odour to hormone response is one thing, linking visual stimulus to memory formation is another.

[@T_Party_]

One of the coolest hypotheses in human evolution I found was the idea that we have been selecting for a longer and longer juvenile period of our life, because this gives our brains more plasticity for longer. By your logic I agree that really really adaptable brains runs in complete contradiction of evolving any hardline ways of thinking at the gene level

[@Jareers-ef8hp]

Maybe I’m not caught up in the loop but when your talking about “the worst excesses in the recent decade” are you talking about those manosphere guys on KZbin?

[@maninalift]

@@Jareers-ef8hp those guys certainly amplify some of it but i think i was thinking mostly of academic work and i wasn't making a judgement about the social and political messages, just the scientific credibility. Honestly, struggling to remember exactly who i had in mind now so feeling a bit like I'm BS-ing

[@Jareers-ef8hp]

@@maninalift Thank you for responding so soon

[@solarmoth4628]

My first introduction to evo psych was seeing it used in highschool to reinforce sexism that could be better explained by social structure than innate brain biology. I’m probably significantly biased against it to today. I don’t think it’s all bad probably but I am very skeptical of it.

[@miklosgula7665]

Here I, a layman, go writing a plausible evolutionary hypothesis for why did we started keeping pets, as requested: we relate to our animal companions with the same affections as we do to our human friends. The animals first domesticated were kept around for utilitarian reasons (meat, keeping pests and intruders at bay, help with hunting and other chores), but we formed bonds with them regardless, as kind of a residual for our adaptive social behaviours. And we just kept having more and more animals around, once we've started.

[@bobboby3567]

I feel like you're assuming that what is natural is what is right even though there is no reason to assume so, for example even if rape turned out to be a natural cause of evolutionary psycology it wouldn't mean people will think "oh since its natural it should be legal"

[@neurotransmissions]

I don't think what is "natural" is what is "right". My issue with the evolutionary psychology research around rape is how it gets discussed with wider audiences and how it is used to casually excuse harmful and socially unacceptable behavior as "human nature" (typically to benefit those traditionally in power). By admission of evolutionary psychologists, our psychological mechanisms do not predict behavior. Culture, social influences, and our capacity for a moral code also have an intense impact on our behaviors. And last I heard, most people don't rape other people. If you flippantly throw around evolutionary psychology and say, "yes, buuuuut rape is actually a natural thing", then you _do_ open the door for others to feel it is more socially okay, which can lead to either more rape or more people excusing away the behavior. We can have conversations about the evolution of certain traits without defending them. Beyond this, there has been extensive criticism of evolutionary theories surrounding rape because we don't have sufficient information about environmental or cultural factors that would have driven this genetic change, it's unlikely that rape generally would have net fitness benefits for most men, and even more recent research has failed to support this hypothesis. Anyway, I appreciate your comment! I like talking about stuff like this.

[@lazygenie5616]

@@neurotransmissions I have no idea where you get the slightest inkling that when rape or if rape was actually attributed to evolutionary psychology it would somehow be casually excused, also I saw you used the word “human nature”. Well what do you mean by human nature? Is it human nature to kill burn and destroy? If you say no then how exactly do you explain that over the last 3,400 years, humans have been entirely at peace for 268 of them. Also too just touch on the whole rape thing, animals rape each other all the time. Dolphins have tried raping human woman. Apes have raped Deers. So saying it’s not at least somewhat of an evolutionary thing it like arguing we didn’t evolve from primates, or arguing that the animals are mimicking our behaviour

[@dosmastrify]

@@neurotransmissions it also flies in the face of self sacrifice. Being dead is Not a good way to get genes to the next generation

[@soymiyart3209]

You are absolutely right. Rape is a natural thing. To say that is not really to support it.... Why is it important to know that rape is natural? Because knowing that, we can look for solutions. Rape is not the consequence of "rape culture"; it is the consequence of the lack of "non-rape culture". War, homicide, jealousy and rape... are natural things.

[@ronb9258]

One of the big problems here is that sexual selection, especially female sexual selection, is completely ignored. Sexual selection had a significant role in forming us as we are both physically and emotionally. It can explain many human traits that environmental selection has a hard time with. Epigenetics also accounts for a lot of heritable traits. All together these various factors allow for much faster and more complex evolution than the single gene change selection idea.

[@ssjmura1654]

Sure, evo psych can be used in nefarious ways, and it presents hypotheses that are untestable, but that seems to be the nature of any task that involves looking into the past. I think that the valuable evo-psych material comes from drawing inferences using patterns of behavior that are also seen in animals. Their lower level of intelligence compared to humans suggests that any behaviors we have in common relate to a shared underlying structure. So behaviors like mate guarding, pair bonding, male physical competition, courtship rituals, territorial behavior, child-protection, exploration, etc. all must be related to an underlying structure that many organisms share. I'm not so sure that this video sways my opinion on the field.

[@stargazerspark4499]

Humans are complex mammals, and those that think evopsych totally reduces us and our behavior to the level of mere monkeys or bonobos would be incorrect. However, that humans are hardwired to prefer traits and attributes in mates that confer survival & reproductive value in a harsh environment is pretty self-evident. This is well-established and not some "just-so" story as claimed by those offering weak rebuttals like this Soybeard's video. Clearly these protests are from those who wouldn't thrive without the coddling of a decadent civilization and feel threatened by such realities.

[@jesperolsson6569]

No one is saying that we dont share underlying structures and emotions. But evo psych makes the claim that the way we lived throughout history has adapted and specializing those structures further and changing them. So if everyone disliked one fruit back then we would start evolving to all have a dislike for it etc.

[@pygmalion8952]

"Their lower level of intelligence compared to humans suggests that any behaviors we have in common relate to a shared underlying structure" no it doesn't necessarily mean that.

[@ssjmura1654]

​@@pygmalion8952 It doesn't necessarily mean that, but that is the most likely answer by a wide margin.

[@GeneTakovic225]

It would be ill-advised to reduce the whole of evolutionary psychology to its misgivings, as literally all fields make fallacious assumptions and pass them off as fact. I'm far from the biggest fan of evo-psy, but I do see its utilty. Its problem is the same as any other discipline. Those in the field who do not account for other related fields, make these false assumptions. We can see the same with sociobiology, which used to be behaviorism. Despite changing its name, its back to its old tricks, social constructionist proponents are denying the reciprocity between biology and environment. They are pushing an ideology. Everytime a field denies other fields, they are pushing an ideology. Same happened with genetic determinism, trying to push that old eugenics canard. As a scientist, you should stray away from such generalizations and reduction. Yeah, it does need to be criticized, but going sensationalistic and calling it garbage, is going a tad too far imho.

[@gh0s1wav]

But then he wouldn't get all these liberal viewers who want to believe that everything is a matter of our social structure, duh.

[@SebastianAdamss]

Agreed, well put.

[@SubvertTheState]

That was actually a fantastic Werner Herzog. I knew where this was going pretty quickly though, there should be no execution of evolutionary psychology....that sounds utterly terrifying. Just like natural is not good; evololutionary psychology can help us identify the operations running in the subconscious and be mindful of them. Most should be transcended if possible rather than reinforced, some can be reinforced and natural like altruism.

[@SebastianAdamss]

Well put. As long as we don't consider evolution to be an ethical force, the "bad" EP can be identified and dismissed. As you say, it should help us transcend our bias's. Underplaying EP's power only serves to give those with bad intent more power.

