I Debunked Evolutionary Psychology

[@archmagusofevil]

That tweet about how no straight woman has ever been an enthusiastic sexual partner... I have never seen a person tell on themselves so hard.

[@wesley3300]

I was like “oh that explains a lot”

[@CT99234]

Its got very Ben Shapiro and the WAP self tell energy

[@Grixzen]

if female orgasm is real how come every woman I ever been never had one? check mate

[@josh-rz3uq]

These evo-psych dorks are CONSTANTLY doing that. It's hilarious.

[@inthewoods5494]

My fucking roommate begs to differ. I can hear her down the street

[@skyekeating349]

It's incredible how that woman felt the need to use "cavemen" to explain why people think someone with their hands behind their back might be hiding something. We don't need a genetic memory to understand that; we just need object permanence.

[@Daedalus117]

Ah, but why would we evolve to have object permanence in the first place, if not to detect cavemen hiding things behind their back???

[@MrRaulstrnad]

we evolved it because it is a highly useful feature That it evolved due to cavemen hiding things is just an extreme simplification@@Daedalus117

[@CL_Hat]

@@Daedalus117 Yea the video and entire comments section are basically clever interpretations of existing data in this same fashion to form a conclusion that fits their narrative that is unraveling at a rapid pace. I honestly must have missed the "debunking" part of this video. Munecat seems to be just quite charming while being hysteric and somewhat humorous. Which is wild since thats the exact accusation she accuses all the scientists of the last couple hundred years of doing. Bold move Cotton.

[@chaosvii]

⁠@@CL_Hat Ah but would this aesthetic analysis be present in the first place if not for the deeply ingrained need of our ancestors to bond with other people within a like-minded in-group through a ritual of ostracizing members or even entire communities that qualify as an out-group 🧐

[@augustaseptemberova5664]

@@CL_Hat maybe you should actually watch the video then .. like .. literally all the parts where she drags up studies ppl claim as proof of X, and then contrasts them with later studies that either could not reproduce the supposed results, or come to the opposite conclusion.

[@blargenspargle]

Your genes determine how long your legs are, but your legs determine how long your jeans are. Really makes you think

[@SidShakal]

🤯

[@HexagonThatReallyLikesVinegar]

"I took a genetic test, but all my jeans were shorts" - Jort Storm

[@Shane-hx4xp]

You beat me to it

[@sfigataa.69]

⁠@@HexagonThatReallyLikesVinegarslimecicle reference?? 🤯🤯😳 he’s a lyrical mastermind

[@Cheezbuckets]

I want to let you know that this comment made me grossly snort out loud 😂

[@Krokant17]

At around 2:13:30 they say "survival of the fit" and equate "fit" with "strong". This is the most common misunderstanding of Darwin. Not the "strongest" will survive, but those who have the best fit to their environment. What "fitting" means is very complex, but there's a good chance human beings can "survive" nowadays with 2% less muscular mass than other peers.

[@vaiyt]

Hell, humans as a whole are weak for their size compared to other great apes, so we should totally be getting bodied by gorillas and orangutans right?

[@SillyBillyOneHundreadMilly]

Only true in an artificial urban environment full of technology.

[@Vilendank]

@@SillyBillyOneHundreadMilly incorrect or we'd have studies to confirm it, try again

[@Bradley_Lute]

Strength is literally a fitness category and in many circumstances being the strongest is also being the fittest but okay...

[@spacingoutforever]

​@@Bradley_Lute read the original comment again. fit is not strength in this context, its referring to fitting the environment. i.e. adaptation. the species which adapts the best to their environment results in a better chance for survival.

[@alexp6712]

My biology teacher said the same thing about eye colour. Both my parents have blue eyes, and I have green/brown eyes, so I asked the teacher in the break whether this meant that they weren’t my parents. He said that the model in the book was a simplified version for middle schoolers to get the concept, and that there were at least 17 different genes affecting eye colour.

[@karmabeast]

I'm also starting to think that "simplified version for middle schoolers" is how conservatives have bamboozled us into STILL teaching Mendelian inheritance, even though Gregor Mendel literally knew less about genetics than a smart modern middle school kid with an internet connection.

[@jck2]

Learning about this and also blood types have probably led to many real and false positives of kids finding out their parents aren't bio lol

[@annah2933]

Most behaviors are determined by several genes.

[@Sljm8D]

​@@annah2933noted behavior, having an eye color

[@AndromedaD]

That's a good teacher

[@robinvik1]

The fact that a researcher actually sat in his office and thought "Why would anyone perform cunnilingus? I bet it's to taste if she has been cheating!" is both really funny and incredibly fucked up

[@fpedrosa2076]

Tonight's episode: the Researcher's Barely-Disguised Fetish

[@midori_the_eldritch]

The statement "cunnilingus is to encourage women to return due to a enjoyable experience" would be more accurate, because at least that actually can match the outcome, even if it's not the why.

[@SmallBobby]

@@fpedrosa2076 "mesearch" if you will.

[@ferretappreciator]

Like how would that even work??? Would they be trying to taste for the faint air of penis or something?! Is he a vagina sommelier who can taste even the slightest change in pH? And what if the woman was a top who uses a strap-on? Or even just non penetrative actions?! I genuinely hate people sometimes I can't believe he actually has a job. Literally 0 fully formed thoughts in that head of his

[@Praisethesunson]

These researchers love telling on themselves. Eating your girl out to taste test for other dudes leftovers sounds like literal cuck behavior.

[@telepathicfish1489]

A female plan to breed timothee chalamets is the plot of dune

[@Palemagpie]

The only viable use-case for eugenics. Mo Chalamets! Chalamai? Chalamany...Chalamany. That seems like a good plural.

[@gemcorker3982]

​@@PalemagpieI'd vote for Chalameny Hegemony

[@salviapratensia]

More likes!!! This deseves more likes!!

[@BearBoiBlake]

This comment is fucking great, hahah

[@joeyj6808]

Bene Gesserit witch!

[@gk.dopeesq.6853]

Wait, so I don't have to think about sex every 7 seconds? Phew, now I can get more done in a day

[@DavidManser]

Congratulations, you can now think about the Roman Empire instead!

[@gk.dopeesq.6853]

​@@DavidManser Noooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

[@Werewolf.with.Internet.Access]

@@gk.dopeesq.6853 It’s either that or a weird fascination with World War 2! CHOOSE

[@SallySueSaywhatagain]

I would like this comment, but at this moment, you have 69 likes, and I would be loathe to ruin that!

[@DavidManser]

@@SallySueSaywhatagain it's ok, someone else has chosen to upset the universal balance, feel free to like with joyous abandonment!

[@vitek2]

Mune, I'm an academic. And the fact you spent over 3 hours absolutely cooking the disastrous state of academic publishing makes me happier than you can know.

[@squatch545]

Same here.

[@archmagusofevil]

Former academic. The state of publishing is one of the things that made me quit and find a different career

[@greyswandir2807]

Preach!

[@LiarJudas666]

it sounds quite despair-inducing. but thank you for persevering and working to broaden our horizons

[@vitek2]

@@LiarJudas666 Thankfully I have a position that lets me prioritize teaching :)

[@kailoveskitties]

From an article about the salmon fMRI: “Bennett was not reimbursed for the salmon, but that was because they ate it afterwards.”

[@JRexRegis]

That's worm cult shit. Try to reanimate a salmon only to eat it when the experiments fail

[@adamgreene187]

This is the most important part of that story holy crap

[@Benjamin-xv9le]

It is objectively the best study ever done. At least that's what my dead emotional support salmon says.

[@B4K4xNi]

It's a fundimental misunderstanding of evolution to assume all genes that still exist must have been selected *for* because they are advantageous in some way, rather than simply *not selected out* because they aren't harmful.

[@Jose-yt3qz]

Nature is definitely ready to consume what is harmless, thought.

[@smacain]

I think some people also make the mistake of tying genes to everything. There is not necessarily a gene for every corresponding behavioral act. We’re a mix of an identified set of genes, plus innumerable factors of environmental exposures and life experiences. We aren’t robots or recipes-we’re just people.

[@MonieThu]

I heard that's called "survival of the good enough"

[@skyeye61]

it is basically like programming: some code is no longer in use but it s too risky to remove it so we just keep it there. Same thing in law as well where we has some laws which are clearly outdated but no one bother to update or remove them.

[@ajeenius7437]

Not to mention it's all rooted in arrogance. These people think humans as they are now have been perfected. We most certainly have not. This is not the end product.

[@Gallery1743]

As a male i confirm i do not think about sex every seven seconds im thinking about warhammer 40k and what minis to buy next.

[@rottenisee2751]

what faction

[@Gorapita]

that and ancient rome

[@Gallery1743]

@@rottenisee2751 ultramarines im teriffied of edge highlighting and like Bobby G

[@canonically_trans]

My girlfriend got drunk and started crying about Cadia and I got her home. Got phone calls from her friends and told them her uncle was killed there by a IED. I did not know what else to say....

[@nalcarya]

Guy talking "scientifically" about the female orgasm saying "why does it happen so infrequently" really cracked me up.

[@SuperCopyCat12]

"If school is full of cliques why don't I have any friends, huh? Checkmate liberals."

[@PeterHamiltonz]

I'm not up to that bit of the video yet, but dear gawd, thank you for the guffaw. 😂

[@JJ-qo7th]

"Incompatible users, dude."

[@somethingelse4424]

He told on himself.

[@AngelofGrace96]

​@@somethingelse4424he really, really did

[@Silvermoon424]

Evolutionary psychology reminds me of that meme that's like: >"This is how humans all across the world are wired to behave!" >looks inside >It's 19th century British social norms

[@magickgeminid2944]

As true as that is, this pop science doesn't really make women sound bad. On David Buss section (lol), we see that even with their bad science: women cheat less and, when they do cheat, they cheat for practical reasons. Men cheat cuz they can. Even with their bad science, they have to lie, narrativize, and demonize all at once. It's a perfect shit sandwich

[@cattievogelsong96]

I know! I am a psychology major and i have ro explain to a lot of my parents friends how seemingly innocent evolutionary psychology observations they heard on NPR are rooted in sexism, classism, racism or ableism. And they are always shocked that bigotry made it into science. The abalism is the one most likely to be overlooked particularly because movern society is generally still ableist in the same way as we were back then. Sorry tor the soap box great video!

[@3dartxsi]

It's funny that the people who talk the most about how human behavior is almost entirely governed by how we evolved as a species during caveman times seem to have not even done the most basic research into what prehistoric human society was like.

[@ethorii]

As long as an alternate theory can be made that explains the similar behavior of subgroups and is testable and repeatable and all that good science stuff, then ill possibly buy it. My laymans exploration of EP is convincing. Im not misogynist or conservative. I dont mind considering people to be vastly complicated machinery. Thats what we are. Neuroscience has shown we dont havr free will, so why the resistance that our subconscious is ruthlessly and almost identically built into all of us, the latest generation of billions of years of survivors and reproducers?

[@RoonMian]

@@cattievogelsong96 "And they are always shocked that bigotry made it into science." Oh, those sweet summer children...

[@randomguy9202]

i love when an article instead of referring to academic literature or a certain person, they instead refer to "the scientists" like if they were an ominous and omniscient entity.

[@RoonMian]

@@Aiphiae Sociology follows citation rules just as any other branch of science does.

[@Speederzzz]

We are the council of science!

[@mordcore]

the scientist all agree with what i have to say. unless they're currently silencing me by putting me on this podcast!

[@Aiphiae]

@@RoonMian Means diddly squat when you're citing garbage research.

[@RoonMian]

@@Aiphiae And what is that "garbage research" you are speaking of? Or are you just trashing an entire field because you don't like what it says?

[@CritterSauce621]

My friend's mother was an evolutionarily psychologist. They were the two most insufferable people on the planet. The son just parroted his mother's crazy talking points. He split the world into two categories: you were either empathic or autistic. Wild.

