I Debunked Evolutionary Psychology
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 чер 2024
- Get Nebula using my link for 40% off an annual subscription! nebula.tv/munecat
Watch Philosophy Tube's Nebula Original, The Prince: nebula.tv/videos/philosophytu...
Patreon / munecat
Twitch / munecatmusic
Instagram / munecatmusic
Twitter / munecatmusic
Bandcamp munecat.bandcamp.com/
Merch (coming soon) www.munecat.com
Reddit / munecat
Hello people who read the description. Why are you here? The video's up there. Well to give you a basic rundown... men's existence is to be guy being dude (and spin block in head), women's existence is to manipulate guy being dude (and remember olive oil), gay and trans people's existence is to confuse evolutionary psychologists, David Buss's student surveys are totally accurate, hypergamy has nothing to do with patriarchy but everything to do with women doing eugenics, Richard Dawkins is totally right about genes, contraception is the downfall of the West and Geoffrey Miller is my favourite guy.
The sources doc:
docs.google.com/document/d/19...
Timestamps:
0:00 Intro
5:02 Evo Psych on UA-cam & TV
11:00 Evo Psych in the Manosphere
14:00 Darwin & Gene Spaghetti
18:13 My Favourite Evolutionary Psychologist
26:56 Nature/Nurture
29:56 Just-So Stories
34:25 Mental 3D Rotation
37:07 Meadow Reports (Spatial Memory)
44:17 The Hunter / Gatherer Myth
47:00 Sexuality & Jealousy
50:49 Female O’s
53:45 David Buss’s TEDxTalk
1:05:28 Why Gay People?
1:07:37 Science is F'd
1:11:00 Surveys are Bad
1:14:13 Psychology Fraud & The Replication Crisis
1:23:31 Twin Studies are Bad
1:26:24 Ovulation Science is Awful
1:36:34 The Podcast Misinfomation Epidemic
2:01:17 Women in STEM
2:07:57 Gender Similarities
2:13:32 Evo Psychs Don’t Know How Genes Work
2:20:15 Oh no, Eugenics
2:34:28 Why “The Selfish Gene” is Wrong
2:46:51 Evo Psychs Don’t Know How Brains Work
2:53:30 Facts vs Feelings
3:07:46 munepoints
3:12:28 Timothee - Розваги
Your genes determine how long your legs are, but your legs determine how long your jeans are. Really makes you think
🤯
"I took a genetic test, but all my jeans were shorts"
- Jort Storm
You beat me to it
@@HexagonThatReallyLikesVinegarslimecicle reference?? 🤯🤯😳 he’s a lyrical mastermind
I want to let you know that this comment made me grossly snort out loud 😂
A female plan to breed timothee chalamets is the plot of dune
The only viable use-case for eugenics. Mo Chalamets!
Chalamai? Chalamany...Chalamany.
That seems like a good plural.
@@PalemagpieI'd vote for Chalameny Hegemony
More likes!!! This deseves more likes!!
This comment is fucking great, hahah
Bene Gesserit witch!
🦀 THEY DID NEUROIMAGING ON A DEAD SALMON 🦀
FUCKING AWESOME 👍🏻
Men evolved to be ghostbusters and women evolved to run Etsy shops. Thems simply the facts.
literally the best comment ever made
Women bleed on the birthing bed
- THIS IS A REVIEW OF STAR WARS
No, no. Remember: Men evolved to start businesses, unlike women. They evolved to do different things, like run Etsy shops. Make sense?
@@ClaudiaNWhaha a UA-cam classic
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
Tonight's episode: the Researcher's Barely-Disguised Fetish
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.
@@fpedrosa2076 "mesearch" if you will.
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
These researchers love telling on themselves.
Eating your girl out to taste test for other dudes leftovers sounds like literal cuck behavior.
Guy talking "scientifically" about the female orgasm saying "why does it happen so infrequently" really cracked me up.
"If school is full of cliques why don't I have any friends, huh? Checkmate liberals."
I'm not up to that bit of the video yet, but dear gawd, thank you for the guffaw. 😂
"Incompatible users, dude."