[@bgalbreath]

Hypothesis: We began keeping some pets because they were useful in warning us about predators while we were sleeping or helping us to find or kill prey animals. Others may have been useful as practice subjects for children to learn skills that would later be useful in childcare: a kitten or puppy is better than an inanimate doll to function as a child surrogate.

[@davidpowell3347]

From time to time an orphaned dog ancestor or kitten would as a last ditch appeal for survival might seek human contact and mothering or even a mother cat starving for death risked approaching humans and yelled hoping for mercy and a bit of food. I think still happens rarely today with the lynx or bobcat which however can't exist without avoiding humans since it is legal to "harvest" them for their fur. As animals we share a sort of facial disk with cats which also try to use facial muscles and expressions to manipulate other animals or companions. And the dog has been proven to be expert at reading human facial expressions.

[@Stettafire]

Symbiosis is super common in nature. IDK why people find it strange that humans would keep pets

[@blankin576]

This is my main problem with evolutionary psychology. It's so easy to, without any research, come up with a reasonable sounding explanation for any human behaviour that sounds "evolutionary" without really doing anything but think about it for a a few minutes. I know you're not claiming this is true or anything, but a lot of people could easily read what you have written and defend it as basically common sense.

[@BUSeixas11]

There’s tons of scientific literature on animal domestication. Read Melinda Zeder for starters.

[@BUSeixas11]

@@blankin576except this isn’t what we do in evolutionary psychology. We actually collect evidence and publish in peer-reviewed journals.

[@SchlimmShadySmash]

I have to talk about that Werner Herzog narration. As a german, I am so entertained I can barely put it to words. Not to mention the fake conversation of you and Werner. God damn. Ive never been so intellectually and comedically satisfied in my entire life and Ive watched a lot of stand up comedy. This makes me want to show my friends Herzog documentaries for a longer period of time just so they can share my appreciation of what you did here. Im not even joking LOL. God that was hilarious... and even deep AND philosophically sound, and stimulating. Just.. wow.

[@Jan96106]

I found it funny without remembering any of his documentaries, but I looked snippets of them up after reading your comment. This was a funny but fairly accurate imitation of him, particularly the clip I saw of his narration about a nihilist penguin.

[@damdampapa]

Stimmt!

[@damdampapa]

Stimmt!

[@WaiW41]

This was a great video (though I must confess the inflammatory title definitely elicited an emotional response from me)! I think there are many factors which might help explain why evolutionary psychology is the way it is right now. A lot of evolutionary psychology is actually either genetic psychology or cross-cultural psychology (which are overlapping but definitely distinct things). Psychologists end up using this data to combat the still prevalent idea that, at least to a certain degree, we are blank slates. The issue arises when we end up making the jump from describing trends to making causal evolutionary claims. I think the primary reason this occurs, especially among psychologists who do not specialise in evolution, is that humans have a tendency to make causal inferences. Scientists are humans too. The unfortunate consequence of this is that such data gets sandwiched between two extreme groups, genetic determinists and genetic deniers. As someone who, when it comes to evolutionary biology, is a complete layman, I really appreciated how simply you poked holes at the current state of evolutionary psychology. I must remind you though that the scientific study of psychology, let alone evolutionary psychology, is still very young. I can only hope that with time, rigorous practice becomes the norm in evolutionary psychology as well.

[@bryancoronel6901]

To be honest I entered with an open mind, but then I started thinking about how your arguments were weak... Until I realized they are not. You said a lot of serious weakness that evolutionary psychology has. Very nice video! You have really changed my mind.

[@98Zai]

I think the reason for keeping pets is the same reason we want children - the same reason we want to create things, and solve problems. I don't know what that reason is, but I can definitely _feel_ how they all activate the same general area in my brain.

[@Samuel-qc7kg]

Maybe the desire to be a part on something important in life, like something to give meaning to our own lives? That or just company and emotional attachment.

[@disneybunny45]

I think humans began to keep pets for a variety of reasons. Ask anyone with a pet why they got a pet and you'll get so many answers For companionship, for work, for protection, for pest control, to signify wealth. There is no one reason why humans have pets.

[@domenicocisternino2312]

You said a lot of correct (yet obvious) things in this video, but most of them can be applied to the majority of scientific fields concerning humans and human behaviour. I think that scientific debate in the US is pretty close to become impossibile, since (as you do in this video) people tend to immediately give a political connotation to every single claim or hypotesis.

[@neurotransmissions]

This is an interesting comment, because I didn't say anything pertaining to the field of politics. I mentioned that there's a book about political division and I said "conservative", but I was referring to traditionalists or those who stick closely to establishments, not political affiliation. I find that when others say something is "political" outside of the realm of the political institution, they use that word to refer to the social messaging that's inherent in anything that involves humans and they are essentially saying, "I do not wish to examine the ways in which this impacts marginalized people in our culture." Evolutionary psychology studies how the mind interacts with a social context and it is studied by individuals within that social context - therefore it is "political". Evolutionary psychology research (and much of science, as you point out) contains social messaging and one has to be _willing_ and _able_ to ignore it to consider something unmarked by any particular point of view. So sure, it's "political". But let's not get defensive and build up walls. We need to be realistic about the ways in which science and media carry narratives that shape our culture and impact others. Don't blame the person pointing at the pothole for the pothole's existence. Instead, let's work together on building better roads.

[@ankansenapati3600]

This is the problem with most soft science. They conduct a 100 people studi

[@Magnetonstor]

@@ankansenapati3600 I would say that since the invention of brain imaging devices like the MRI, psychology turned into a "hard" science, just like when in biology the DNA was first discovered

[@Fincarn5]

​@@neurotransmissions "This is an interesting comment, because I didn't say anything pertaining to the field of politics. " 5 paragraphs latter. "So sure, it's "political". But let's not get defensive and build up walls. We need to be realistic about the ways in which science and media carry narratives that shape our culture and impact others."

[@ladylielac]

Hypothesis for why humans would start having pets: we're strongly geared towards social bonding, and this spills over onto things that aren't part of our species, and so when a cat comes around we're like "hello friend! you don't look TOO dangerous so perhaps you are a friend" and then next thing you know you wake up with a sandpaper tongue licking your nose and helping you scrape the bones from the next kill very very clean

[@MysticMindAnalysis]

Part way through the video, and I'm enjoying it so far! I was introduced to Evolutionary Psychology through a book called "Introducing Evolutionary Psychology: A Graphic Guide" (though I think I read an earlier edition published before 2010). It introduced the topic as looking at phenomenon like pareidolia (or ability to sense familiar patterns as an early warning sign for danger) or why humans love fast food (the survival response to scarcity). It was only later when I found that people were using the term for hunk science, which is a massive pain. Thanks for giving the field of study a fair assessment! I feel like people such as Rebecca Watson throw the baby out with the bathwater and ignore the real (and useful) research into how some of our basic instinctual behaviours evolved.

[@pygmalion8952]

"Thanks for giving the field of study a fair assessment! I feel like people such as Rebecca Watson throw the baby out with the bathwater and ignore the real (and useful) research into how some of our basic instinctual behaviours evolved." rebecca didn't say all evo psych is bs. but it is mostly bs and it is true. it is mostly bs.