[@mikek9297]

I see them and I raise you "cat bin lady"

[@spongecakes1986]

When you're extremely autistic but also extremely emotional and empathetic:

[@MoOveOver_plz]

@@spongecakes1986damn I guess you’re like the main character in divergent or something, congrats 🫡

[@Alex-ne6fm]

I'm a sociology PhD married to a human genetics PhD, thanks for airing many of the grievances we have with this type of research to a broad audience in an entertaining way!

[@mathiasrryba]

when I first read your message I was wondering why you had to specify that you married a human.

[@ronald3836]

@@mathiasrryba instead he married a PhD.

[@Quadr44t]

To a lesser degree, these same issues are found in STEM research and the communication thereof. One of the many problems exacerbated by neoliberalism. Academics as a whole is becoming more of a circle jerk, fundamental research goes out the window, and more potentially profitable research (on the short term) is where all the funding is. Overgeneralisation, but there is a trend I feel.

[@uniseine]

Love is blind.

[@Bradley_Lute]

I'm pretty disappointed that you think this supposed complete debunking of a field in place of conjecture that human culture is a social construct. It does not give me faith in your fields to put out critical thinkers...

[@DoggyHateFire]

Size matters...when we're talking about sample sizes.

[@irresponsibledad]

I'm a(n a priori) power (analysis) top

[@ronald3836]

Sample size is not terribly important. What matters is that the sample has been selected without bias, and that is not easy to achieve.

[@manderly33]

@@ronald3836 It definitely matters if, when the study is replicated with a larger sample size, the conclusions of the original study are flatly contradicted.

[@ronald3836]

@@manderly33 If a study with a very large sample size is contradicted by a study with a small sample size (but correctly done statistics), then the study with the large sample size is likely to be wrong. Sample size only has an effect on the error margin. If you have to differentitate between 50.01 and 49.99, then sure you need a large sample size. But if you have to differentiate between 60 and 40, then a small sample size will do fine.

[@Benjamin-xv9le]

That awkward feeling when you're about to get down and dirty with a study only to see n=25.

[@Sgublaka94]

1:49:32 I also love the subtle homophobia ”They were completely straight or THOUGHT they were lesbian”…

[@galenibble]

I also don’t understand how can you be straight for a day when you’re constantly bi. In my dictionary you’re constantly gay, just not always homosexual.

[@johnbehan1526]

To be fair, if you know enough lesbians, you probably knew a lesbian in their "I think I might be a lesbian" era. Or aeon. Or geological age.

[@Sgublaka94]

@@johnbehan1526 sure! I just don’t see how this relates.

[@johnbehan1526]

@@Sgublaka94misfired joke/trope "the lesbian who's the last to know." I have a friend I worked in a bar with who was dating lads at the time, is married to a woman now. I've been monogamous with my partner for twenty years. We joke that we've known each other so long that we remember when I was the queer one

[@yungmuney5903]

The munepoints section is so important. It's a strategic form of dehumanization towards women by removing any nuance and gendering complex human states of mind with a pinch of inserting arbitrary connotations to your own benefit. •Emotional is "whatever women thinks and feels" therefore whatever they say doesn't matter. •Logical is "whatever men thinks and feels" therefore whatever they say is law.

[@Enbeehive]

Watching someone say that “an ice age might hit and they would freeze to death” like that was a casual weekend activity and not a years long process is really it for me.

[@thewingedporpoise]

my favorite part is reminding everyone that there is an ice age right now... this is an ice age, what we're in right now

[@Chuck_EL]

​@@thewingedporpoise it's like they believe an ice age has to be a full on world wide blizzard every day

[@francookie9353]

I listened to DoaC a short while, during which that episode was uploaded. I found it interesting up to abt the midpoint and when that "at least five women pregnant" story came up I just lost faith in the conversation.

[@Chronz]

No, they just know the incompetence of the weaker, mid iq sex

[@Koooles]

@@thewingedporpoise it's just a proof these people have no idea what they are speaking about and just use surface level bro knowledge.

[@saxmanmel]

I did my doctoral dissertation on women’s porn preferences. I learned a lot, but one thing stood out: academic articles are NOT “objective.” I read over 100 articles where one half basically contradicted the other. Whether it’s the methodology, funders, or the authors themselves, academic articles are rife with biases. Even when you think an article’s results makes sense, never blindly assume that “data equals truth.”

[@nocturnal6876]

Is it publicly available somewhere. I know you can't post links but maybe a mention of the title and where to find it could suffice

[@petrify4814]

Dr. Fatima made a video about how gravity is socially constructed, and after watching it and thinking about it...biases is impossible to remove. When you're designing a study, deciding what data to collect, how to collect it, what data you need to collect in an attempt to debunk other correlations, etc., every part of that involves a human and thusly, every part of that involves bias. You can try really hard to recognize your biases and control for them, but one of the problems there is that...if you have a bias and it hasn't been pointed out to you, then you have no way to know it's a bias, it's just what you think and believe.

[@Robiness]

​@@nocturnal6876 second this.

[@taiwanisacountry]

I agree 💯. I did my thesis about suicide in South Korea. 😅 I had to develop my own theory, because the current theories are euro/american-centric. With emphasis on individualistic cultutes. Durkheim the most used theory within the field of Sociological suicide claimed that "we only see altruistic self sacrifice in primitive cultures, such as Scandinavia, or the far east". I am from Denmark and my area of research were Korea, so that was a double bash in my face. 😅 Of course he was wrong. He also popularished the idea of religion playing a substantial role. such as: Catholics doing it less because they are more afraid of hell compared to protestanta. Funny thing is, that is reverse in Korea. 😅 Almost like his data only came from very few countries with overall shared cultural understandings. (This is of course a simplification, that is so simple that it is wrong. I just don't want to write 3 pages about the similarities and differences) Anyway, I feel you. There were so much bad research. This phd in biology claimed that leap years caused autistic people to do it more because of chrono sensations in their brain chemistry. 🥲 I am autistic, how did he reach that conclusion that only autisitc people did that? He did not explain it. What about the brain chemistry? He is a nobel winner in biology and double nominated. He had some data and made up the whole idea to fit his data.........

[@thegoosegirl42]

Good researchers self report on their own bias. Limitations and positionality should be required in all academic papers.

[@eliagamiz1320]

As someone who's autistic, it's so amusing and annoying when other autistics think they are not emotionak and just rational, when Autistic people are some of the most emotion driven people I know. We are just so bad at identifying our own and others emotions

[@dead1097]

Getting into a fight with another autistic person and having them say "you're so emotional" and insisting that I only talk from my emotions is such a backhanded annoying thing to go through. Every time it's happened I have to drop the convo without coming to an understanding because it ALWAYS feels like the other person is trying to troll me.

[@ilikebeingsmart]

There’s a good reason I have two different fridge magnets (with the tiny boxes to help me focus on which one it is) to help me identify my current emotional state! Properly diagnosed since 2014, basically knew I was autistic without having the words for it since 1995 😎 This is why when I hear arguments about neurodivergence being a new craze or phenomenon that everyone claims to have, I just think ‘bitch please, I’ve known for almost 30 years!’

[@neoneor]

It is quite silly to think that a human doesn't have emotions. Autism doesn't strip someone of emotion! If you're so rational, how come you not know that :O! I'm pretty emotional (not in the slang way of calling someone emotional, but I feel every human emotion there is WOW!) and I'm autistic as well. Haha. I'd say it's an emotional reaction to spend a lot of time on your special interest(s)! You do it, because it brings you joy and excitement or comfort. (When I say "you", i don't mean OP of course!)

[@mel-burnes]

and half the time it's the ones calling themselves aspies. especially if they're being eugenicist about it, which is both hilarious and saddening considering the history of the term

[@nyanuwu4209]

As someone who's autistic, the noun for our ilk should be 'autist' because it's close to 'artist' and I find that amusing. Autism can certainly lend to pragmatism and detachability but there's not a damn person ever who was or is "just rational". What a silly idea.

[@kahlilbt]

12:03 imagine thinking 50% of humans are regularly capable of losing "all morals and all normal human behavior"

[@patrickbateman1660]

As a vegan its absolutely true. I can watch people cry over their dog then eat pork a second later. Peoples morals are entirely dependant on societal nroms.

[@kahlilbt]

@@patrickbateman1660 feels like a vegan thing to say here, ngl

[@ImAWomanHearMeRoar]

@@kahlilbtI appreciate your honesty

[@vaiyt]

​@@patrickbateman1660i don't see you crying over bacteria and pests either, hypocrite.

[@patrickbateman1660]

@@vaiyt I don't see you crying over thea of any intelligent animals. At least I have drawn a line and decided to have morals

[@TheSkyHazCloudz]

To paraphrase Michael Hobbes, if someone is ever creating parameters for a hierarchy where they just so happen to come out on top, you should be skeptical of those criteria.

[@TheOpouly]

I read this in his voice and it was impossible not to haha.

[@Thundermikeee]

yeah, clearly the only valid metric for that is how close someone's username is to Thundermikeee, with point values subtracted for wrong letters via difference between ASCII values and huge penalties for additional letters... it's so obvious once you start thinking about it.

[@gem9535]

Same reason why eugenics always fall flat. Who is going to determine whose genes get passed on? Who is going to decide what traits are desirable and what are not? It’d be nearly impossible for a person to decide that objectively, and AI programs are heavily influenced by our biases, so bang to that theory too.

[@TheSkyHazCloudz]

@@gem9535 I mean, I definitely think there's bigger, more prominent issues with eugenics, but sure I guess.

[@celsus7979]

Shouldn't you be equaly suspicious if someone who believes in equality just happens to find the evidence to support equality while using ridicule to portray every other opinion?

[@briarwoods17]

the way they talk about birth control makes me think that they didn't actually read a scientific paper but instead a 43k omegaverse fanfic.

[@tatiana4050]

@@briarwoods17 that's where the true knowledge comes from. That and Peyote trips.

[@ArtIsHuman]

I swear some of these studies were done by people who think the omegaverse is how real life works.

[@starsiegeRoks]

Tbh to me (never saw omega verse crap), all this birth control pseudoscience sounds like a big group of new-right conservatives laying the groundwork for a federal birth control ban in the U.S (or "giving it to the states" like they did with Abortion in the U.S).

[@gravytopic]

😅😅😅😅😅😮please 😅😅😅😅

[@ArchaeologyTube]

As an anthropologist and thus the natural born enemy of evolutionary psychologists, I've been dreaming about this exact video for years.

[@TheNugettinage]

Evolutionary psychology just really is mostly looking at the past based on stereotypes founded in present gender roles, it's ridiculous. The concept itself can function, but not in the ways that it's usually discussed, I feel. And yeah, I'm an archaeologist too haha.

[@manboy4720]

did you become an anthropologist because of genetic pre-disposition from thousands of years of humans being anthropologists?

[@ArchaeologyTube]

@@manboy4720 Is there any other way?

[@HarryS77]

Why would you study ancient and contemporary people around the world when you have hundreds of WEIRDos hanging around?

[@paulogaspar8295]

brother anthropology is not even a real science and it's competently based on the same stereotype induced patterns bad evolutionary psychologists use. at 10:09 the source of the video is literally called "philosophical anthropology" .

[@fomorians]

Thank you for making this video light-hearted and funny in so many bits because otherwise this makes me feel like a character in The Handmaid's Tale.

[@felidaefatalis]

I really enjoyed this video but as someone working on a masters in evolution I need it to be known that not every trait that is genetic is even beneficial or has a purpose. There is a phenomenon known as linkage where if two genes just happen to be close together on a chromosome, they're more likely to be inherited together. Sometimes genes really do get passed for not reason beyond being in the right place

[@tianna1116]

This video was funny but wouldn’t stand up to critique or debate

[@Bradley_Lute]

Sometimes is the operative here. Sometimes genes have no benefit. But the case you are talking about it relatively rare due to time of evolution creating fit species.

[@GetGwapThisYear]

@@tianna1116 none of the claims covered stand up to scrutiny or debate. At all.

[@tianna1116]

@@GetGwapThisYear 🙌 thank you for being sane!

