the quicker men and women realize that y’alls brains are more similar than you think and that differences like this are mostly from societal pressure, the happy yall will be
Now, men, we have a box in our brain that most women are not aware of. This particular box has nothing in it. It’s true, it’s true. In fact, we call it the “nothing box.” And of all the boxes a man has in his brain, the nothing box is our favorite box! If a man has the chance, he’ll go to his nothing box every time. That’s why a man can do something seemingly completely brain-dead for hours on end. You know, like fishing.
Women can’t do it, they can’t do it, their minds never stop, and they don’t understand the nothing box and it drives them crazy because nothing drives a woman more crazy or makes you feel more irritated than to witness a man doing nothing!
Evolutionary psychology is a gateway to bigotry. While it does offer some convenient explanations, I’d avoid it. It’s inherently impossible to draw causality for the claims made in this field.
If people learn evolutionary psychology from tiktok (or Lemmy), I certainly can agree that it gets into whole lot of random shit stories of any predetermined intent, including bigotry.
But throwing away an entire field of academic study based on them and saying it’s impossible to draw causality is also ridiculous.
I suggest you read this article. Particularly in #7 if the misconceptions since that’s precisely what you write in your next, longer comment.
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.
the quicker men and women realize that y’alls brains are more similar than you think and that differences like this are mostly from societal pressure, the happy yall will be
~ Mark Gungor
Another name for the ‘nothing box’ is ‘be still for hours and wait for that deer to come by so I can kill him.’
What women have is the ‘is this mushroom poison? How about that one? That berry, is that okay?’
It’s been proven women see a greater range of colors, because women were more likely to gather food.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21675035/
Just making shit up huh
Deceptively started. Women seeing more colors than men is proven, not that it’s because they gathered food.
Evolutionary psychology is a gateway to bigotry. While it does offer some convenient explanations, I’d avoid it. It’s inherently impossible to draw causality for the claims made in this field.
If people learn evolutionary psychology from tiktok (or Lemmy), I certainly can agree that it gets into whole lot of random shit stories of any predetermined intent, including bigotry.
But throwing away an entire field of academic study based on them and saying it’s impossible to draw causality is also ridiculous.
I suggest you read this article. Particularly in #7 if the misconceptions since that’s precisely what you write in your next, longer comment.
https://www.laithalshawaf.com/uploads/1/3/5/8/135897893/seven_key_misconceptions_about_evolutionary_psychology.pdf
It’s a pdf from author’s website. But this link is still better than research gate. Couldn’t find any regular webpage that’s still up.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21675035/
Do you have any proof that the article is flawed? If not, do you have another theory for why this is true?
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.
That research abstract doesn’t contain any evolutionary psychological theory. You added that yourself, and we don’t owe you an alternative theory.
So, you get to call me a bigot with no information?
And since you can’t come up with another explanation I’ll stick with the theory that covers the facts.
I’ll take your opinion for what it’s worth.
I didn’t call you one.
I didn’t give you an opinion.