[@michaelbarker6460]

Tbf I don't know a ton about things like climate change or viruses and vaccinations but I trust the science. Of course I allow myself to be skeptical if something doesn't make sense to me or goes against whatever my hunch is but when I have questions I like to think I have a decent grasp of where to look and what sources to trust over others. I also don't know a ton about evolutionary psychology but again, I trust the science. Its interesting to me however that when certain people outright deny climate change or the efficacy of vaccinations we condemn them as anti-science and we see them as clearly motivated by their own personal beliefs. I mean the evidence is overwhelming if they just looked for it, but for certain people it just doesn't align with their world view whether for religious, political or personal reasons. Regardless we can see the incentives underlying what they do and don't believe. I feel like this is very similar to evolutionary psychology but for a different kind of person. Some of the scientific evidence and claims don't align with their views or what they want to believe about the world and so they deny it. For them they feel like its different though because they'll say they've looked at all of the evidence but they see problems everywhere so obviously its a garbage field of science. But this is identical to what a climate change denier does. They latch onto the bad studies and controversies as being evidence that therefore the entire field of climate science can't be trusted. I think what leads to this more than anything is allowing a topic to be "off limits." If someone wants to deny climate change for instance I have no problem with that whatsoever. I'd just hope that they are willing to look at all the evidence including the best counter arguments and criticism of their own beliefs just as I would do for their evidence. I'm not worried about what conclusions I'm going to find, if it really is good evidence then I'd like to believe that means I'll change my beliefs to align better with what's true about the world. Its not like I want a climate crisis to happen, its just what I really think is the case based on the best evidence. The same is true for any other belief including anything and everything in evolutionary psychology. My preferences for what I do or don't want to be true just doesn't have anything to do with what's actually the case about the world and reality.

[@celiacresswell6909]

I like your credo! I usually believe things based on my own incentives. Setting a high value on personal autonomy, I wanted the covid vaccine to be a fail. The fact that it was - at least partially- it unlikely to have been predicted by my awesome intuition. Your humility does you more credit.

[@pameladickson1478]

I see an issue with your comparison to fields like climate change or the efficacy of vaccination. Those fields have much larger data pools over longer periods of time they are drawing upon. They are pretty much settled science. Comparing evopsych to them seems odd. I’m a microbiologist by training and I have no problems with the concept of evopsych and it’s probably gotten a bad name from a minority of practitioners willing to push sensationalist findings that are based on extremely shaky studies with outrageously small sample sizes. Kind of reminds me of the rush to publish all kinds of dubious papers on how the microbiome ‘effects’ just about everything you could think of in my own field. Problem is all these flashy dubious studies make a media splash when they get published with of course no discussion about sample size, effect size and methodology, but the much better studies with much larger sample sizes and controlled conditions and meta-analyses that come out years later showing no statistical significance don’t get any media coverage (women’s preference in sexual partner traits changing with ovulation is a good example of this, as far as I’m aware none of these studies have held up when repeated with larger sample sizes). Again I’m a layperson not involved in a field anywhere near evopsych but it seems to me we may be making the mistake of thinking some culturally dictated behaviors specific to our period of time are universal and explainable by genetically inheritable traits. Like the idea men are more sexual, wired to cheat even though we as a culture at times have held the exact opposite view. Or even the idea man = hunter, woman = gatherer. There was that anthropological survey that found a substantial minority of women across cultures involved in hunting and vice versa. Idk, it seems the more anthropological works I’m exposed to the more clear it seems we have a bias to assume the behaviors/societal roles of our own culture equal some universal norm when they aren’t.

[@michaelbarker6460]

​@@pameladickson1478 "I see an issue with your comparison to fields like climate change or the efficacy of vaccination. Those fields have much larger data pools over longer periods of time they are drawing upon. They are pretty much settled science. " But where is this coming from? Why is this supposed to just be obvious to me? Settled by who or what? What "settles" a science? Both me and you are absolutely free to look up any and all research in these fields we are talking about. I ask sincerely when I say have you done this search to see what's actually the case? "I’m a microbiologist by training and I have no problems with the concept of evopsych and it’s probably gotten a bad name from a minority of practitioners willing to push sensationalist findings that are based on extremely shaky studies with outrageously small sample sizes. Kind of reminds me of the rush to publish all kinds of dubious papers on how the microbiome ‘effects’ just about everything you could think of in my own field." But who are the people we get this information from? At least for me its always been "Researchers at some university found that X amount of research isn't reproducible" Its not coming from random people on youtube. Are there any large studies or metastudies that say evo-psych research is particularly prone to being faulty? "women’s preference in sexual partner traits changing with ovulation is a good example of this, as far as I’m aware none of these studies have held up when repeated with larger sample sizes" Which to me seems to have to do with this EXACT thing its talking about. This is just simple science. What if I used something in climate science that we've gotten better at understanding and point out that in the past we we're off by a little and then use that as evidence for the whole field being problematic? "some culturally dictated behaviors specific to our period of time are universal and explainable by genetically inheritable traits" But what if they are? Why would it matter? As ridiculous as an example what if it really was just the case that a certain Chinese population showed by far the strongest propensity to play the violin than any other population on the planet. I'm not saying that's the case, I'm saying it as an example. So what if its true? Are you going to prejudice people based on whats true or not? Are you going to deem someone less than or better than because they have a certain set of genes? Whats the alternative here? What if its true but people put pressure on each other to not mention it because its a social taboo? We're just supposed to play pretend with each other because we're not mature enough to handle the truth? Again, I'm not saying its the case, I'm using it as an example. It could very well be the complete opposite if thats where the evidence led. I have zero attachment to this field. As far as I know my comments are free to be seen by anyone and I post sporadic videos on playing the piano and nature related things. I don't spend my time in this field at all. But I guess I took it personally because it reminded me growing up in the Mormon church. I was told again and again and again what I could and couldn't question. I was made to feel bad for even going in certain directions of questioning. Evopsych is like the combination of perfect topics for some people where they just don't want to believe anything about the field because they already have their minds made up. Count me out of that altogether. I'm going to ask what I want, I'm independent and smart enough to go look up anything anyone claims and find good sources to see if they are bullshitting me or not. I'm not saying I know anything about this field. I haven't even made a claim about anything in this field because I really don't know. But I'm not going to pretend to know just because it feels like the right answer to me.

[@andreisandulescu9042]

It seems fairly obvious to me that animals have been useful for us in different ways for a long time. Humans being social species, started bonding with animals, through empathy and many other animals have the same capacity of getting attached to humans. It started as a sort of symbiotic relationship, like dogs hunting along man, and birds being used for food production, or perhaps for delivering messages. This utility of pets then has reduced or changed with technological evolution, yet the potential of bonding with them has remained similar.

[@gonderage]

That introduction speech sounds an awful lot like the narration by Werner Herzog, from the documentary “Burden of Dreams” which I only recognize because I play Risk of Rain 2. edit oh shit he literally says werner herzog after the speech lmao i just posted this when he said the loved it against my better judgement part

[@neurotransmissions]

Gotchya! 😂

[@purplewine7362]

Pretty engaging video . Had no idea how 40 minutes passed

[@robzs8388]

I mean it's basically tautological to say that R4p3 is natural. It is a behavior exhibited by natural beings...ipso facto, etc. It doesn't really have much to say about what we DO about it, however. Matricide is also natural.

[@celiacresswell6909]

Can’t we say rape? He did…

[@PrashantMaurice]

I am finding hard to understand this. So evolutionary psych is garbage because it over emphasises on fitness and less on variance. But isn't variance part of the fitness function when viewed at species as a whole ? what am i missing.