[@GetGwapThisYear]

@@tianna1116 by that I meant the red pill bs, eugenics and evolutionary theory is a load of pseudo-scientific bullshit that could be picked apart by a child, and doesn’t even need an eloquent deconstruction like this video. Apologies for the confusion.

[@Violaphobia]

“Menstruation made early women more comfortable around blood, helping be better hunters along with their keener senses of smell and color perception.” God, science is so easy!

[@earx23]

Funny, but also no evidence for this at all. On the contrary, a lot of women can't even stand the sight of a documentary showing a lion attacking a gazelle. Most women want to be veterinarians (and about 90% of vets are women these days), but a lot of them bounce as soon as they realize they need to open up those bellies.

[@Trollinator01]

"Their experience about birthing ofspring gave them keen knowledge about the time when herd animals were most vunerable, which was crutial in the obduction of baby animals and the transition from hunter-gatherer to live stock based cultures." 😂

[@lixyororke]

"The pain associated with menstruation and childbirth meant they were less likely to be sensitive to discomfort and more likely to be resilient fighters" science is so easy

[@bratprica6383]

"During intercourse, the penis or other body parts/objects enter the vagina. Women have evolved to welcome a foreign object entering their body, which makes them less afraid of getting stabbed or shot. This makes women more naturally suited to be protectors." Man I'm getting the hang of this science thing

[@rodger7029]

But not correct

[@brenenwynd2041]

As an evolutionary biologist, it is wonderful to see you talking about how the way we are taught genetics is conceptually wrong for most traits, and that when you realize how messy and complicated evolution is, all the BS people try to use it for fade away.

[@brenenwynd2041]

also, heritability for most complex (mulitlocus) traits tends to hover around 0.40. Hearing numbers like 0.80 around heritability is a red flag!

[@inerkatakan8161]

biology and genetics are so complicated, if there are two contradicting theories, they are probably both correct (to some degree)

[@ArchmageIlmryn]

Not an expert on this by any means, but it seems like an additional issue with evopsych is that an evolution-like process **also acts on culture**. Sure, you could make the argument that we are genetically predisposed to have men do more dangerous tasks because it's easier to bounce back from a shortage of men, and "warrior-woman genes" died out - but the same argument works for evolution of cultures (especially when you add warfare and other competition into the mix). Cultures with cultural norms around men fighting/doing dangerous tasks/etc could have evolved because they worked in pre-history, entirely without any genetic predisposition being selected for.

[@Uenaeons]

What does your understanding say about the impacts of environment on genetic expression? And further, how do these environmental impacts on genetic expression impact our inference of heritability? Is heritability just culturally selected genetic expressions? Some peoples eyes change color. People grow height, then shrink. Our hair follicles stop carrying pigments. If we had genetics that DETERMINED these, then why would they be subject to change in the ways they do? Adding further complexity, how could these dynamics of heritability impact intelligence - would it not create a self-imposing genetic-expressive environment? E.g. if an someone goes to university, gets a degree, then they think they are smart, which imposes the genetic expression of intelligence, which would further impose an expression of maybe OCPD whereby "they are right, and everyone else is wrong"? ... To an evolutionary biologist; does this make sense? (If you cbf answering all my questions, just answer this last line hahaha). Cheers.

[@piedpiper1172]

@@ArchmageIlmrynOne thing the comparison to cultural evolution captures is the role of random chance. Many incredibly successful cultures have entirely vanished or under gone massive decline because of events that had nothing at all to do with decisions made by anyone in that culture group. Cortez’s escape from Tenochtitlán came down to a bare handful of men making the jump from an aquatic farming platform to the shore-it was just far enough out that most couldn’t make the jump, or didn’t get the chance to attempt due to how narrow the space to jump from was. If that platform was just a little further away, or if the rain patterns in previous weeks had raised or lowered the water level creating a longer or shorter jump… Or the countless times a moderate climate change elsewhere in the world resulted in a decline in rainfall and toppled otherwise massively successful cultures. It’s just chance that some cultures thread the needle to survive and some don’t. All genetic mutations are random. The individual mutation isn’t “trying” to optimize anything, it isn’t “trying” anything-it’s just a random chemical change. Sometimes it produces a macro change that’s beneficial or detrimental to reproduction, but most often it’s just noise. Selection is only relevant when the change is quite significant, and even then only when it’s impact occurs early enough in life to meaningfully impede reproduction. A hypothetical novel genetic heart defect that 100% guaranteed your heart would detonate on your 55th birthday would face almost no selection pressure. It’s better to think of evolution as producing the minimum viable product, rather than the hyper optimized product. And like cultural “evolution” it’s also subject to completely unrelated events. “Oh, the sky yeeted a mountain into Mexico and the entire atmosphere burned? Lol, lmao even. Hope your ancestors haven’t spent the last 300 million years being hyper successful and getting big AF.” - Evolution, probably.

[@The-Negative-Commentator]

"the woman looks for reliability, loyalty, kindness" ok so basic respectable human characteristics

[@vege4920]

Which are respectable because they benefit the survival of the person labeling those qualities as respectable.

[@patrickbateman1660]

40% of attraction for women is wealth. Women are smart and know they cant just say the quiet part out loud.

[@bornana269]

@@patrickbateman1660it’s literally discuses in the video why that is

[@patrickbateman1660]

@@bornana269 and provides a bad explanation

[@dante19890]

Thats good and all but its not these characteristic that makes her wet. Its dark triad traits

[@cuttinaboot]

Me and the boys sync up our bowel movements when camping to ward off bears and evil fairies 🧚‍♀️ 🐻

[@theamazingmarlbito6293]

So that's what choosing the bear means 😮

[@OutragedPufferfish]

Lol

[@Neelinmact]

😂😂

[@IAmNumber4000]

The naturalistic fallacy is also a fatal flaw in evopsych. Even if something IS a certain way, that doesn't mean it OUGHT to be that way. One is descriptive, the other is prescriptive. There is a leap in logic between them, and that gap is filled with subjectivity. Smallpox is natural, and yet we got rid of it, because it sucks.

[@petrify4814]

It's so weird that people who claim to believe in EVOLUTION would think that we aren't still evolving, just differently than we did in the past. Everything else in our world is entirely different than it was in the Pleosoic, why would we need the exact same traits now as we did then, even if they were 100% right about the traits we did have then.

[@IAmNumber4000]

@@petrify4814 Yeah, right now “being adapted to social and material conditions” means not being an antisocial weirdo performing phrenology on everyone you try and date 😂

[@OhhCrapGuy]

Evo-psych, as a method to understand human interactions, is only flawed in terms of the basic assumptions it makes about neolithic societies. When it decides to tell us how we should react, it bridges the gap into the psychological equivalent of prescriptivism, also known as the most backwards approach to linguistics.

[@deusex9731]

They weirdly draw the line exacly there. Medicine, housing, clothes, whatever you can think of was made to not be bound to nature. Somehow they draw the line at sex like there is no evolution or adaptation there, cause it suits them

[@bowlseriw]

There could have been a great descriptivistic conversation to be had in evo-psych, but for some reason, all the remnants of Eurocentric superiority seem to have migrated to this field

[@torylva]

2:30:40 Even funnier is remembering that "mongrel" dogs are often healthier and more mentally stable than pure-bred dogs.

[@JRexRegis]

Hell there's a lot of effort to essentially intentionally turn certain dog breeds into "mongrels" to solve some endemic issues in their bodyplans, like pugs

[@torylva]

@@JRexRegis I do like the retro-pug project, trying to breed away the "pure-bred" qualities that causes them such pain.

[@atherisGAY]

​@JRexRegis Absolutely, a lot of dog breeds that got a little "too pure" are being bred back to more healthy genes! Basically "mutt-ifying" them. German shepherds and their dropping pelvis, Dachshunde and their fucked vertebrae, pugs and their tooth and breathing issues, just to name breeds from my home country

[@seekingabsolution1907]

​@@torylvahumans fucked pugs up hard, it is time humans set right what our predecessors did wrong.

[@TheBonkleFox]

My family adopted a dog who's a mix of like 4 breeds of herding and hunting dog and he's just *mwah* the best boy ever. A little clingy and defensive of my parents, but he means well.

[@Rando_person22]

I hate when people defend SA with "oh its just men's instinct" "they cant control their urges"

[@mcsmash4905]

instinct for this instinct for that , its like looking for the color red and then conveniently painting everything red , thus all you found is red , like just kill me at this point lol

[@WtfIsLigma]

"Men should be in control of their emotions and urges" - smegma males "Oh it's just natural urges" - smegma males

[@Que.Miras_Bobo-d2j]

Enablers

[@RyuKyu.77]

OH BUT IT'S MORE DANGEROUS WHEN A MAN SHOWS HIS EMOTIONS OR HIS QUEERNESS, HE SHOULD CONTROL HIS URGES AND EMOTIONS!

[@Heligoland360]

Well it's also instinct to hate rape, so no problem.

[@Kelastris]

Big Hbomberguy energy with the way she disappeared for a year and then popped back up with a 3.5 hour video obliterating an entire section of KZbin content creators

[@TurbopropPuppy]

i've always thought of munecat as the Hbomberguy of folding ideas

[@Acrylescent]

@@TurbopropPuppymy god… the trinity

[@IsisNiko]

that's pretty much her modus operandi at this point lol

[@smallpeople172]

lindybeige has some good videos on evolutionary psychology that aren't cringe, and don't claim cringe things. I've also literally never associated manosphere/incel stuff with evolutionary psychology. All the stuff i've ever heard re: evolutionary psychology has been extremely progressive

[@MrBazBake]

​@@smallpeople172 If his well-sourced videos point to the ones debunked here, then the videos are cringe.

[@SuperAsefasef]

My parents are both psychologists(cognitive) and I showed this video to them and they were so happy. I’ve heard them rant for hours about the weird views and ideas their students would come to class with about shit like this, so your video was very vindicating and cathartic for them. So thanks Mune love ya

[@cassandraotroy6325]

Called confirmation bias.

[@Volkbrecht]

@@catxtrallways Your point being? These shallow men you describe do exist. The interesting questions here is how many of them are around and whether or not there is a set of physical and/or mental traits they might have in common..

[@MrRaulstrnad]

Anyone involved in psychology has read and experienced those rants thus yes indeed this video is extremely cathartic

[@Volkbrecht]

@@catxtrallways Marketing research is data, too, and it's researchers are motivated by greed, which makes it very trustworthy. After all, you can't make money unless you actually understand your target audience.

[@faaltoh]

Yes that probably happened 1 hour after Münecat released a 3 hour video. Probably.

[@AlexGreat87]

"primalpoly" sounds like a prehistoric parrot if you ask me

[@pennyforyourthots]

it's just a cave man pirate with a massive pteranodon on his shoulder

[@comradequestion4206]

Worst game of Monopoly ever

[@BaphometGaming69]

⁠@@comradequestion4206 I give you fire, you give me rock

[@andyghkfilm2287]

@@BaphometGaming69 do not pass go, do not collect 200 rock

[@ebnertra0004]

It sounds to me like the very first polygons to be rendered

[@redcyberdragon29]

The problem is you can make way more money being popular and wrong than you can doing actual science.

[@PeterPeter-qc7ky]

She ist mostly wrong . There are genetic differences by races and by genders

[@FairyQueenTitanania]

⁠@@PeterPeter-qc7kyA meaningless distinction, especially when there is larger variance internally within those groups than there are between them.

[@redcyberdragon29]

@@PeterPeter-qc7ky why do I have doubts you even watched it?

[@generalzwinger3943]

​@@PeterPeter-qc7ky She doesn't say there are no genetic differences. She argues that those "scientists" do not prove with their "research" that any of that influences the behavior they want to show. It's actually a rather profound video. Having so many papers with very small sample sizes, using wrong models shows that the field has major credibility problems. In particular if you want to test for traits that are very variable across humans, you need a lot more data and way more robust statistical tools than they are using.