He told on himself.
@@somethingelse4424he really, really did
As a man myself, I can't help but feeling disgusted by these notions that men are constantly looking for sex, or that it's all we think about. It's actually pretty dehumanising tbh and reminds me of adults in my life sexualising me as a kid whenever I had a friend who happened to be a girl
Your Libido is so low. You need a large dose of testosterone, Soyboy.
i mean you're spot on with that example it's all the same beast
Reminds me of a meme I saw of men working on power lines, fighting wildfires, and patrolling Afghanistan. The captions were about “”how much they thought about sex””
You guys are youngish I take it? Testosterone levels have been dramatically falling in recent decades, could explain why you don't seem nearly as interested in sex as most men.
@kevinhank17 and love the automatic assumption that because I don't want to be perceived as a mindless horny beast there must be something wrong with me
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.
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?
If you are so smart… Why can't you lose weight?
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.
I was like “oh that explains a lot”
Its got very Ben Shapiro and the WAP self tell energy
if female orgasm is real how come every woman I ever been never had one? check mate
These evo-psych dorks are CONSTANTLY doing that. It's hilarious.
My fucking roommate begs to differ. I can hear her down the street
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.
Nature is definitely ready to consume what is harmless, thought.
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.
I heard that's called "survival of the good enough"
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.
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.
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.
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
@@thewingedporpoise it's like they believe an ice age has to be a full on world wide blizzard every day
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.
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 UA-cam content creators
i've always thought of munecat as the Hbomberguy of folding ideas
@@TurbopropPuppymy god… the trinity
that's pretty much her modus operandi at this point lol
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
@@smallpeople172 If his well-sourced videos point to the ones debunked here, then the videos are cringe.
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.
Same here.
Former academic. The state of publishing is one of the things that made me quit and find a different career
Preach!
it sounds quite despair-inducing. but thank you for persevering and working to broaden our horizons
@@LiarJudas666 Thankfully I have a position that lets me prioritize teaching :)
‘Don’t cite a paper if it’s too old for you to consider it sexually attractive’ had me rolling omfg
1:03:00 women, acting appropriately, by not hitting on people who are there because their job requires it.
2:28:00 and breeding behavior into cats and dogs doesn't even work that well to begin with.
Evolutionary psychology reminds me of that meme that's like:
>"This is how humans all across the world are wired to behave!"
>Opens box
>It's 19th century British social norms
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
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!
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.
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?
@@cattiefogelsong6399 "And they are always shocked that bigotry made it into science."
Oh, those sweet summer children...
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.
Ah, but why would we evolve to have object permanence in the first place, if not to detect cavemen hiding things behind their back???
we evolved it because it is a highly useful feature That it evolved due to cavemen hiding things is just an extreme simplification@@Daedalus117
@@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.
@@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 🧐
@@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.
Me and the boys sync up our bowel movements when camping to ward off bears and evil fairies 🧚♀️ 🐻
So that's what choosing the bear means 😮
I swear every single person I've ever seen complain about "postmodernism" clearly has no idea what postmodernism is.
I think that's the style of furniture IKEA sells.
@@asafoetidajones8181 And having to put that stuff together is hard. I guess I hate postmodernism too...
@@guitarsurfer15 I personally hate modern art. That's every painting, sculpture and drawing made since 1500.
EG Garfield the Cat, the works of Egon Schiele
@@asafoetidajones8181 Why do you hate modern art?
Love how men will write a whole book about "why women have sex" without ever just asking a woman.
As any postmodernist worth their salt would do.
by reducing these authors to "men" you are literally missing the point of the video.
@@AetohatirI mean, that's A point in the video. I wouldn't say the point this comment doesn't take into account is THE point of the video.
They would say: "You don't ask the fish how it would like to be caught." 🤷♂️
@Artohatir
Actshually, lol
Gender as a cultural, societal construct means that we assign meaning to what it means to be a man. Maybe you feel it’s reductive to call men out (or you are kidding) but maybe men are being groomed by society to disproportionately be violent and sexist and we should ask who benefits form those values/norms, and why it should change or stay the same to keep those values
As an anthropologist and thus the natural born enemy of evolutionary psychologists, I've been dreaming about this exact video for years.