[@magattahanakajiya920]

When a trait is selected, it means that those in the population without that trait must suffer a loss of fertility. ie they fail to reproduce. This cost of selection creates a limit to how much evolution by selection can occur before the burden to the species population overall becomes terminal. However, evolution happens much faster than that. Therefore, there must be a LOT of genetic change that is NOT a direct result of natural selection - random in various ways that he outlines. That even goes for some traits that become universal. EvoPsych tends to reason backwards: take a trait today and speculate what the selective pressure was that brought it about. But if a lot of traits are not the direct result of natural selection, then that reasoning becomes very insecure. Add to that the lack of evidence (because we can’t compare humans with close relatives) and Houston, we have a problem. That is what is meant by the criticism that EvoPsych is excessively “adaptationist”.

[@rhetoric5173]

It’s garbage cause anything can be explained post hoc.

[@stevenhines5550]

It's garbage because it attributes deliberate human perversions to natural selection and calls them inevitable thereby denying free will. The elites love it because then the powerful get to determine the course of history and say it's just as natural as gravity.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

@@rhetoric5173That’s not strictly true: most attempts are simply fallacial and often presented with bad - or bad faith - arguments. The real reason a lot of EvoPsych is BS is oversimplified horseshit from self-professed experts & their favourite projections.

[@DiscipleOfHeavyMeta1]

It would be naive to assume natural selection plays zero role in psychology, but surely, to focus entirely on the potential evolutionary history of psychologies while neglecting the environmental pressures that induces these possible evolutionary adaptations is inadequate.

[@beccam7298]

I don't think anyone is genuinely doing that though. Evolution is a response to environmental pressures. We inherently have to consider those pressures to understand why certain adaptations carried forward. In applying evolutionary psychology today, we have to consider how those adaptations are interacting with our present day environmental pressures. There's no genuine separation there, and I haven't seen a paper published that argues it can be fully separated. We don't live in a vacuum, you know? Seems like a strawman.

[@DiscipleOfHeavyMeta1]

@@beccam7298 No, that's actually pretty much what I'm trying to say.

[@jamestang1227]

Well the issue is that we have a limited understanding on how our hunter-gatherer ancestors live, let alone how they interacted with and were affected by the environment.

[@riruahm2960]

I feel like the algorithms are reading my mind because I was thinking the other day that evolutionary psychology is full of weird shit and someone should talk about it. Great analysis btw. I am just so relieved this being talked about.

[@grimawormtongue1949]

No it's not. People just dislike it because they're radical leftists whose ideology depends on a blank slate denialism.

[@mtnbkr777]

Discovering the Beat Your Genes podcast was such an eye opener. It was like pulling the curtain back and exposing the underlying motivators and pre-programmed behaviors that make us do what we do. I don't study it as an academic but more just from a real life layman's perspective. It really does help to understand others and yourself. It feels like having the cheat codes to a video game.

[@marcuslei6743]

agree.

[@AngelineProductions]

There are no “cheat codes” to life, and life isn’t a game.

[@Corporis]

Loving the moody, documentary style shots

[@oscarcorbiere2899]

Not sure what he's trying to argue here. First psychology is somewhere between 30 and 40 percent effective. So the science is controversial overall. However, the theory that the human psyche is partially or primarily controlled by our evolutionary biology is a valid course for psychology to follow We know that events from past experience effect peoples lives. So it's not a stretch to assume that events from history and prehistory could affect hormonal levels, fear effects, and ultimately behaviour isn't a hard path.

[@ChristianWilliams-k9c]

Is it not possible that cultural influences alter gene expression, epigenetically?

[@robertstuckey6575]

Truth claims definitely get picked up and tossed around in harmful ways. Unfortunately, this is true across the sciences in general where correlation becomes causation. My understanding, which is probably novice at best, is that multilevel selection and contextual pressure interact in a dance we call evolution. I would have loved more discussion about culture and I am sure editing is hard. I do find utility in exploring the function of adaptive human behavior within a broader biopsychosocial context. Maybe I've read too much David Sloan Wilson and EO Wilson. I try not to make too many big T truth claims. Thanks for the thoughtful work! Explore humbly!

[@hnktbt]

Wow, someone with my last name! Rather a spelling variation, but I've never seen one before. On another note, I think you summarized my feelings well.

[@jexjthomas]

David Sloan Wilson's work is great!

[@GeneTakovic225]

You should read Peter Joseph's The New Human Rights Movement then.

[@BL-sd2qw]

We are not "more evolved". Evolution is not there to make you "more advanced". Living beings evolve to *adapt*, and sometimes that means being "more intelligent", and other times it means being an ameba. There is no real hierarchy there, just a vast ecosystem(s)

[@breno855]

You had me on "last time i say something good about Steven Pinker" 😆

[@victormarioardilajr.6021]

Why we started keeping pets? Pets provide an additional set of sensory organs that monitor their environment, when they feel disturbed they make noise and display behavior that can warn us. Seeing danger before it's on top of us might help us last a little longer. Also, pets can improve our mood and a happy life is worth fighting for. I think this question is the only thing I understood in this video.

[@edlabonte7773]

I think judging the idea of, for example, whether rape is natural or not by the idea that that might justify it, is wrongheaded. Natural only equals good if you posit a naturalist theory of morality. If you do, then it is a problem. But I suggest that the problem is more in the naturalist philosophy than in the science. Killing animals for their meat is definitely part of humanity's past and one could argue that it has a positive evolutionary value. Vegetarians and vegans believe it is wrong based on empathy for the animals despite it being natural. If you have to justify every good as natural then you have made morality meaningless.

[@petitio_principii]

One can even make the point that there's this potential danger/concern with the theorizing of something as natural or adaptative being twisted/interpreted as "natural/adaptive therefore morally good," but there are two fundamental distinct things, one would be the natural theory, and other the moral theory based on it (or even inspiring it). While the natural theory may be highly questionable, even ultimately false/wrong, that would be from the lack of evidence and/or poor "theoretical structure" (like being vague and unfalsifiable), not that some people see that as the moral validation or condemnation of something, or even that it was inspired by something dreadful. "This is immoral therefore it's false/non-existing" is like "creationist epistemology," attacking evolution as a fact based on associations like eugenics and social darwinism. Sadly, this faulty reasoning is not that uncommon in criticisms of evolutionary psychology as well, which undermines the credibility/validity of the criticisms. Not that all criticism against it has this kind of problem, though, but it seems rather frustratingly common in certain topics.

[@jdanger89]

Liked many aspects of this on the whole, like your summarization of EP and steel manning it against many common critiques. That said, it seems very disingenuous that you never made mention (unless I missed it) of reproductive selection vs. natural selection. Most all authorities on EP that I’ve heard emphasize this as the main driver for shaping behavior and it is a big “yeah duh” to me that natural selection will only account for the degree their needed for survival, thus, there is room for a lot of variability in behavior there after. To your point about it not having enough rigor to it as a science - another big yeah duh. Would have been helpful if you provided ways it could be more empirically driven, but I think there needs to be room for understanding as a social science it is never going to have the same ease with this as a hard science will - there simply isn’t a method for it yet. I agree in that they’d benefit from overlaying the theory within more modern populations…however, you’d mentioned earlier as others point out - many would take this as justification for racism or eugenics so there’s obviously going to be sociopolitical barriers to performing this kind of research. You may agree, but I think we’re in the midst of a “changing of the guard” within the field of psychology. The old institutions will die out and EP will be commonly understood as the framework because, let’s face it, it makes by far the most sense in principal but the evidence, so far as it can be provided, is catching up. *edit*: a just-so story for you - right after the birth of my 1st child, I noticed an almost instantaneous and sharp decline in my affection for my pets…especially my dog. I pondered this for years before I finally heard about it happening to a few others men that I know so I’ll put forward the following: having pets in todays day and age is not but a tool to signal one’s fitness as a parent to attract a high quality mate. But once you make the transition to real life parenthood, the signal is absolutely worthless and thus the relationship you have with your pet substantially changes with your situation. 🍻, JD

[@jabbrewoki]

Oh no, a new, groundbreaking field is messy, in flux, heavily debated, and filled with crackpot claims by those seeking new frontiers to claim..... sounds like science to me.