[@Human-zx4rb]

@@PeterPeter-qc7kyBy large i assume you mean switching out an X chromosome with a Y chromosome (this not counting the fact that in multiple cases the similarities might stay the same or be very similar genetically if one X chromosome has more dominant traits than the other. The differences in race are so minimal that it doesnt matter and the only real difference tenfs to be skin color.

[@lauraschlieselhuber8487]

As a lesbian woman, I have to admit I learned a lot from the studies showcased in this video about my supposed evolutionnary engineered taste in men. However, I'm still sure that the amount of men I am attracted to is still zero.

[@johnbehan1526]

The scientific term is "Think I am lesbian", did you not pay attention? 🙃

[@Praisethesunson]

Where are the Lesbian grifters telling men what women want.

[@Strange9952]

"some people are born with no eyes so evolution is false" type argument

[@ns88ster]

You aren't a lesbian. You are just a misandrist.

[@ceres_lang]

@@Strange9952 False equivalence?

[@t3tsuyaguy1]

It is a little silly, on its face, to assume that every trait must serve some purpose or confer some advantage. The threshold for your genes to survive into the next generation is, "Managed to fuck at least once before dying." Moreover, selection pressures, as you deftly explained, act upon populations, not individuals. So, all that is required for a trait to survive, is that it doesn't result in entire population going extinct. As long as the population is able to survive with the trait present, the trait is free to persist, no matter what difficulty it may produce for individuals that have it.

[@sebastianrubin7476]

Also: recessive traits say "Hi"...

[@Jorge-np3tq]

Confer some advantage and be a result of evolution are not the same. Behaviors, like physical traits, can be shoddily designed and still be a product of evolution.

[@gagrin1565]

Multi-generational genetic analysis VS hey you're alright looking, oops

[@psygaud]

Oh my god, thank you. It bothers me so much when people frame evolution as specifically "choosing" the "best" traits. They just have such a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.

[@ronald3836]

Selection pressures do act upon genes. This is the whole point of Richard Dawkins book, who explained it very well.

[@Reverse_Cat_Cowgirl]

"We are evolved to be most optimal!" Humans: Eating and breathing from holes that taper up to the same funnel.

[@chloe5275]

Also: Head too big to be born without damage to one or both of us

[@Reverse_Cat_Cowgirl]

​@@chloe5275 noe women hip ratio too small. All wamen fault. She's not hot enough.

[@boarfaceswinejaw4516]

or how about the fact that because we walk upright we will inevitably fuck up our backs. or how about the fact that we use more tools than ever as a species yet we forsok our second pair of hands the idea that we're "most optimal" is cartoonish. its like someone got their idea of human evolution off of pokemon.

[@Reverse_Cat_Cowgirl]

​@@boarfaceswinejaw4516noe, backs bad from all that sexy walking during ovulation. It's imperative to continuation of species!

[@Reverse_Cat_Cowgirl]

​@@boarfaceswinejaw4516 don't you see we are at war with our own survival? Got to be the very best, than no one ever was!

[@chaytonsheargold3210]

I was originally skeptical of this video. I have been strongly influenced, since I left high school, by evolutionary psychology. I saw it as a realm of science that significantly explained all I saw happening in society based on sound and throughly tested evidence. I thought it was almost a ground truth of humanity, and in explaining my own interactions, behaviours and dispositions. While I did acknowledge the past twisting of this field to support racist and xenophobic and misogynistic belief, I thought it was just that, in the past. And that modern science had for the most part progressed past these biases. Furthermore, I had trust in modern science and science communicators that the evidence they were presenting was backed by the scientific community and had reached general consensus. This was further reinforced by the repetition of much of these claims in the media I was exposed to. Media forms I thought were logical, accurate and mostly unbiased. (I am not a subscriber to anything “manosphere” and incel related - it was solely ‘science’ communication!) But this video has shaken my trust in this greatly. And I am thankful for this. I did not realise how much sexism, misogyny and outright ignorance was strewn throughout this field, and that much of what supported this evidence was not just outdated and poorly performed science but fundamentally founded on a misrepresentation of how genetics, evolution and culture operates! (As you so rightly pointed out in your explanation of population genetics vs genetic foundations of evo psych) Essentially, thank you for pulling back my eyelids! I guess I will need to go find something else now to support my understanding of society….wait… was I a misogynist… did my base opinions and trust in science actually support ideologies I oppose.. *sways from onsetting existential crisis*

[@mourningcoffee7705]

I'd say the ability to entertain different ideas and even accept new information without absolutely raging from cognitive dissonance from the pre-held beliefs is an achievement in itself!

[@lora8670]

It takes a lot of character to be able to accept new info which basically opposes your entire worldview. Most people immediately get defensive and angry. Im proud of u random stranger!🎉

[@boiledelephant]

I'm in it with you, mate. Evolutionary psychology has been in the water supply of how I think about the world for years and years. I'm having to re-examine a _lot_. The stuff about how lousy academia can be with poor methodologies and biases is especially depressing.

[@TheBmann10]

I always hate this “hiding your hands means dishonesty” bullcrap. I’ve never felt uncomfortable when someone has their hands in their pockets.

[@YodasPapa]

I have. When my catalytic converter was stolen one of the guys doing it had his hands behind his back so I thought he could be concealing a weapon.

[@gem9535]

I also put my hands in my pockets to self-soothe. Some genius tried to go “Why are you nervous if you’re not hiding something?” I said, blank-faced, “Because a wahoo getting in my face, accusing me of theft, is stressful.”

[@gagrin1565]

I'd be pretty uncomfortable if someone hid their hands in my pockets.

[@uniquenewyork3325]

I do it all the time. It doesn't mean dishonesty- at least not for everyone. It's self soothing, anxious people might do this for that reason. Most body language is either self soothing or as simple as "I was cold/itchy/tired".

[@gurusmurf5921]

I hate all the body language bullcrap. Not everyone's body language is the same and most of the stuff people state as universal, objective truth is learned cultural behavior.

[@Varisunia]

Men evolved to be ghostbusters and women evolved to run Etsy shops. Thems simply the facts.

[@restingsadface]

literally the best comment ever made

[@ClaudiaNW]

Women bleed on the birthing bed - THIS IS A REVIEW OF STAR WARS

[@ujlt7198]

No, no. Remember: Men evolved to start businesses, unlike women. They evolved to do different things, like run Etsy shops. Make sense?

[@starlight8554]

@@ClaudiaNWhaha a KZbin classic

[@axe6279]

I love Etsy.

[@EmilyKveldulv]

1:49:00 note that when she refers to bi women in her "source: i made it up" rant, she says that off the pill, some ARE fully straight, and some others THINK theyre fully lesbian. THINK. Mmhm. Right. 🙄

[@abbiegilfilen3449]

As a fully lesbian I noticed that immediately

[@gwennorthcutt421]

im just stuck on the whole anecdote about gay women on bc pissing estrogen into the water to make the freakin men feminine. like it would be Less weird if it was some kinda golden shower forcfem lesbian porn.

[@MilaWht]

That's weird, cause I met sooo many lesbians on the pill to, you know, to not get pregnant, there's a big market of contraceptives amongst the queer community

[@restingsadface]

“after all, with men like us around how could “”lesbians”” ever really exist 🥴?????”

[@avwholesomegamer]

Creationists describing “science” used to be hilarious to me until I saw people actually taking Ev Psych seriously, then it became extremely sad D:

[@hottwunk420]

Getting caught up on the whole waiter thing that happened a bit after the hour mark and my thoughts keep going back to an idea of: maybe it isn't the women don't consider the waiter to be high enough value men, but are more likely to have experienced being hit on while at work and don't want to make someone uncomfortable at their customer service job. Took me long enough to write that out to hit the "people are gay to strengthen trade networks" thing which is just so god damn fucking funny to me. I'm bad at being gay because I have contributed nothing to the trade networks.

[@ribbitcryptid]

I dont choose to be bisexual the way Sarah Hill implies when talking about ovulating women, BUT. I am definitely an undercover gay trying to sabotage trade networks by not doing my civic LGBT duty

[@Undercover_Femboy]

When I saw that I immediately thought that obviously the women won't hit on every single man they come across. Like imagine if you saw a woman that hit on every single service worker she came across. That's just creepy and weird af. There's a time and place for this and maybe they just wanted to have lunch with friends that evening. It's like he thinks that the only thing that can be on a woman's mind is men.

[@emmao6578]

@hottwunk420 that's a much better theory than any they came up with, I also figured it would make sense that the waiters were much younger than the women so they wouldn't have considered them as potential partners.

[@FoxdevilswildUnic]

That's what I thought as well. Also very simply put, you aren't always in "looking for partner"-mode. If I go out with my other female friends, I won't oogle every guy I see? Like I am there with friends and I complain about the dating currently and how there aren't any good guys in my tinder, because complaining about that is just a normal topic, espeically if you have friends that are in the same boat. That's just normal conversation (with probably a bit of hyperbole in it, because that is how people talk about things a lot?). I won't leave my friends that I am meeting at some food place to hit on every single waiter? What.

[@Undercover_Femboy]

@@FoxdevilswildUnic thought the exact same, it's like the dude believes that all women can think about are men or something.

[@WildHeart7777]

‘Don’t cite a paper if it’s too old for you to consider it sexually attractive’ had me rolling omfg

[@MichaelSartain]

Wow Münecat gets DESTROYED in this video!! 😳 If she was smart she would report this video and have it taken down for completely dismanteling her argument!! kzbin.info/www/bejne/mGnVZpicfb2dh9Esi=LVybdI9KuqzOpz7G

[@mateobaskaran5081]

she back, she really back.

[@robertmkorte]

🎉

[@aaronwalsh8469]

Yeah I totally forgot about her channel. Was subscribed.

[@ricktaylor14001]

Finally!! She’s been MISSED!! I wondered what happened to her!

[@haroldmatthews-duggan4435]

Considering the length, I'm not entirely sure she was gone. Just saved up.

[@YouAreStillNotablaze]

Well it's over 3 hours long, she's not shoveling out shorts here, how often you expect someone to put out something that is also being less and less appreciated on social media.

[@alicephoenix_system8206]

More energy is put into trying to explain why men get rejected by women than there is put into understanding womens health.

[@Badmanpuntbaxter]

This video makes me appreciate my Sexual Psych professor so much. He was ADAMANTLY opposed to any evolutionary theories (he'd still tell us what they were and their internal logic) but I remember vividly him saying "I find it absolutely disgusting to blame horrific crimes on the basis they are a man and therefore 'genetically predisposed' to SA, rather than that they are a cruel or deeply unwell individual". Shouts out Professor Locke

[@Bradley_Lute]

Kind of an issue though. Male pathology is very deeply male and shows how men behave in male typical ways when being pathological. Your professor has the very hard problem of then explaining why men do sexual violence way more than women. For a much more nuanced and realistic explanation, see David Buss' book When Men Behave Badly. And maybe try to get your money back for that course because you were ripped off.

[@judesims3408]

@@Bradley_Lute So you look at the fact that men commit more SA and conclude... what, exactly? That it's baked into their brains? This is the exact error that evopsych (including David Buss, an evopsychologist) makes all the damn time: spurious correlation. Two things can be correlated highly and have no causal relationship. You could far more reliably explain that difference in the frequency of SA committed by men vs women through sociohistorical factors. What do you think is more likely? That AMAB people are born with the Rape Gene inside of them that makes them rape people, or that centuries upon centuries of male supremacy over women (that was and is so strong that for most of that time rape was not considered a crime) continues to prop up a toxic social, moral, and political view of women as objects and thus unworthy of respect and consent? Evopsych's main sin is the unscientific privileging of biological explanations over social ones. But humans are social creatures-you will almost always fail to produce reliable, replicable results on social phenomena if you base your explanation on biological factors alone.

[@rambbler]

​@@Bradley_Luteit's because men aren't being taught that women's opinions matter or what boundaries are. Society has been sexist for a long time and we need to be better. It's societal, not evolutionary. Consent is a biological thing, a lot of closely related mammals also engage in a form of consent and reciprocation in a partner. SA is a societal problem of people lacking empathy, it's not normal. We evolved to have empathy and SA goes entirely against actual evolutionary psychology of us as a species pack bonding and supporting each other so we could survive. Men who lack empathy would probably die, either from being killed or exiled, and you can't survive on your own.