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.
did you become an anthropologist because of genetic pre-disposition from thousands of years of humans being anthropologists?
@@manboy4720 He probably did. People in their current state have their ability to form communities and divide labor.
@@manboy4720 Is there any other way?
Why would you study ancient and contemporary people around the world when you have hundreds of WEIRDos hanging around?
I took a course in psychology once. The primary thing I learned was that no one knows almost anything about psychology. But they sure try to make it seem like they do.
Was it a Bachiller's degree course in a university without a dedicated department for Psychology?
I did a masters in psychology and I don’t really disagree.
I heard somewhere that "psychology is just neurology that we don't understand yet" and I feel that applies here lol
The men talking about infrequent female orgasm or other such "inexcitement" is a big self report. It's so cringy
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
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.
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!’
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!)
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
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.
"We are evolved to be most optimal!"
Humans: Eating and breathing from holes that taper up to the same funnel.
Also: Head too big to be born without damage to one or both of us
@@chloe5275 noe women hip ratio too small. All wamen fault. She's not hot enough.
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.
@@boarfaceswinejaw4516noe, backs bad from all that sexy walking during ovulation. It's imperative to continuation of species!
@@boarfaceswinejaw4516 don't you see we are at war with our own survival? Got to be the very best, than no one ever was!
Whiteboard saying "Why Women Don't Feel Remorse" at the top gave me psychic damage
I love how modern psychology is essentially just a bunch of people trying really hard not to make the same mistakes as Freud, and after all that effort the evolutionary psychologists come in to take what was learnt and use it to make exactly the same mistakes
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.”
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
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.
@@nocturnal6876 second this.
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.........
Good researchers self report on their own bias. Limitations and positionality should be required in all academic papers.
“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!
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.
"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." 😂
"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
"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
But not correct
What's criminal is how much time actual researchers have to waste debunking this nonsense.
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
Don't forget how women were taking care of caves that time as well, only men would haunt!
Don't tell that that not every early human lived in caves at all, that might make their brains explode
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.
dont generalize half the population of the USA, thats a lot of people.
@@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.
@@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!"
@@DanielDorn-tr7tw Conservatives exist outside the USA.
Broaden your horizon dude
its a big sample size
"A münecat is neither late nor early, she arrives precisely when she means to." - JRR Tolkien, probably.
Let's hope she means to arrive earlier next time so we don't have to wait another year 🙏
Yah! Probably!
I thought that was Alice's response to the March Hare's distress about being late.
@@SPHistoryArchive i hope so too but to be fair her cat died and she had some other shit going on this year
@@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!
Your videos are a prime example of what people can do when they're talented and dedicated. Keep up the amazing work.
''Women have such better memory and remember where everything is and remember birthdates and all those important stuff'' yeah that's because women are traditionally raised to, and burdened with, pretty much ALL of the mental workloads for their entire family! We are socially conditioned from childhood to take care of everyone and everything and put our own needs and wants last!
Pretending that your assumptions and points are true, then, good work! The world needs more altruism and more of you! Try the same on boys, too!
she back, she really back.
🎉
Yeah I totally forgot about her channel. Was subscribed.
Finally!! She’s been MISSED!! I wondered what happened to her!
Considering the length, I'm not entirely sure she was gone. Just saved up.
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.
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!
when I first read your message I was wondering why you had to specify that you married a human.
@@mathiasrryba instead he married a PhD.
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.
Love is blind.
1:50:43
Did she just REALLY blame “underachieving” men on Women not ovulating enough?
Show me internalized misogyny for 500 holy crap.
I have a social work degree. Been out of school for a little over 5 years now working in the field. The entire field of evolutionary psychology was basically ignored in my education, and whenever it came up, my professors were quick to point out the scientific flaws in the field, lack of research, replicability, etc. I genuinely thought that the rest of the scientific world, and our sister professions of counseling, psychotherapy, etc., also ignored evolutionary psychology as those weird eugenics guys. It’s nice to see that the rest of the academic world thinks of them as weirdos too, but also chilling to see how many of their claims have snuck into the wider social sciences.