[@There_Is_No_War_In_Ba_Sing_Se]

Pseudoscience, science is the study of the natural world. Pseudoscience false science is a deranged cult.

[@Guitcad1]

We started keeping pets because wolves were hanging out near our waste dumps and we got used to them and they got used to us. At least, those of us in *_that_* camp/village. Then we noticed they'd start raising a ruckus any time anybody came around who they didn't know, i.e. strangers, to them and to us. We discovered they were way better at tracking prey than we were, but they discovered we were better at killing that prey without getting gored by horns, antlers, etc. Eventually we started living in closer and closer proximity and learned they had complex personalities like people, but they didn't judge or backstab like people and that made us enjoy just having them around. Okay, that's my "just so" story for pets and I wrote it knowing it's probably way off. Hope it helps.

[@cheyemily6066]

I've been thinking about all this every single time I see Peterson online lately. Great, fantastic video. Loved the way you speak and the avoidance of unnecessary attack or criticism. Also, we keep pets because "uwu doggo good boy! Who is a good booy?"

[@ciepykocyg8692]

I came here because of Peterson and the fact that he inspires the mgtow movement. I was convinced that those people fail to understand what Peterson says, but it turned out I was wrong. This still confuses me

[@Stettafire]

Doggos > humans

[@marlinbethea-gullap4666]

​@@ciepykocyg8692 Peterson isn't an evolutionary psychologist, he has knowledge on it but he's a "Depth Psychologist", the naming sounds weird but it just means he's influenced by Carl Jung which he does mention alot in his college lectures and public talks ( stuff like the Anima/Animus, The Shadow, Archetypes, etc.)

[@petitio_principii]

@@marlinbethea-gullap4666 some of what JB Peterson says about "evolutionary psychology" isn't actually about this "school of thought" of evolutionary psychology mentioned here ("David Buss school"), but rather a broader and arguably more parsimonious school of thought. Not defending whatever he might have said, I don't really follow, and I only stumble with highlights focusing more or nearly only on BS. But not all is necessarily 100% BS, often he's mocked by bringing up lobsters, but that would potentially be one of those things speaking more of nearly-universals of biology and behavior, "game-theory" type of stuff happening either in a very repetitive manner through all branches of life, and also being then inherited. Doesn't mean that whatever generalization from lobsters would even necessarily apply to humans, and, to the degree that it would apply, doesn't mean anything like "we do it, just like lobsters, therefore is morally right," or whatever he may be saying. Gosh, I hate how he became some kind of "intellectual" super-star when he'll come up with BS like ancient DNA symbols in different cultures, the just as bad or even worse "epistemology" of whatever-makes-you-feel-better-is-true. And as a byproduct there's this scenario where people like him say 99% of BS and undermine the perceived validity of some 1% of non-BS they add to the mix, and make it hard to salvage the 1% of non-BS without risking being seen as a follower/admirer.

[@Senumunu]

They call EvoPsych "reductionist" then they bring a huge load of social constructivism slop as an alternative. A lot of false dichotomies and extrapolations in this video.

[@Kurtlane]

I can't believe you went through this whole thing without ever mentioning the selfish gene.

[@GotAbductedOnce]

You can't have read the Selfish Gene and still get the things wrong that are wrong in this video. And I don't even agree with Dawkins 100%.

[@hotelmario510]

@@GotAbductedOnce Either give some examples, or admit that your only problem with the arguments is that you personally don't like them because they interfere with your personal politics and code of ethics. It's always "This is wrong, because I say so", and never "This is wrong, and here's why". I wonder why that might be.

[@РомановВладимир-ю9д]

@@hotelmario510 he dismiss the evolution (earlobes is cherry-picking, what about blue eyes and beard?), he said that we are changing by chance (28:18), he strawmanning about explaining genome (28:42) in evolutionary *psychology*, he told that evolpsyc is just-so stories - when in reality evolutionary psychology is interested in what can be predicted from already known information, and all scientific hypotheses are just-so stories prior to being tested. Also, exaptationist and spandrel hypotheses have an additional evidentiary burden compared to adaptationist hypotheses.

[@phantom8926]

​@@РомановВладимир-ю9дthank you. I thought I was the only one that noticed this trend. Seems odd he'd dismiss actual science he claims to love ad a field.

[@РомановВладимир-ю9д]

@@phantom8926 I recall the time when usually people about the right-wing was anti-evolution cause of the Bible. And now many of the left-wingers are against evolution - because it is bigoted and patriarchal, and we need "real science" like hermetic principles. 🤷

[@fredfeltz7229]

Im sorry but say that about evolutionary psychology is like saying astronomy is crap cause astrology also tracks the movement of planets.

[@claramercier7924]

Pets give us affection and "unconditional love" and make us healthier all together. For example having a dog can literally heal your heart. Also caring for something gives us a sense of being useful and makes us feel like we're on the right path to survival maybe? Idk

[@outfitmadeofawesome]

a year after the video goes up but I will still play the audience participation game!! My hypothesis: people started keeping pets for different reasons depending on the animal and we won't be able to find a singular cause that explains all our animal relationship BUT ALSO because animals are really cute and sweet.

[@dakota-sessions]

Evolutionary psychology gets tested better than most fields of science. Cross-cultural analysis (especially small tribes), historical analysis, multi-species analysis (especially the other great apes), large data sets, and robust peer review. It is NOT "just-so-stories."

[@Apistevist]

Far better than social psychology lol. If one accepts the fact we're talking animals it makes most sense it would seem to best understand our behaviors/psychology by studying us as animals with brains/instincts selected for by nature.

[@woongda]

With such strong claim in the title, I suggest to start at 8:13 right the way. Better yet, read Answers to Ten Common Criticism of Evolutionary Psychology instead.

[@ssiddarth]

Great video 👍 & the narration was really good 😂 One request- Could you please make a video on BCI/BMI and talk about it's future applications & uses not only for the patients but also for the general public. Thanks for the amazing content ❤️

[@neurotransmissions]

Great suggestion! We’ll take down a note.

[@astrid.00.7]

@@neurotransmissionsWhile you're at it, might it also be possible to do a video on finding specifically trained therapists and treatments for childhood sexual trauma / CPTSD, i.e., SGB (stellate ganglion block), ketamine infusions.?

[@wadegruber2119]

I saw an article that said people are grossed out by things with holes in them, because in history, poisonous animals had black spots on them. I asked, then why don't I get grossed out by animals with black spots, and why DO I get grossed out by a cross-sectional drawing of holes?

[@AaronQuitta]

Pet hypothesis: some animals can aid in accomplishing tasks that humans aren't as good at, conditioning that animal to do the desired task creates and self sustaining, mutalistic relationship.