[@scottygagnon4287]

​@@Bradley_Lute A massive portion of what you might describe as 'uniquely male' responses line up extremely well with what scociety says a male 'should be', making this just another version of the nature vs nurture dilemma. Having a lot of sex is a 'good thing' in men, and not in women, so extreme emotions regarding sex (especially the common mentality of sex being somehow deserved) in men will be far more common. I think that the concept of 'inherent differences' that are impossible to bridge is misguided, it removes accountability and reduces the ability to empathize with others. The most "women can't understand us" sort of groups that I've ever seen are incels and boomers, both of which aren't exactly known for being sympathetic.

[@Bradley_Lute]

@scottygagnon4287 yes, but there is actual evidence to back up why men and women behave differently. Our physiology is different. Different sized bodies, different sized gametes. Primates show these similar traits. Mammals show these similar traits. These are conserved differences over millions of years. And Trans people act differently than they are supposed to despite a ton of social learning in the opposite direction. Lots of studies pointing to these differences too. Social constructionism doesn't test anything nor does it have any actual mechanisms to explain its theories.

[@Celadonfae]

Doesn't take them long from saying "women are inferior because...", to going straight for "let's do eugenics again" does it?

[@katacutie]

Hateful alt right pipelines usually end up there no matter where they start

[@sourgreendolly7685]

Of course not, the second we start claiming other categories of people are inferior like that we're already thinking in eugenics ideology. (Royal we, to be clear.)

[@bookofreacts]

Considering that the alternative to eugenics is DYSgenics, eugenics is the better option.

[@referenceslut7529]

Sterilisation is genocide tho…

[@skyaero8773]

@@bookofreacts Even if such a thing were true, eugenics as a whole no matter what method poses many ethical concerns. In the example you put, sterilization, it can lead to many questionable ideas and perspectives on human rights. If we were to make steps towards sterilizing the gene pool, who even has the right to decide what traits are desirable or not? We could decide that various traits like specific hair color or eye color are desirable, but this is arbitrary and based on nothing more than what the common consensus of "attractive" is. But in good faith I will assume you are referring strictly to sterilize genetic disabilities and diseases. Even still, I don't think such a thing could be done ethically. First we would need to identify at what point something counts as a disability. Many people are born with autism, yet a vast majority are high-functioning, when does it count as a disability? Even still, from the perspective of eugenics they still carry this undesirable trait, so if we wanted to completely eliminate this trait from the gene pool we would have to deny them the right to reproduce anyway. But what if we focused on just those that are severely affected? Even still, they are human, and if we deny them basic rights that has grave implications for our society if we begin to pick and choose who has these rights. It can be argued that by denying them these human rights, we are claiming them as less than human. That is not an example we want to set, ever. There is no way the ideas eugenics propose can ever be ethically implemented. Some group will always be dehumanized in the process.

[@thebaccathatchews]

"A münecat is neither late nor early, she arrives precisely when she means to." - JRR Tolkien, probably.

[@SPHistoryArchive]

Let's hope she means to arrive earlier next time so we don't have to wait another year 🙏

[@petruraciula9056]

Yah! Probably!

[@alicefreist318]

I thought that was Alice's response to the March Hare's distress about being late.

[@zbsfm]

@@SPHistoryArchive i hope so too but to be fair her cat died and she had some other shit going on this year

[@ribbitcryptid]

​@@SPHistoryArchive I understand you aren't complaining but also something to consider is that high quality videos like these take a long time to research, script out, film, refilm, edit and so on. the fact she also makes her own music and transitions for these videos that are free for us to watch is super cool!

[@ryanhastings6465]

Really glad I came across this. You are utterly brilliant. Worth the 3.5 hours. Also, back in the 90s when I was looking for a job as an undergrad I actually interviewed at Buss's lab. Must've been shortly after he started at UT Austin. I had never heard of evo psych and his grad student handed me a paper on it and told me to let him know what I thought. It was hilariously bad and I emailed him to tell him that. Just-so stories galore. Never heard back from him. I imagine my response might have been a touch unhinged since back then I had untreated mental things going on, so he probably thought he dodged a bullet and was probably right if he thought that, but damn, so did I...

[@jelliedog]

hi munecat, thank you so much for not demonizing schizophrenics!! im always terrified when a video essay mentions psychotic disorders because it's almost always to say that we're evil/compare evil people to us/use sanist slurs/etc - nothing that is accurate. thank you so much for being normal about schizophrenia; we ARE in the audience and so many video commentators dont seem to understand that which makes their work very hard to watch and support. great video, so glad to see you on my home page again. all video essayists should be looking up to you right now

[@BW-CZ]

Do you know of any good and easy to understand resources about (people with) schizophrenia? I'd like to educate myself on this topic!

[@boiledelephant]

The term "sanist" made me feel like a grumpy old man hearing youthspeak, but I otherwise agree, the schizophrenics I've met are totally chill and normal and just basically require regular medication like anyone else with any medical condition. It's one of the miracles of the modern world that we are finally just giving people with mental illnesses the tools they need to function and get on with their lives, rather than pushing them down and kicking them for their draw in the genetic lottery.

[@michael_mcgowan]

As someone who grew up playing sports, i found the woman saying that women want to be in the game even at the cost of winning, but men have the rationality to take themselves out to benefit the team absolutely baffling. Has she ever spent any time around a male sports team? Pretty much the only guys who don't want to be in with the game on the line are the kids who are only playing because their parents forced them to (no shade to those guys). There's a lot of Uncle Ricos out there.

[@cedaremberr]

Came here to say this. What a ridiculous claim lol

[@Violaphobia]

Has she even heard of hockey?

[@TacticusPrime]

There's a whole famous song about it...

[@krombopulos_michael]

Yeah this is just completely detached from reality. Men and boys have no inclination at all to want to sit out a game and take one for the team.

[@deeznoots6241]

Yeah there are even some high profile cases of male players refusing to subbed off the field in football games like Kepa for Chelsea

[@noahburnham8433]

"Your symmetrical features statistically tell me you have a low chance of having a tape worm" And they say romance is dead. Lol, welcome back queen!

[@andreirachko]

it’s dead… like the tape worms 🪱

[@RiflemanIII]

Oh, so that's where Phrenology was hiding

[@uniseine]

How does a 20-year-old catching a tapeworm change the symmetry that they were born with?

[@bigboi1004]

​@@uniseinethe tapeworm eats ur symmetry obvs

[@mellow_mallow]

​@@uniseine it either fucks up your face or tapeworms just hate people with symmetrical faces and will never choose to live in them, I guess.

[@lindap.5120]

The people who insist that there are gender differences seem to want to use them to prevent women who are good at this or that from doing this or that. They want to enable discrimination. Otherwise, why even bother with the question?

[@gregoryolbek9491]

Understanding gender differences is useful to understand the gender dynamics not to enforce or prevent something. If someone prevents something are feminists who by denying gender differences have put into misery a lot of naive women.

[@PeterPeter-qc7ky]

​@@gregoryolbek9491there are gender differences

[@slipslip9163]

​@@gregoryolbek9491 Feminism has done more for women's well being than any other force in history. Don't disingenuously pretend to care about women in order to defend your pseudoscience. Be a proud nonsense enjoyer

[@shadowmaydawn]

@@gregoryolbek9491 Feminism itself came from women who were dissatisfied with the way they were treated under the patriarchal system.

[@thechumbucket8986]

​@@gregoryolbek9491what? women are intelligent enough to make our own decisions

[@philosophicalbraps1975]

What's criminal is how much time actual researchers have to waste debunking this nonsense.

[@Sarah-re7cg]

Very good point

[@lxstcheckll9348]

@@philosophicalbraps1975 they didn’t😂 Evolutionary psychology is all about speculation and methodological systems to addressed through reason. The problem of this is, it’s hard to use science to make methodological system hence why you need spread sheet and have to understand the shift in thinking and brain development in history when population spike and goes down. Once you understand this you can create your own system that effective. I know this because I know 10 people who use evolutionary psychological assessment, brain scan of women and what their aroused by to make correct moves in certain situation. They also read alot of book. Now you wonder why I say this, it because these ten people use this methodology and have a net body count 9000+.

[@lxstcheckll9348]

@@philosophicalbraps1975 when k think about 1000 isn’t even that crazy when doing this. Like first month my guys reported 50+. However that was luck because it drop to 10-30. Also depends on the person

[@Desperado070]

Why would they have to debunk nonsense? You only have to debunk the truth with fake news. Have you ever realized she is taking everything out of context and when you put that back only the truth is left behind. 😂

[@Desperado070]

@@lxstcheckll9348 I don't need her brain scan in order to know what gets her wet. Those things are pretty easy

[@cappinjocj9316]

To be fair, wrestling with the dog like you’re a caveman looked fun, and the dog seemed pretty happy. Everything else seemed pretty sus.

[@sycobeansillywytgirl]

My dog likes it too but didn’t help stop him from peeing on my couch

[@mandarinsandclementines2997]

​They just like the play​, innocent fellas they are@@sycobeansillywytgirl

[@manboy4720]

here's the tea, sis.

[@Lisa-th7rm]

The clicker IS psychology. lol that’s what Pavlov’s point was. Hear sound, get reward vs play is fun, man plays.

[@andyghkfilm2287]

@@Lisa-th7rm actually it’s even evolutionary psychology because that’s the sort of thing we needed to be able to find food or escape danger or identify patterns in the nature around us without having to consciously identify them.

[@PhotonBeast]

As I post this before watching the almost 3.5 hour long video, I realize that all my most watched and anticipated creators can be summed up as "Independent researcher falls into a months long rabbit hole on an important but toxic topic and somehow emerges intact with a multi-hour documentary in hand." And for that, thank you for your diligence and education, Mune.

[@julianmcmillan2867]

I take it you're a fan of Three Arrows then?

[@Cocoanutty0]

Got any good recommendations? I could use some more channels to follow

[@jocelynnielsen9154]

Commenting also for recommendations - mainly I think of Hbomberguy, Shaun, and Philosophy Tube from that description and I would be very pleased to add more names.

[@Edditaur]

This could also be used to describe Oki's Weird Stories funnily enough

[@pilotpetrov3855]

​​@@jocelynnielsen9154 I might add Dan Olson (Folding Ideas) to the mix. All these people listed here produce the most thoughtful and -provoking content on YT and every video of them is a must watch for me. Edit: I forgot Contrapoints! She's also awesome!

[@dien3745]

I don't know how I've just discovered your channel, this might be my new favorite video essay. The in-depth research and scrutiny while also being genuinely funny and visually interesting plus original banger music?? Thoroughly enjoyed myself and will now binge the rest of your videos as I work on craft projects

[@nightwingphd8580]

I joined the munecat Patreon and instantly became fertile

[@raultrashlord4404]

I grew boobs the size of basketballs and I'm a guy.

[@get.sassyxd]

Does she post more on there?

[@mellow_mallow]

​@@get.sassyxd no she just casts a fertility spell on you

[@get.sassyxd]

@@mellow_mallow oh please don't 🤣 I really don't need any more kids LOL

[@rheiagreenland4714]

​@@get.sassyxdthe entire field of EvoPsych: WOTTTTT?????!?!?!??

[@dylanbandstra3567]

Tara Swart casually saying "maybe there was going to be a spell of the Ice Age" is so funny. Like an ice age is a snowy weekend or something.

[@SlyNine]

I like when she quoted that "the twins were reunited most of the time from" Implying that this was representative of twins in the study. When it was actually talking about one set of twins. This lady is a liar.

[@ForgottenAesir]

Something that feels telling about Sarah Hill talking about bisexuals using birth control is that she specifically states that women who "thought" that they were bisexual "were" completely straight or "thought" they were completely lesbians when off the pill.