No worries, you are all weirdos. Only some of them just have better marketing.
The reason you all ignore evo-psych is because you're actually ideological cultists who fear science because your own theories are so obviously stupid and wrong.
Doesn't take them long from saying "women are inferior because...", to going straight for "let's do eugenics again" does it?
Hateful alt right pipelines usually end up there no matter where they start
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.)
Considering that the alternative to eugenics is DYSgenics, eugenics is the better option.
Sterilisation is genocide tho…
@@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.
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.
The scientific term is "Think I am lesbian", did you not pay attention? 🙃
Where are the Lesbian grifters telling men what women want.
"some people are born with no eyes so evolution is false" type argument
You aren't a lesbian. You are just a misandrist.
@@Strange9952 False equivalence?
Another thing that bugs me is how they portrait every traits as necessarily having a good reason to exist. Evolution doesn't work like that, we have plenty of traits that are neutral or undesirable but just weren't bad enough to be selected out. They use scientific terms but seem to have a very not only self serving but also covertly religious outlook.
Exactly what I thought.
I think this erroneous notion is related to this pervasive view of evolution being something that happened in a (specific) distant moment, and not as a continuous thing. Many of the narratives seem to see us humans as some sort of final and static product of a discrete event.
Or perhaps are evolved features or traits that were specific to a bygone environment which no longer provide an advantage
Evo Psych can be made into something good with one simple adjustment:
Replace "this behavior is natural and therefore justified and we should keep doing it"
with
"this behavior is instinctual and therefore we should scrutinize and deconstruct it to determine how it actually affects the wellbeing of humanity."
The old Appeal to Nature fallacy…
The deconstruction part isn't really the domain of science.
@@lemurwrench6344
Evolutionary Psychology itself already isn't the domain of science. That doesn't mean it isn't useful.
@@enfisu586 that comment wasnt meant to defend EP.
@@lemurwrench6344
Yeah I'm saying none of this is science but it's all still useful. Evo psych is untestable and unfalsifiable, but trying to analyze human behavior without factoring in evolution is a mug's game.
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.
I read this in his voice and it was impossible not to haha.
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.
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!
Why would evolutionary psychologists even need an explanation for it, where is the conundrum exactly
@@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.
@@michaelthompson679 they don't understand evolution and obsessively try to explain everything with their crazy ideas
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.
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.
I wonder if Timothee Chalamet knows that there’s a song about how educated women on birth control want to have sex with him three hours and fifteen minutes into a video essay debunking evolutionary psychology and contemporary eugenics (he doesn’t)
I study psych and p h y s i c a l l y r e c o i l e d when that one guy said "heritable so genetic". Like NO, heritability = likelihood of passing on to children whether by genes or common environment or education or socioeconomic status or any other thing countable as "nurture". The facts that IQ differences decline to basically insignificant once cross-race adoption cases are studied & that under general primary education & better nutrition the entirety of the "developed world" has gained enough IQ points to overshadow any such differences in the first place simply disprove the idea it's even halfway about genes. Not to mention the frankly ridiculously old white man centric history of IQ research (relevant as ppl similar to u do better on tests u make, no matter how careful u are) & the ties to eugenics it always had.
From an article about the salmon fMRI:
“Bennett was not reimbursed for the salmon, but that was because they ate it afterwards.”
That's worm cult shit.
Try to reanimate a salmon only to eat it when the experiments fail
This is the most important part of that story holy crap
It is objectively the best study ever done.
At least that's what my dead emotional support salmon says.
Size matters...when we're talking about sample sizes.
I'm a(n a priori) power (analysis) top
Sample size is not terribly important. What matters is that the sample has been selected without bias, and that is not easy to achieve.
@@ronald3836 It definitely matters if, when the study is replicated with a larger sample size, the conclusions of the original study are flatly contradicted.