[@unthinkme1313]

Oh, okay. 😁So, we talk about Integral Theory, which considers itself evolutionary psychology, and we would not say that it has anything to do with genetics or the ice age. We agree with your points on the perspective that you're talking about, after five minutes of parody, dissing, name-calling, and tutorial on common knowledge in order to establish tonally that your target is silly that we thought was directed at us, great special effects, totally agree with the points. Anyways, though, we talk a lot about memetic evolution, or stages of massive sweeping change in the overall core conceptual paradigm of society, individuals, and technology, and how this same overall progression of paradigmatic core memes is reprised in every life, every collective, every artifact, and how a similar movement through increasingly objective and increasingly perspective-inclusive states and stages of consciousness can serve to develop the individual quite further, as well as progress the development of peace on Earth. So, we sometimes call it evolutionary psychology, for those reasons.

[@_blank-_]

I saw evolutionary biology and was about to get mad.

[@neurotransmissions]

Lol, nope! Evolutionary biology is where it's at!

[@Strange9952]

Just not the brain right bud

[@bluesyjazzcat31]

I really loved this video. I was always interested in the critiques of evolutionary psychology. I have a background in philosophy and psychology and I’ve always felt that discussing evolutionary psychology was one of the topics that tapped into philosophical and philosophical concepts frequently. I liked the distinction between adaptations and exaptations and how present evolutionary psychologist posit heavy faith in most evolutionary moments favoring adaptations. On the other hand, I’ve always found it interesting that critiques of evolutionary psychology tend to pool any evolutionary psychological theory that implies bigoted, eugenic, or other related concept as proof of the failings of evolutionary psychological theory. I’ve heard some people mention that, if such evolutionary forces were, presumably, bigoted, eugenic, in nature then we should at least be allowed “freedom from our biology,” which means that we should be allowed freedom from any maladaptive “evolutionary biological/psychological tendencies” that would corral us into bigoted or eugenic means of thought. In 100 years, there will be a palatably different mood towards certain social and cultural concepts that make us cringe, and evolutionary psychology critics will focus on evolutionary psychological theories that explain those types of disdainful views in the future. This video definitely made me think. Thank you!

[@sweetbailarina92]

Humans started kepping pets when they realised that doggies and kitties were cute 💕 and good bois. (Just joking, great video!!) P.s.: when you said "and that's the last time I'm going to say anything nice about Pinker" I screeched. As a Doctor in Linguistics I agree.

[@Kwadratura]

Hypotesis: - some pets can help you in hunting, protection, fight etc. -people who was able to take care of pets had higher level of empathy, and people with higher level of empathy had more capability to take care of their children, so they can survive and reproduce - Taming Wilde Animal require showing some level of dominance over them, and dominant ones were more likely to get higher in hierarhy - having pet could help reduce stress, and having control over stress is generally adaptive - having pet was a sighn of well being, because it shows that you can feed not only yourself, but also your pet, so it increase your attractiveness

[@scottstormcarter9603]

The main premise I attribute to evolutionary psychology, is that many behaviors come down to the survival of species. Rather than survival of the individual, or happiness of the individual

[@ThePatrykolus]

Natural selection is widely considered to be driven by genes, for genes to survive and becoming more prevalent, not individual nor species

[@EricHadleyIves]

Here is a just so story about why humans started keeping pets. Social organisms are probably driven through some sort of emotional affinity to be social. They seek out friends and allies and associates. Whatever underlies this tendency probably isn’t very fine tuned. Humans are capable of making friendships with nonhuman animals, and we can see cases in nature where animals create friendly alliances with other species as well. I imagine humans have always had occasional pets. The widespread adoption of the cultural habit of keeping pets? It’s probably a cultural magnification of a latent tendency. Dogs, cats, livestock, and crops have symbiotic relationships (both species benefit in evolutionary terms) with people, which gives an adaptation reinforcement to this cultural habit.

[@MrTooEarnestOnline]

We started keeping pets because of their aid to us in pest control, farming, and emotionally.

[@8lec_R]

I watched the video on Nebula. I wanted to write a comment about the video... But I forgot. All that remains is a mental note in mind, to comment on this video. So here's a comment. It's a very interesting video. Kinda glad I see where those strange articles about abuse being normal, were categorically wrong.

[@MysticMindAnalysis]

My hypothesis for why we keep pets: We are a social species. Social interaction with each other is incredibly important, in the same way that cooperative hunting is essential. I think it stands to reason that when we identify the same "cute" features in small animals as we would in humans (big eyes, small feet, soft facial features), then we may selectively breed them for those traits. As such, we end up with both a potential hunting companion (dogs), pest control (cats), or as part of a desire for social companionship in absence or addition to humans. After all, fancy rats are quite different to their wild counterparts, and even though many people associate rats with disease and vermin, the fancy rat is still a relatively popular pet among small animal lovers. We humans are programmed to recognise patterns that our beneficial to us. We see patterns that look like human faces, or jump at a tree branch that we may initially think is a snake. It's safer for us to have a quick reaction that's wrong sometimes than to have a slow reaction that's accurate. So, our companionship with animals becomes a by-product of this. Just as we see cute traits in babies that drive us to protect and care for them, we use similar brain patterns to bring us the joy of companionship in animals.

[@Bruhaha9]

I can’t align with a single thing you’re saying unfortunately. There are two layers at least. 1. Is the science of evopsych doing a good job of evopsych? 2. Is the idea that evolved outcomes of evolved brains a deep and pervasive reason for things people do and think, whether or not we’ve done a good job of explaining it all yet? 1. Probably not so much, but I don’t find that interesting and it diminish 2 at all. 2 is far more interesting and I’d say the answer is yes, by necessity. You can’t do or think anything with anything other than your evolved brain. Whether it’s exaptation, spandrel, thinking your way out of an urge, those are all still downstream of having a brain. I may be wrong, but I think it’s not reasonably broad to point out thoughts, instincts, etc that we can’t think of reasons for why they would have been adaptive and say therefore, that these things fall outside of evopsych or show it to be wrong. Those thoughts, etc are still taking place in the complex admixture of evolution. Any subjective thought, experience interoception, and the rest of it comes from some step of evolution even if it was a step that was in aid of something else. You can take the most unlikely to be evopsych phenomenon you could ever think of and it’s still coming out of brain matter which evolved. You seem to be hanging your argument on whether adaptations were either successful or as yet understood by the field. In an area so young as well as complex, one can’t proceed from there to the fairly confident conclusion you make.

[@christophercousins184]

Um... You basically argued against a minority view of what some would claim (more modestly than you insinuate - in fact, there's a lot of insinuation with immediate caveats in your "critique") is an aspect of Evolutionary Psychology: adaptation as an explanation of some human behaviors. Frankly, this was a seriously odd video. You bring up "critiques" of Evolutionary Psych, then explain that they don't really reflect what is currently being touted in EP (so they really aren't critiques, but misperceptions, yes?) and, then, when you FINALLY get to your gripe, you punt with generalizations about EP that I, personally, don't see as majority views. You even refer to Evo psych as a thing that has a belief system ("Evolutionary psych, says...") of its own, instead of an area of study with diverse modeling as a way to look at human behavior from differing POV's... Based on this video, one would think Evo psych is some new religion that has serious pitfalls (conflating Evo psych with White Supremacy is really sloppy, IMO) and that we should all be careful of this "iffy" idea that we are primarily biological beings... Bizarre.