[@Anastazka00]

Good observation!

[@Tree-House69]

Exactly, it shows you how she really feels and thinks about afab people's sexuality, the idea that it is always centered around cis men.

[@Kayla_P99]

I was about to point this out too!

[@bottlemanic]

I must say, as a new subscriber and a musician, i just adore how Müne implements music. It's a nice fun summation of the video that you really don't ever see

[@kleinfaf]

So, I am a archeologist for pre- and early history... and I am fascinated by how confident those people present how the early homo sapiens sapiens supposedly behaved. People who listen to this never ask themselves how scientists are supposed to find out how long a man in the paleolithic left "their cave"? Wha... I am baffled

[@sadece-birisi]

Don't forget how women were taking care of caves that time as well, only men would haunt!

[@moonlight4665]

Don't tell that that not every early human lived in caves at all, that might make their brains explode

[@JustIsold]

How to tell that an evolutionary psychology person has literally never spoken to an archaeologist? XD My god theyre so... just using the word caveman, early humans were so fucking cool.

[@oneilprovost2287]

@@JustIsold One family! One fucking family was lucky enough to find a cave that didn't have bears and for all of time our scientists are like 'WE ALL LIVED IN CAVES' Well maybe their shit lasted better cuz ya know it was in a cave and you just think that was how it was for everyone.

[@simonspethmann8086]

​@@sadece-birisi😂 Forgive me, but the thought of cavemen haunting paleo earth totally cracks me up. That must be the best auto correct error ever. 😂😂😂👏

[@sauerkrautlanguage]

🦀 THEY DID NEUROIMAGING ON A DEAD SALMON 🦀

[@Asbre23]

FUCKING AWESOME 👍🏻

[@cb-akp]

as a gay i LOVE hearing evolutionary psychologists’ explanation for homosexuality. i especially like the one about lesbianism actually existing for the sole purpose of male sexual gratification. that’s not dehumanizing at all!

[@michaelthompson679]

Why would evolutionary psychologists even need an explanation for it, where is the conundrum exactly

[@Unhinged_Chimera]

​@@michaelthompson679 I mean we do have eome theories as to why homosexuality and lesbianism exist in the animal kingdom so i guess thats why they would try to theorize it. But the people in these videos are... Well mostly juet hateful twats that need reasons to hate certain types of people. While also dehumanizing mostly women.

[@ekki1993]

@@michaelthompson679 they don't understand evolution and obsessively try to explain everything with their crazy ideas

[@nopuppy]

I have always been infuriated by the whole "why hasn't homosexuality been bred out by evolution?" BS because the idiot heteros saying this seem to have the absolutely insane notion that homosexuals *can't* breed! When the simple fact is that most homosexuals throughout human history (though that term didn't even exist until the late 19th Century and people probably never thought of themselves in such categorical terms) certainly did breed, because of societal norms and pressures. Certainly ancient Greek and Roman men had families, whatever they did with young men and slaves. It's only very, very recently that more of us have had the option to defy cultural pressures.

[@joeblow5505]

It's too bad that this video while excellent in substance gives off the misleading notion that ALL evolutionary science is complete BS. That statement is BS because a proper implementation of the scientific method, proper setup, method, discussion, reproductivity, conclusion is good evolutionary science. We're the product of evolution, so is our psychology. So evolutionary psychology is a valid term. The problem is that rampant horsesheit that abuses evolutionary psychology to pretend to have some scientific basis for whatever grift they are running, be it placebo supplements, self help books, red pill misogyny, authoritarion politics. But back to actual science, homosexuality is an interesting one because you would think such a trait would be detrimental for reproduction and therefor would vanish through selection, but thats looking at it too much from the individual organism instead of the wider family. In Swans we can observe gay couples forming who themselves dont lay fertilised eggs, but more interesting is that the survival rate of their family's offspring goes up, since the gay couple contributes to their succesfull survival. We are probably also being way too redundant when talking about human sexuality and treating it as though its some binary, much more accurate is to think of it as highly individual multidimensional spectrum. There is no one 'gay-gene', however there have been many genes identified who play a role in sexual orientation. Most compelling here are twinstudies, which cement imo that like almost every development in humans its both nature and nurture. In non identical twins when one of the twins is gay the chance the other shares their sexual orientation is about 50%, while in identical twins that number is 75%. Showing the strong genetic determination, but also demonstrating it not to be absolute. Last point which is an interesting one regarding homosexuality and evolutionary psychology is that the rather oversimplified overgeneralised take that women have a biological hypergamous sexual instinct (most interested in the best partner, only dates up), and men have the Coolidge effect instinct (found in most mammals is when there is the availability of a fresh new mate, arousal and attraction increases). Or also oversimplified: men want quantity not quality women the reverse. Now in homosexuality the interesting thing is that these cliche sexual instincts are tied to sex. Gay men still have the Coolidge effect and thats why Gay men have way more fun than anybody else. And Lesbians also posess a hypergamous sexual instinct just like their straight sisters and in sexual behaviour are nothing like gay men when compared. Its interesting science, but its mostly used by fascists to excuse some sort of 'Natural order' as they see fit and they roll out some pseudo-science to justify their bigotry and make false arguments of academically authority, which this video is mostly about. Which I concur, f all those parasite snakeoil salesman. But science is science, and the scientific method is the best thing we have to expand our knowledge and insights. Nothing wrong with the method, but everything wrong with those that fail to properly implore it. That is all, thanks for making it all the way down here champ. You're the best.

[@stigmistergaming3561]

11:50 The guy talking with a whiteboard full of delirious scribbles about why women hurt him is so funny

[@sampither4433]

12 minutes in and I'm already thankful I fell in love and found a healthy, equal relationship 10 years ago so never fell into the trap of looking for answers from menfluencers

[@bdd7881]

I skimmed the outskirts of when trying to find ways to take better care of myself (hygiene, color coordination, etc) but never went beyond that. The tips on other things like standing and walking just seemed stupid to me so I usually avoided those kinds of videos.

[@TheMysteryDriver]

@@bdd7881I've been in school with people that do need to learn to stand and walk though. They're slumped over and shuffle along, that's not attractive to the majority of people.

[@vlad5042]

@@TheMysteryDriverhonestly theres a lot of good practical and extremely basic advice that would do some people well and none of it involves delving into the evolutionary psychology of women. little things that people (particularly men but also some women) may be doing when approaching people that make them come off as pushy/creepy/annoying, how to identify cues that somebody might be interested in them, bodily habits like walking while looking at the ground, how to dress, how to dance, etc. people write off the advice about simple stuff like how you walk and sit but i actually think that stuff is not only more practical and more useful (in that you can easily act on it) but also is probably more genuinely helpful for making yourself appear more attractive and interesting to others.

[@bdd7881]

@@TheMysteryDriver Problem is it isn't ever really just "sit up straight" or some basic stuff. Always turns into some dumb stuff or reasoning.

[@TheMysteryDriver]

@@bdd7881 depends on how long the channel goes. Issue is running out of content

[@stoferb876]

All the talk about "cave men" and "cave woman" clearly indicates that these people actually don't know anything about early human history. This is pop pre-history terms coming more from the Flintstones than from any science. Actual prehistorical people didn't generally live in caves, the outdated name ("cave men") comes from the fact that most preserved remains: cave paintings and artifacts are found in caves, (since they've been sheltered from the elements there), but there is no evidence that prehistoric humans ever largely lived in these caves, these caves seem to have mostly been ceremonial places and/or emergency shelters.

[@comicsans6487]

where did they live and use as shelter most then?

[@_goblinx_]

​@@comicsans6487 huts

[@MiddlePath007]

How many people today go in caves to take shelter from mastodon or storms? How many of the best art of the modern day are on cave walls? Calling them cavemen is like calling a tissue a kleenex. It's a box of kleenex regardless of the manufacturer. You put a bandaid on a cut. Paleolithic people were cavemen

[@SomeBlokeOrWhatever]

@@comicsans6487 probably huts once they figured out how to make those. Which is not that hard once you've got tool use down.

[@AnnekeOosterink]

@@SomeBlokeOrWhatever And even without tools, dragging fallen branches into a vaguely hut shaped thing can be easily accomplished by 7 year olds playing families/explorers with their dolls. Was my hut completely watertight? No. Did I spend more than an hour building it? Also no.

[@EvilDMMk3]

1:43:50 hey , guys. WE NEVER LIVED IN CAVES. We sometimes used them as shelter fora night and they sometimes had cultural importance but guess what, caves are rare, uncomfortable and dangerous. Caves where never where humans “lived “, we just hung out there on rare occasions.

[@BrianFace182]

Probably an any-port-in-a-storm scenario when the weather got particularly horrific but apart from extreme wealth conditions, weather doesn't last that long

[@thewingedporpoise]

also hmmm likely the place most likely to have stone walls that would not be weathered to remove any artwork, that's very interesting also all dinosaurs lived near rivers, lakes, deserts, volcanoes, or the ocean. No reason they just did. No mountains, no plains.

[@rambbler]

It's like how teenagers don't live in the abandoned building just out of town, they just go there to have fun. Humans will always be humans, and therefore humans like to have fun, even when we were trying to stay alive. No one is taught to exaggerate their feats, we just do because it's fun to tell stories and have people we like be impressed that we caught a fish THIS big.

[@ras.al.dolezal]

​@@rambblerwe used to call those abandoned buildings "the mall" 😢😔

[@camlop8635]

Humans did live in caves though bro..just cause I say I live at home doesn't mean I never leave my house..granted I don't but it doesn't necessarily mean that linguistically..it means that's where your shelters at..not that you never leave

[@koroconnell]

I was feeling insecure recently, having applied for a scholarship program that I felt I might not be good enough for. Then I watched this video and realised all these useless studies got funding and now I'm at peace with the world.

[@rixs2630]

Don't forget, Mr. Eunuch, that you can also read the studies of sociology, anthropology and constructivism to laugh for a while, but since these pseudosciences provide you with an excuse for your perversions, then you won't say anything.

[@rixs2630]

@@AmbarGriss Which of all your pseudosciences do you want me to refute? This is how I show you and the stupid woman in the video how to actually make a definitive refutation that is not based solely on "muh papers" that you don't even know how to interpret.

[@FairyQueenTitanania]

@@rixs2630Evopsych incels are one of my favourite kind of right wing losers. Y'all are like one of the 3 subgroups that hasn't abandoned empiricism altogether, but your entire worldview relies on pseudoscientific nonsense that fell out of favour academically over a decade ago. I also like how you try to equivocate your nonsense with 2 completely valid and defensible feilds of study, as well as what I presume is one of the 7 key learning philosophies, widely accepted in educational psychology. I don't really care about your defence of evopsych, but I am curious about your beef with those feilds. Are you an actual academic or just another youtube PhD, radicalised into anti-academia bias?

[@viviannes9152]

I love the bit about women out to eat complaining about not being able to find a good guy and homeboy is like ‘well there are a bunch of waiters without wedding rings therefore women don’t think waiters have a high enough social status’. Did you maybe ever stop to think that the women weren’t hitting on them BECAUSE THE MEN WERE AT WORK DOING THEIR JOB? It’s always a boundary thing. It’s so scary when someone expresses interest in you at work because… well they know where you work. That’s a really dangerous power imbalance.

[@flippanties]

That's because these kinds of men can't stop themselves from hitting on cashiers and waitresses and therefore can't understand why women don't do the same thing.

[@smrndalodz7182]

Many women work in food service and have the experience of unwelcome advances, so it would make sense that women would not do the same thing. it's sort of how when people say that men are 'more open to sexual advances' - it's one thing to be open to something that rarely, if ever happens, another to be tired of it because it happens too much. I also think that statistically fewer married men wear wedding rings relative to women, so the absence of a ring can't be taken to imply the same thing.

