I didn’t say the article is incorrect. The only claim the abstract makes is:
The conclusion states that the females can see more shades of colors than males.
Your using this article as proof that:
women see a greater range of colors, because women were more likely to gather food.
Asserting that women evolved to see more colors because of the role they played is the aspect I take issue with. The article you cited doesn’t say this, and there’s no way to establish causality between women seeing more colors and their role as prehistoric gatherers. For all we know, women’s ability to see more / better distinguish between colors could be some trait carried forward from whatever we originally evolved from, and has nothing to do with humans.
I wasn’t intending to call you a bigot, but cautioning that arguments of the type, “x group of people are in the societal position they’re in today because of the role they filled in prehistory,” tend to be used to defend bigoted beliefs. What you said seems benign on the surface but for some someone with an agenda, it’s not hard to twist that it into “women are evolved to be gatherers and men evolved to be hunters, so women should stay at home and men should be breadwinners.” Similar arguments were used to justify slavery.
Lastly, I was trying to say that you can’t form casual relationships in evolutionary psychology because of how casual relationships are establishecd. In psychology, in order to say something is a casual relationship, you must perform an experiment. It is not possible to perform an experiment with a prehistoric woman because they’re all dead. No experiment = no casual relationship. For this reason, I recommend avoiding the field all together. It’s niche anyways, and fraught with bigotry.
The inability to establish casual connection isn’t exclusive to evolutionary psychology either. You also can’t establish casual relationships with self reported surveys because people lie.
I didn’t say the article is incorrect. The only claim the abstract makes is:
Your using this article as proof that:
Asserting that women evolved to see more colors because of the role they played is the aspect I take issue with. The article you cited doesn’t say this, and there’s no way to establish causality between women seeing more colors and their role as prehistoric gatherers. For all we know, women’s ability to see more / better distinguish between colors could be some trait carried forward from whatever we originally evolved from, and has nothing to do with humans.
I wasn’t intending to call you a bigot, but cautioning that arguments of the type, “x group of people are in the societal position they’re in today because of the role they filled in prehistory,” tend to be used to defend bigoted beliefs. What you said seems benign on the surface but for some someone with an agenda, it’s not hard to twist that it into “women are evolved to be gatherers and men evolved to be hunters, so women should stay at home and men should be breadwinners.” Similar arguments were used to justify slavery.
Lastly, I was trying to say that you can’t form casual relationships in evolutionary psychology because of how casual relationships are establishecd. In psychology, in order to say something is a casual relationship, you must perform an experiment. It is not possible to perform an experiment with a prehistoric woman because they’re all dead. No experiment = no casual relationship. For this reason, I recommend avoiding the field all together. It’s niche anyways, and fraught with bigotry. The inability to establish casual connection isn’t exclusive to evolutionary psychology either. You also can’t establish casual relationships with self reported surveys because people lie.