[@neurotransmissions]

I'm not really sure what your counterargument is? If adaptationism is a minority view, then what is the majority view? The first EP research center was opened at UC Santa Barbara by two of EP's most important members, Cosmides and Tooby, and they quite boldly tout EP as adaptationist. Here's the website where they outline what EP is - www.cep.ucsb.edu/primer.html The founding principles of EP are listed clearly. You can call those principles "beliefs" if you like. Don't get me wrong, this is not every EP researcher's perspective, but it appears to be the prevailing approach to EP and has been since its founding. I don't conflate evolutionary psychology with white supremacy, but rather point out the fact that many white supremacists use EP to bolster their own misguided beliefs. Interesting that you point out that specific concern, though, among all of them. 🤔

[@christophercousins184]

@@neurotransmissions Well, right there in the link they spell out that adaptation is only one element of consideration, so again, I don't get characterizing EP as "essentially" adaptationist (this is one group of researchers' primer, BTW, but an excellent one, IMO). Chance events such as mutation, recombination, drift, and gene flow maybe more important than natural selection, as you said, and this is something being considered these days, as I understand it. Also, I would say the founding principles of of EP would be considered a bit quaint these days and I would agree that adaptation was the key ingredient when EP was in its infancy... It's not so much that I think what you said is wrong, just a bit general and, frankly, sometimes misleading (again, you spent 20 minutes on what is misunderstood about EP, not what's "wrong" with it) when it comes to the framing that EP provides. I just don't see a lot of scientists making concrete behavioral claims using EP. Of course, there are sloppy scientists doing so, but I just don't think it's entirely fair to judge EP by those who do. Basically, it feels like a "click bait" title that proports to discredit EP, but only critiques (correctly, IMO) one facet of the field... Again, not incorrect, just a little misleading, to me. I bring up the White Supremacy angle because EP has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with that vile belief system. The fact that bigots hijack EP is no more relevant to whether or not it's a useful frame as the relevancy of the misuse of Evolutionary Theory by White Racists as to its usefulness as a Scientific Theory... Of course, racism is disgusting, but it really isn't relevant to your video: "Evolutionary psychology is mostly garbage" ... Again, the misuse of EP by bigots has no bearing on whether EP is a useful frame, so it just feels "sensational" to bring it up.

[@neurotransmissions]

I appreciate your reply and I think we are generally aligned in what we're talking about, with a few differences. I believe that EP places more priority on adaptation than perhaps you do. I think there is an allure to describing our psychological mechanisms using natural selection because then there's a "reason" why we do things. I brought up some of these other criticisms because I knew that if I didn't, others would. I brought most of them up primarily to defend EP from being unfairly attacked or characterized. However, there are some that also deserve to be discussed or scrutinized. For the most part, I was viewing this video like carving a marble statue, chiseling away the elements that obscure what I see as a very large issue. I think it was important to briefly touch on them. Finally, I agree that misuse of research does not impact the potential use of any field as a useful frame. However, it is important to examine trends of who misuses certain kinds of science for nefarious reasons because it may indicate an issue in how that science is shared. It is "sensational", but it is also true. And since it is true, it is worth bringing it up, even if it is uncomfortable to acknowledge.

[@christophercousins184]

@@neurotransmissions I certainly agree that popular notions of EP give glib explanations (often based on misperceptions about Natural Selection!) for complex behavior and anyone attributing behavior on the basis of adaptiveness alone is missing the complexity of a field that I see as more useful for a frame to look at certain behaviors (rather than as an explanation for those behaviors). I take your point in pre-empting "misperceptions" about EP and I'll admit I was being a tad persnickety, but it seems you have a very sophisticated audience (I appreciate your channel, as well), so I'm not sure it was really necessary to spend so much time on misconceptions about EP (again, persnickety), but you would have more experience regarding audience responses (I was wanting you to get to your critique, personally), so I'll concede you may have done what was necessary to avoid an avalanche of haters! As to the racism issue: You have a point that these things should be acknowledged, but again, this seems to a sophisticated audience (I don't see any off color stuff insinuated, even) that this wouldn't be an issue for. But, I can also see how that could be a naive position to take... It bugs me that we have to talk about White Supremacy when we should be discussing the general merits or demerits of EP, but I concede (again, ugh) you're right to bring it up. I guess I would just emphasize a little more strongly that one has nothing to do with the other. Finally, thank you for responding. I feel like I have a better idea of where you're coming from and I appreciate the thoughtfulness you showed in your responses. I will definitely subscribe to your channel (I'm also a cat lover!) and look forward to watching more of your content.

[@mrridikilis]

@@christophercousins184 @Neuro Transmissions Can I thank you both for a nuanced debate in this comment section? We need more of this in our world!!

[@sparshcastic]

no jordan peterson was harmed

[@C-Hirsuta]

I don't have any formal background (or understanding) of Evolutionary Psychology. I haven't read any papers or even books about it. But before watching this video I would have claimed to believe it, just because what I picked up through osmosis made sense to me. When you were laying it out, I was nodding along. But when you debunked it, you didn't address any opinions that I actually held. Or, I don't think you did? So now I think that Evolutionary Psychology may not be what I was referring to. My concept of the field was trying to understand differences between the world we adapted to, and the world me made. That our society doesn't meet our own human needs very well. Sedentary life makes us depressed because we're wired to be trekking in a savanna all day long. We pig out on candy because if we didn't take advantage of that berry bush, we might starve by next week. We're lonely because we live alone in tiny boxes instead of with a tribe of close family who all work together every day to stay alive. These are all what I was calling Evolutionary Psychology. I'm interested in understanding where we came from, how it shapes us, and how we can use that insight to make society healthier for us. What is that field called?

[@beccam7298]

It's called evolutionary psychology. I understand the goal of this video being to criticize, but it has vastly reduced a field down to those things that are easy to knock down and ignores a lot of the nuance to it. Comparative psych relies on a lot of evolutionary psych principles. Animal psych relies on a lot of those principles, etc. If you asked any evolutionary psychologist, you'd get a slightly different synopsis of his or her field of study. I think this video relies on a very specific understanding of the field.

[@neurotransmissions]

I'm curious to know what you feel was ignored in the video. I don't see how taking principles from a field makes it more valid. Modern medicine relies on principles of old medicine, but that doesn't mean we still think bloodletting is the ideal treatment for mental illness.

[@beccam7298]

@@neurotransmissions In another comment, you said that your problem with evolutionary psychology research around rape is how it gets discussed with wider audiences. That discussion doesn't have any bearing on the validity of the research, but it sways your opinion of that research. I think it's a bit unfair to make that argument while saying that principles being used from a field don't make it more valid. Your former argument relies on applying opinions to the validity of an area of research. However, I do think that the principles taken from evolutionary psych that are applied to comparative and animal psychology are valid and evidence-based. I think there's a lot of nuance in how evolutionary psychology is applied, and I understand why that wasn't fully explored in the video - no one wants to upload a two hour KZbin video! Very few people are pure behaviorists or purely deterministic. Looking through the lens of evolution has not meant ignoring the past 12,000 years. There has been a lot of research regarding evolution more recently and how we may be evolving with modern day pressures and how past evolution interacts with modern day pressures. Drawing a reasonably logical conclusion that our social behaviors evolve as much as our physical characteristics is not so far fetched as the four humors method of medicine. We have strong evidence that the four humors were nonsense. We do not have strong evidence that our behaviors are not influenced by evolution, and we do have research pointing to that. I don't think that's a fair comparison. We can see a strong pattern of evolving behaviors and intelligence in the difference between other primates and ourselves based on when we diverged. The later the divergence, the more similar their intelligence and behavior is to ours. Bonobos who diverged from us 8 million years ago are less similar to us than chimpanzees who diverged 5-6 million years ago. That holds true with gorillas being less intelligent than bonobos and diverging before they did. Does that guarantee that our way of thinking and processing the world is evolutionary or that it continues to be? No, but it does suggest that the ability of a chimpanzee to use a lexigram keyboard to communicate compared to a gorilla's lack of capability has implications for our evolution as well. We are facing very different pressures for evolution today. We are not necessarily looking for strength in a mate, and modern medicine removes a lot of necessity for seeking a healthy mate. We are often seeking kindness, intelligence, empathy, etc. What will that mean for our evolution? I think that's an area of evolutionary psychology that is important and will continue to develop.