[@DeadKraken]

It's also a matter of power. A waiter has to serve you as the client, so he needs to put up with your bullshit with a fake smile anyway, which is a kind of petty power trip that men LOVE to subject women to, but women, having experienced it from men all the damn time, normally don't like to subject others to, especially if they would like to date them. Like, if I liked one of the waiters who was serving me, I would at least wait for my dinner\lunch to be over before telling him he's cute, or better yet, ask him if he'd be down to talk after he finishes working. Normal ppl don't just go and loudly tell a random waiter "I wanna fuck youuuuu let's fuuuck" and start humping him in the middle of service because they want a good partner😂

[@DoritoBot9000]

My thoughts exactly. Such lack of awareness and even basic manners, and he’s a published “researcher”? Yikes…

[@michaelccozens]

Indeed. It's absolutely bizarre how many supposedly-intelligent men choose not to grasp the idea that "it's coercive and creepy to hit on someone in a situation where they can't freely tell you to go fuck yourself". It's not complex, unless one is really invested in not understanding one's unjustifiable privilege and how one abuses it.

[@alexismitchell3415]

i love that these people all cling to this idea that human evolution is based in *physical* attributes of strength and survival and bloodlines, when all of human historical record indicates that our evolution has been guided by the necessity to form complex and intimate social groups for survival of the community.

[@somedudeok1451]

I mean, it's probably based on both. Physical attributes are nothing without social groups and social groups can't achieve their goals (easily), if they lack they lack physically capable members.

[@ArchmageIlmryn]

Yeah, even if you accept their premise that human psychology (and especially gender differences) are 100% the result of evolutionary pressures, you still wouldn't get the evopsych results, because "natural" (i.e. pre-agricultural) human societies *did not work like that*. Even if women's choice of men is a result of trying to find the optimal partner, it's probably not going to involve balancing a "good caretaker" versus "good genes but likely to fuck off", because in a pre-historical context leaving the tribe behind means you probably just *fucking die*. They really seem to like projecting the modernism that that there is some nebulous society to vanish off into, or that the primary mode of organization is a nuclear family that only interacts with other families to find mates, neither of which is how any pre-agricultural society worked.

[@chloedsmith]

@@somedudeok1451 and even that is becoming less and less relevant as the prosperity of a country is more and more correlated with proportion of production from services and NOT industries that require physical capability. We literally define the development of a country's economy along this spectrum

[@michaelccozens]

@@somedudeok1451 Your conflation of "evolution is based in physical attributes" and "survival often requires a minimum level of physical capability" is a huge red flag. Those are very, very different concepts.

[@peterkamau2014]

Can you then explain why you wouldn't mate with a disabled person if such has nothing to do with physical attributes?

[@DaughterofDiogenes]

47:19 wait…I get what he’s trying to say, but isn’t he just admitting that he hasn’t met a hetero woman who wants to have sex enthusiastically with him?!

[@orangefoxxd6120]

Yup!😂

[@AnnekeOosterink]

Yes. Apparently all his partners had to be convinced, pressured or coerced into sharing his bed. He's really telling on himself there.

[@SallySueSaywhatagain]

That is what that says. Which makes me worried for his sexual partners' consent...

[@sav3278]

Social Media Algorithms are doing so much damage to society but fuck me I am so grateful that they led me to this video. Only 15 minutes in and I'm confident that I have discovered my new favourite content creator.

[@vex1669]

Kid: "Mom, can I have some TED?" Mom: "We have TED at home." The TED at home: "TEDx"

[@starmaker75]

We atleast Ted Ed is good

[@asuka-ryo]

good one buddy

[@bowlseriw]

tedx is not all bad, most of them are of the same quality as ted, but you have things like these...

[@rangda_prime]

TED isn't very great either, to be honest

[@hanifarroisimukhlis5989]

The x in TEDx stands for "that sound in game shouw when you choose the wrong answer"

[@jkmil4981]

The philosopher Alan Watts was asked to participate in a panel about a theoretical eugenics project. Maybe for a generation space ship When it was his turn to suggest what traits to breed for his suggestion was "Diversity". Because it's impossible to predict what traits will be useful in the future

[@kingflynxi9420]

Absolutely real. The only true eugenics programme is just letting people choose partners on their own because natural, random diversity trumps any hand-picked human traits lol

[@trouty606]

Also the best way to make sure you don't have a spaceship full of Hapbsburg-jawed inbred horrors.

[@alejandrocespedes1544]

Alan Watts is so unfathomably based

[@gvd72]

Eugenics is bunk but using gene editing/therapy to help with genetic diseases/disorders isn’t inherently bad imo. And if you wondering after its effects down the line, unlike eugenics, these future children can also have this editing process applied to them as well.

[@kingflynxi9420]

@@gvd72 The ability to opt in and out is what makes this viable. Ensuring an at-risk couple has a healthy child is much better than preventing them from having one at all.

[@bk83082]

I'm going to celebrate by pouring a beer from my roof into a glass sitting on the ground below.

[@meganrae2508]

There’s a joke video I’ve seen with two Moroccans trying to outdo each other with the height they pour tea from, now I’m picturing Munecat doing that with beer 😂(pretty sure it ended with one of them in a helicopter)

[@ChristopherSadlowski]

Isn't this how everyone drinks beer...?

[@yp1720]

i'm an anthropology/archaeology major and this stuff drives me up the WALL, im so glad theres other people who see what bullshit it is

[@Azaarv]

Omg same I’m an anthropologist and every time I see podcast bro misinterpreted science for their sexist narrative, I die a lil bit

[@s.lazarus]

I need my anthropologist comrades in this world full of bs

[@kerseyHarding]

When I was completing my B.S. in Psychology I had a professor ask my class to read three articles that link to a scientific paper. Any articles of our choosing and make a report on how accurate the scientific papers were to the article. I was shocked that I couldn't find an article that could accurately represent the substance of the paper and even more shocked how poorly researched the papers were. Often having fewer than 100 participants and very poor methodology. Unfortunately, every person in my class rated their articles as being fairly accurate to the scientific paper while I went on a rant for like 15 minutes about how bad these papers were. I think a lot of people don't know how to assess a scientific paper independently, or even read them. We really need to focus on science literacy and communication because these frauds are drowning out the people who are doing real work that can take decades to finish. They just vomit word soup and call it a, "Scientific hypothesis." Real science is expensive, time consuming, and labor intensive. We can't substitute real science with this junk

[@samueltukua3061]

You have stated this amazingly, far better than I could've. I'm finishing up a research-heavy undergrad at MIT and so many students complain about "why do we have to take classes heaving in reading and writing?? What if I don't plan on going into publishing papers?" and THIS, what you've stated, is exactly why. Nobody should be called a scientist if that can't point at a fallacious or statistically poor paper and say "that's not good enough evidence for me, even if it confirms my beliefs"

[@d3nza482]

General "science literacy" isn't gonna happen. You might teach general population some science facts (which they will promptly drop the moment a convincing conman shows up with some healing crystals) - but science literacy of general population regarding papers and research will NEVER happen. Even disregarding the language barriers both purely linguistic (English, Mandarin, Hindi - top 3 languages, only 40% of humans, how many of those do you speak? At a university level?) and scientific (understanding scientific terms regarding specific science requires education in that particular science) - science literacy requires understanding of integrals. Math. A lot of it. Followed by probability and statistics. Then science research and writing methodology. University level courses. AND THAT'S STILL JUST THE BARE MINIMUM TO ONLY BEING ABLE TO READ THE PAPERS - not understanding the contents and context or being able to detect fraud. Disregarding the monetary cost, we're talking literal decades of education one needs to accrue just to be able to MAYBE tell if a Daily Mail article about coffee being good or bad is based on any kind of properly documented science. Which is not the same as valid science. Maybe if we crack immortality and post-scarcity. But even then most people would be perfectly happy being ignorant.

[@roibenr]

I once wrote a blog about "Is Milk good or bad for you?" and every article for or against milk all cited the SAME STUDY about animal and plant proteins. It was so eye-opening. And I only knew how to actually read the paper because I liked biology enough to take an advanced bio class despite being an art major.

[@Puerco-Potter]

We humans are heuristic machines. If we get a nuanced piece of data we will reduce it to a practical slogan that reduce it's complexity to the absurd. If we didn't do this we will need to think for 50 minutes before picking a "toothbrush", because the definition of toothbrush would be too complicated and nuanced. Like AI trying to identify what a chair is

[@ronald3836]

If the statistical methodology is right, then sample size does not matter (as the statistics will take it into account).

[@theprinceofinadequatelighting]

"Mind virus" is just another term for "thought crime" but with the connotation "of my enemy"

[@fishlordusername891]

Actually mind virus is "i think this person is a fucking idiot and I'm surprised this opinion is this common" and is not serious nor intended to be! Hope this helps.

[@AnonymousAnarchist2]

Richard Dawkins hypothis on the virus of the mind was very certianly flawed. However subsquent studies have found that for whatever reason humans have a hard time accepting that any advantages they have been given had effected thier outcome. And if youd allow a short divergances from the topic of the video to one I have plenty of scientific engangemeny within; It makes sense that people have a hard time accepting that the system is just stacked a certian way; it feels bad to hear "Money devalues itself, while wealth envalues itself by pure mathmatic reasons and nothing you do or did will ever effect that constant spiral of the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer and the only possible thing that could interrupt that is an massive family dividing the wealth so thinly that the great grandchildren are then wealth poor" No. It feels a lot better to say Elon really is a genuis. So. Find an irrational excuse to make everything a meritocracy, and then hide it behind a thin veneer of rationality that the average viewer looking for answers wont have the background required to realize its just a dumb excuse that falls apart at any scruitny, then they will spread it, because it feels good and self contained and *feels* like a simple easy to understand fact. And thats a mind virus. Now youve ignored the sciences you actually have to know to understand buisness, trade, economics, and human interaction within them and you have a neat tidy neoliberal/conservitive (regional variants will have regional names) theory of everything that realisticly covers nothing at all. I still remeber asking the esteemed proffessor with a buisness degree from Harvard "Where does money get its value then?" And his reply was "Economists have no answer, and you are encurged to ignore the answers from the soft sciences of sociology, and mathamatictions. Its simply a mystery" The mathmatics and sociology retort is the same It has value because you use it. If everyone had money but no one used money it would have no value would it? And if everyone used money for transactions but there was only one dollar, then that dollar would be woth a lifetimes supply of everything you ever will buy, it will have infinate value. this is where the department answers will diverge. Because mathamatics is focused on math, sociology is focused on societial interactions and systems. But they share the same math and its extremely accurate in predicting the value of any currency at any given time.

[@letsRegulateSociopaths]

The intimation is that you are to be removed or quarantined for thinking a thought, that you are indeed sick for thinking. It shows the have a goal, NO ONE THINKING, JUST OBEYING

[@ctdaniels7049]

My worry for the coming decade is that conservatives will start learning memetics, but like most studies, will only understand half of it and just ruin the lexicon.

[@fishlordusername891]

@@ctdaniels7049 this is normal part of language, dont worry about it too hard. We'll come up with something new and rhe cycle continies.

[@magnusengeseth5060]

For people who claim to only be interested in cold hard facts, they sure seem to know a suspicious amount about how people lived in prehistory. You know, back when we lived in vaguely defined cave man times with one single human culture in the world.

[@jewthulhu]

Fave comments are defs "you didn't debunk anything! you didn't provide evidence proving them wrong!" Like, guys, if the methodology is garbage there's nothing to prove wrong

[@podemosurss8316]

"Evolutionary psychology" is the greatest way to make evolutionary biologists and psychologists facepalm really hard in a few seconds.

[@Inkinhart]

Don't forget the evolutionary anthropologists! We can't stand these guys either!

[@willowtdog6449]

Yes!!!

[@Jorge-np3tq]

Yes! Human behavior has nothing to do with evolution! It's magic! Please point to an alternative mechanism for any human behavior to appear, or one human behavior that has no relation to evolution.

[@Strange9952]

Does evolution apply to behavior yes or no

[@Jorge-np3tq]

Still no alternative explanation for where human behavior is rooted if not evolution.

[@spellbound1875]

Working on my Doctorate in Psychology and my Dissertation threw me into this same rabbit hole. The fact my field allows so many unfalsifable hypotheses that are propped up by p-hacked one off studies is genuinely distressing. Thank you so much for making this video.

[@Vexxa_]

remember that there are always people pushing back on this sort of thing; when the lancet published wakefield's writing, they published a rebuttal by a colleague in that same edition of the journal. no reason you can't also be one of those people, too!

[@wernerbeinhart2320]

Bro, I started studying psychology like 10 years ago and quit within a year. One of the first things you learn, is the scientific method and it should already be clear by that point, that psychological experimentation can't produce falsifable results just by the sheer number of variables and influences you have no control over even with all of humanity as your sample size

[@spellbound1875]

@wernerbeinhart2320 Imperfect experimental controls does not mean hypotheses are unfalsifiable (which is a good thing since no field has perfect control over all variables). There's a lot of solid research in psychology indicating the efficacy of various treatments as well as the impacts (both physiological and psychological) of various mental illnesses. The longstanding and generational impacts of trauma, the fact that western beauty standards and advertising increase the prevalence of disordered eating, and of course the mountain of research that's been done demonstrating no evidence of gender or race differences in performance or intelligence are all positive example of psychological research with a clear falsifiable hypothesis that have robust research supporting them. Psych has a lot of garbage research but to argue it's impossible to for research on the human experience to be scientific is just inaccurate.

[@Mambo9000012]

Don't worry, most here know that even studies done multiple times in the area of soft sciences are most likely wrong or are wrong more than they are right.

[@UpsideDown853]

I just don’t understand how someone can research psychology without a solid foundation or degree in biology. Even simple things, like how a nervous system works are entirely disregarded. You need expertise evolutionary development and developmental biology. For example: Right now, antidepressants are being prescribed for mainly “mental” disorders. How they effect gastrointestinal neurons and what that impact does or if it falsifies results is not a common conversation I hear or read in papers. Even though, biologically, there may be an impact (most definitely). How many people with peristaltic dysregulation are profiting from antidepressants and experience “improvement” of their “psychosomatic” mental anguish are actually do to physiological causes? How panic attacks may actually coincide with physiological illness through underlying illness is also not well understood. Moreover I dislike the lack of appreciation towards normal occurring variance and instead, pathologizing otherness. Whether this is the case with various disabilities, how left-handed or even homosexuals have been treated in the past. Or with more modern discoveries like “autism” and “adhd”. Most populations, especially social ones, profit from diverse perspectives. Psychology tries to measure human behavior through imagining conformity or some “base-line” normative value which just isn’t how biologists approach organisms. (I could go into many still stigmatized illness like chronic fatigue or ms where patients were gaslit into finding psychological causes…) Biologists also are aware of how a “happy ecosystem makes happy organisms”. Very rarely do animals underperform or experience debilitating (mental) illness when kept right. - Which is why Environment Protection and conservation efforts are so damn, damn crucial! - Psychology isn’t critical enough of the systems we humans are a part of. It observes a lot of “what” but very little “why”. That’s fine, but it’s influence in human society is too strong for such low reliability. I feel a lot of psychologists try to order the world in a linear fashion. But Mother Nature is n-dimensional. There are multiple planes which need considering. What is a negative in one regard, may have a positive impact in another. At the end of the day, there are no mistakes in biology. All we require is a niche. Psychologists should focus on creating niches or the tools to do so. Not blabber on about what is a human. We don’t know. We never will. Life is a spectrum and so are people.

[@tsk5]

As someone with a psych degree, the thing that frustrates me the most about evo psych is how much it’s permeated the whole pop psych space. My sister in law got hooked on some guy’s social media that talks about which kids’ cartoons are “safe” for children and when I looked him up, he was just ranting about how too many scene changes invoke hunter-gatherer instincts and make your kids more violent. Nothing he said had any real evidence to support it, and if you take his premises to their logical conclusion, the best educational show for kids would be 30 minutes of a gray screen because any stimulation is bad. Looked into the guy and he doesn’t have any psychology degrees or experience in child education or anything. He’s just a failed tech bro who found a new grift by saying all modern cartoons are bad and the only good ones are the ones from the 90s you feel nostalgic about. The great thing about evo psych is that since we can’t actually study the brains or behaviors of early humans, you can just make up whatever you want and use some big science sounding words and it sounds like a convincing argument to people who don’t know otherwise. It’s the perfect premise for snake oil.

[@SlyNine]

What annoys me is you probably didn't even notice she was miss quoting things. She cited, twins are often reunited for years. Implying this is an issue for all these twin studies. When they quote was specific to a set of twins. Way to go professor.

[@impancaking]

I won't lie, quick scene changes does mess with my attention, lots of movies new and old that bother holding long scenes or camera angles always gets my appreciation/I appreciate the scene more.

[@willybadonkatonka8465]

People who say “tech bro” aren’t to be taken seriously and you clearly don’t know anything about iPad kids and Coco Melon.

[@1AnimeChannel]

Didn't 90's had Tom & Jerry and Looney Tunes, known for the skit about one character hunting the other? -_- '

[@dirtybombshelter]

@@willybadonkatonka8465 You're right. "Tech bro" is a misnomer. "Chronic loser with hentai-induced impotence" is the correct verbiage.

[@finn1414]

your essays literally inspired me to study sociology, I wrote my first paper on the origins of the manossphere and I haven't looked back since. your content is amazing as always please keep being an inspriration. and I hope nebula is still around when I have more than just student money to sign up :)

[@anderplays6460]

>I can smell your genetic profile I have never been more scared in my whole life Also, i am extremely intrigued by that fake pineapple next to the sofa, what the hell is that

[@yeahreally9185]

The fake pineapple is to attract betas

[@zirrian]

HIMYM reference

[@Blakearmin]

So long as it's not in the front yard, you're good. Unless that's your thing. I don't judge.

[@gommyboi380]

I had an antique pineapple that was really a spittoon

[@stampede274]

Psych reference

[@insensitive919]

Pretty funny how conservatives(?) go from "deppression isn't real" to "wow the social sciences are so important" the second they find a psychologist that tells them what they want to hear.

[@DanielDorn-tr7tw]

dont generalize half the population of the USA, thats a lot of people.

[@piedpiper1172]

@@DanielDorn-tr7twWhile it is a lot of people, it’s closer to 1/3 of the population. It floats around 37% conservative, 36% moderate, 25% liberal. More moderates have a liberal lean than a conservative lean, but numbers get fuzzier there (you can compare Gallup and Pew for an example). Only liberal has had a major change trend since the 80’s, and that’s a gradual but persistent increase (mostly capturing those who don’t identify as conservative, moderate, or liberal). If we instead regard it as a binary based on national voting, it’s a little under half. I entirely agree not to generalize those entire populations. The more accurate terms would be to describe tendencies among the leading voices (a very small group comparatively, consisting of the most prominent elected officials, newstainment pundits, and the expert/analyst circuit). It is much easier to create generalizations about this group (and the corresponding “moderate-liberal” one) since they are all subject to a unifying range of pressures that drive who remains in that sphere. Put another way, if you want to keep making money showing up in a circuit of news, podcasts, and other such opportunities, you are pressured to deliver the product those spaces desire. Or, even more specifically, the product the producers of those spaces believe their audiences desire). And it is true that science based arguments do much better in the conservative analyst circuit if the science supports some version of “x group is inherently that way and we don’t have to spend public money to address any underlying issues.” Liberals are not immune to this, but are demonstrably more receptive to scientific consensus that disagrees with their personal preferences-as was rather depressingly demonstrated in the-virus-which-cannot-be-named-from-the-year-after-2018 mortality figures.

[@daminox]

​​​​@@DanielDorn-tr7tw70 million peope voted for you-know-who in 2016, and i am perfectly fine with calling all of them morons. That's not entirely their fault, though- our public education system is garbage due to being horrifically underfunded. And as long as conservatives continue to favor defunding education in favor of expanding military spending, each generation of American will be slightly stupider than the last, perpetuating the cycle and ensuring our continuous downward spiral towards autocracy. As Trump once said: "I love the poorly educated!"

[@ngotemna8875]

​@@DanielDorn-tr7tw Conservatives exist outside the USA. Broaden your horizon dude

[@kween4u268]

its a big sample size

[@Inerrant1]

The idea of doing a 'hunter gatherer computer simulation' and putting modern day humans through it to figure out how hunter gatherers society operated is insane. "I did a study on raisins in order to tell you about grapes."

[@mikew6933]

Are you telling me we are the crumpled, dried out version of our ancestors? 💀

[@lewiitoons4227]

It’s already flawed on the basis that early hunter gatherers assuming we’re talking about the anatomically modern Homo sapiens were any less human than us is just wild, they were simply humans in a different cultural environment, if you nipped back 300,0000 years ago and stole a baby and raised it here it would have just as likely a chance of growing up and shilling nfts or other modern sillyness

[@irahryphson8879]

​@@mikew6933 I mean, have you seen modern society and what we've done to each other? I wouldn't say we're doing our best as a collective lol

[@justingick4218]

Would we have evolved in the 20000 years since people stopped moving around as much. 1/15 of humanitys life has been sedentary and we see the results in our structure wisdom teeth goosebumps and vestigial organs and traits, so why wouldn't behaviors change with them, like dogs and cats and even mice.

[@RogerLewis-ey2tt]

The problem is ALWAYS that 1% high-functioning psychopaths our species keeps giving birth to!!!!​@@irahryphson8879

[@Gallery1743]

This feels like eugenics with extra steps combined with incel misogyny

[@Lia-Turner]

Don't forget the time his University had to censure Miller for saying that obese people "need not apply" to the PhD program because he doubted your ability to manage if you can't manage your weight.

[@ravensong7128]

Woooooow if evolutionary psychology worked the way he said it does why isn’t the asshole gene rare enough that people like him are in the gene pool a lot less often?

[@cotteneyebill74747]

If you are so smart… Why can't you lose weight?

[@Durandurandal]

Fuck him, seriously...As I typed that I realized that's his gameplan, so no, don't fuck him, everyone do the opposite of that

[@Sarah-re7cg]

Jesus Christ, this guy is a disgrace

[@carpedm9846]

Man whenever these types talk about "the elusive female orgasm if it even exists", I keep repeating "you could not waterboard those sentences out of me" but here they go saying those without any compulsion

[@forgot7en]

I don't think you know what compulsion means

[@bigboi1004]

"compunctions" could work there

[@carpedm9846]

@@forgot7en one of compulsion's synoynms is coercion. In fact if you look up coercion it will say "NOUN as in Compulsion, Pressure"

[@AleksandarBell]

Especially since there is a ton of research in psychology about like actual normal sex and why men seem unable to make women orgasm even though it’s not really that hard.

[@ThePickleUpYourNose]

If anyone ever said this near me it would automatically make me lose any kind of respect for them, i refuse to believe this is something people legitimately think

[@dvkprod]

I've done a survey study with 120 participants, my conclusion was "There isn't enough data to form a conclusion". You can make inferences from low-participant studies, which inferences need to be tested with wider surveys, but you cannot draw proof of a hypothesis from them.

[@Caelinus]

Yeah, I hate the "It is normal to do studies with 200 people" crowd. It is normal, but that is the freaking problem. They can be a cheap way to see if something is worth pursuing, but that is pretty much it. The size of the sample (200) against the size of the population (all humans) is just completely out of scale. If you have a *perfectly* representative sample you could come up with numbers that were within a few percent of the real ones, but to get a perfectly representative sample of *all of humanity* is literally impossible.

[@Obedience_challenged]

My highschool graduation paper had more scientific merit than a lot of these studies 😂

[@selektor2567]

@@Caelinus well not really. n = 200 can give a study enormous statistical power depending the size of the effect. In that sense, it may be very representative. Of course, you are right that is it impossible to get a perfect representative sample. However, no reasonable researcher claims this to be the case in their studies. And just because research cannot be perfect does not mean we should not try at all. Especially when we have the potential to get things mostly right.

[@alejeron2.077]

I really love your use of songs between chapters. some of them are real catchy