[@beccam7298]

@@neurotransmissions Sorry to have written a small novel, didn't realize how long it was until I hit post. Just an area I'm interested in and worked in!

[@neurotransmissions]

No worries! I appreciate the thorough response. First off, in that other comment, I was addressing the person's concern that they thought I was conflating what is "natural" with what is "right". I was making a point that you can discuss topics of rape without condoning or excusing them which, unfortunately, has happened a lot with evolutionary psychology in the general public. I specifically did not make that the focus of my video because plenty of others have more eloquently discussed that topic. However, I also presented some issues with the research itself, which was the primary critique I brought up in the video. We are in agreement that you can take valid principles from another field, but what I was saying is that cherry-picking the valid principles from evolutionary psychology doesn't forgive the other principles that, frankly, result in a lot of poor research. By no means am I saying evolutionary psychology is nonsense like bloodletting, but bloodletting certainly advanced the development of phlebotomy and the study of our bodily fluids. Does that mean bloodletting should hold the same validity as phlebotomy? Certainly not. In the same way, evolutionary psychology has not necessarily earned its validity simply because other fields take principles from it. I agree that evolutionary psychology very much focuses on modern day pressures, but typically within the context of genetic changes that happened during the Pleistocene and how they either synergize or conflict with our modern lives. Perhaps I am unaware of a surge of new studies about evolutionary trends occurring in more recent times? As stated, I don't think evolutionary psychology is invalid. I think it should be thoroughly scrutinized in order to rid the field of bloodletting-like research. As for your last paragraph, I think we are in agreement that the mind continued to develop and it is worth researching. However, as I make very clear, researchers must avoid evolutionary storytelling without having the rigorous evidence to back it up. I think that much of the best research in the field is yet to come as we continue to have a longer history of recorded time. I'll be curious to see where evo psych goes next.

[@generationalgamers8925]

damn, being conservative and having white skin flesh on my meat suit means i am a bigot? what can i do to correct this horrible affliction?

[@alexdiaz1492]

Yall have to have this on some long form audio format like spotify. The topics are interesting but i hate having to keep KZbin open to listen

[@neurotransmissions]

I feel you. I've considered paying for KZbin just for that function. Still haven't pulled the trigger yet though.

[@X1Y0Z0]

Slight correction re: opening: Big Bang did not fly off into space, space substances & time grew together, not into each other

[@epicsomethingstore6691]

Great Video! Nice to finally see someone who has a nuanced view on EP that acknowledges the problems in the field without outright rejecting it.

[@breakingzilian5371]

Whatever you may call it, it is simply the study of human behavior and attempting to trace possible natural o evolutionary/biological utility; the instincts.

[@roton1011]

Hi! If you are allready at it, discussing the weakness of subfields of psychology, could you maybe make a video about the replication crisis?

[@THarSul]

Almost never listen to sponsor spots, cause they always feel like a script read, but i couldn’t skip that one if i tried, that was fantastic 🤣

[@connorbettge3810]

this is a fantastic channel, thanks for explaining things so articulately! i’m really glad i found y’all. p.s. the werner herzog intro had me cracking up

[@sjacks3281]

what bothers me about it is when people use it to say that we should act the way we did a million years ago It's like they completely forget about the concept of...evolution. People have changed.

[@boydhooper4080]

Be warned this is basically click bait with incoherent arguments. Steve Pinker or Gad Saad would destroy these poorly formed arguments. I always try and seek out those that have a different perspective so I can understand both sides of the argument. Unfortunately this one is basically just diatribe With very little substance

[@BasedYeeter42]

Could you sum up the main problems with this video! (Also a fan of Gad Saad lel)

[@neurotransmissions]

I don't think it's clickbait at all. I literally am saying evo psych is mostly garbage and explain why. You can say the arguments are incoherent if you like, but I'm curious what doesn't make sense to you or what you think is poorly-formed. As for Gad Saad, I'm glad you bring him up. He's actually one of the people I would say manipulates evolutionary psychology to serve his ideology. He wields evo psych like a weapon, trying to "destroy" people as you put it. Jordan Peterson falls into this same camp. That isn't how science works. It's not about who is the best debater or who "wins". It's an instrument for examining the evidence and forming a more complete understanding of the universe, not a way to defend one's personal view of the world.

[@pygmalion8952]

@@neurotransmissions you can't educate these people. they are bigots who want to justify their f-ed up beliefs through goofy """"intellectuals""" such as peterson. it is truly a sad existence.

[@greyinfo]

30:14 Hypothesis: pets and humans initially developed alongside each other in symbiotic relationships where each gained something out of it. Like dogs might have provided some protection from wild animals and receive scraps for food when they're around humans. Cats might have been able to stay safer living around humans while also controlling pests, etc.

[@Caio-xb8zc]

You say that EP is mostly garbage, but you failed to show what are the articles or books which compose most of EP which are garbage. You gave one example of pets, without showing the article. Pretty much all of your criticisms have counterarguments in the book "the adapted mind". You have to point out specifically which articles have the just-so stories

[@neurotransmissions]

I've read The Adapted Mind. It's a good book and foundational to EP. I actually formed my arguments in part as a response to the ethos proposed in that book. I don't think it addresses the concerns regarding EP's adaptationist approach. Even Cosmides and Tooby, the authors of the book, fall victim to making evolutionary assumptions without providing convincing evidence or seriously considering alternative explanations. Also, I intentionally decided against discussing specific studies because a) I am addressing a macro issue and b) it would be tiresome to go through every EP study I take issue with. I mean the video is already 40 minutes.

[@Caio-xb8zc]

​@@neurotransmissions but how can you criticize an entire field of knowledge saying that most of it is garbage without showing what most of the garbage is? Sorry but you have to be more specific. I only took note of the criticism you do about pets, which I know nothing about, but will try to investigate. But what else? You don`t have to show every article, just show what are the flaws in most of EP`s objects of study, maybe? mating strategies? parental care? evolution of morality? language? agression and cooperation? you claim all those fields of study with thousands of articles are all mostly garbage?

[@bouncycastle955]

@@Caio-xb8zc "sure the field is nothing more than making up stories whole cloth, but how do you know some of them aren't coincidentally right"

[@annamatsen3201]

Doing my at-home work. ;-) The advantage of pets could include increased emotional and psychological strength/resiliency, greater social bonding between people as a result of the pets, and aid from many pets (like cats and dogs) in reducing harm to agriculture and people from predatory wildlife. The critcism about "just-so" stories is fair. I've often been impressed about what we CAN find out through careful, rigorous archaeology and study of the past -- but that doesn't mean that evidence is preserved well enough and often enough to be sure, especially about the high, high number of questions we could ask about historical societies v. evolutionary traits. Really, the evolutinary element is more evident in truly long-term, wordwide trends, such as the shift from local nomadic diets versus agricultural diets. But those effects are the domain of general human evolution rather than evolutionary psychology as they are about behavior, not the mind. Hell, when it comes to the human mind, we're still trying to parse the motivations of present-day humans! And there's no reason to assume that earlier generations of humanity were less socially complex than us.