@@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.
That awkward feeling when you're about to get down and dirty with a study only to see n=25.
I teach a university course on the philosophy of science and this is a topic I discuss in class, yet I still learned a good bit in this well-researched video essay. Thank you, Munecat
As a psychologist and a researcher, never have I enjoyed more, let alone watched to the end, a 2 hour long debunking of some of the worst BS coming out of my field.
The rare combination of overly dramatic satire and clinical precision in dismantiling 'psuedoscience' was an absolutely unexpected joy to devour!
Brilliant work Mune! Liked and Subbed.
I keenly look forward to more entertaining debunks of BS academics from you!
"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!
it’s dead… like the tape worms 🪱
Oh, so that's where Phrenology was hiding
How does a 20-year-old catching a tapeworm change the symmetry that they were born with?
@@uniseinethe tapeworm eats ur symmetry obvs
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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 😂
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.
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
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
1:45:00 if gene diversity is good, you would actually be more subconsciously attracted to people of another race.. because that would make a more diverse gene pool
Wonder what she'd have to say about Sexual Imprinting and Positive Assortative Mating
Actually I might be guilty of this, not only i find people from different races more attractive, but in a fantasy setting I'd totally be the girl dating a skeleton or a squid creature.
@@elisehalflight GWORL WHAT WERE THE ODDS OF TWO EMPEROR FANGIRLS MEETING UNDER ONE COMMENT I-
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Most behaviors are determined by several genes.
@@annah2933noted behavior, having an eye color
That's a good teacher
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.
My dog likes it too but didn’t help stop him from peeing on my couch
They just like the play, innocent fellas they are@@sycobeansillywytgirl
here's the tea, sis.
The clicker IS psychology. lol that’s what Pavlov’s point was. Hear sound, get reward vs play is fun, man plays.
@@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.
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.
"Let me use my tongue beforehand to taste the genes of a rival mate" . Ohh Lord 😂
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.
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.
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.
@@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
@@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.
Can you then explain why you wouldn't mate with a disabled person if such has nothing to do with physical attributes?
As a person with schizophrenia, I choose to selectively believe that we have more rizz.
Take care bro
Hope you always do well mate...
I think it's more like people who were seen as "alien" have to have more rizz as a survival mechanism to get the basic respect other people have by default.
Rizzophrenia
I also have schizophrenia and I wholeheartedly agree
The thing I hate most about this stuff is that it overgeneralizes men and women to an absurd degree.
"He hated women before it was cool" 😅
1:49:32 I also love the subtle homophobia ”They were completely straight or THOUGHT they were lesbian”…
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.
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.
@@johnbehan1526 sure! I just don’t see how this relates.
@@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
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
Called confirmation bias.
@@spitt3640 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..
Anyone involved in psychology has read and experienced those rants thus yes indeed this video is extremely cathartic
@@spitt3640 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.
Yes that probably happened 1 hour after Münecat released a 3 hour video. Probably.
I had to stop watching this video so many times because of how much the crap being projected from the interviewees hurt my brain. The fact that you spent so much time researching and listing to this stuff.. I'm just in awe Mune. Wow.
If I could point out just one misunderstanding in an otherwise brilliant video:
You make it sound as if, in the event of a genetic bottlenecking, the "genes" (let's say versions) that make it through are somehow selected for being advantageous for the survival in the shrunk population. While that's not entirely impossible, a bottleneck event is generally understood to be a fairly random event, i.e. most individuals die from causes that have verry little relation to you adaptive value (say a tsunami or a plague). So since the small survivor group basically survived at random, their genetic makeup will often not reflect the one of the whole population (e.g. frequencies are off, variants that are rarer get entirely lost). So a couple generations down the line, you're often going to have a very different population than the one before the event that might actually be a lot less well adapted to their original environment. It's basically rerolling your populations entire caracter sheet
Evolutionary Psychology just seems like the omegaverse but for men
someone said it 🙏
It's not, it's a rather uncontroversial field. The problem is the pop-cultural usage of it by non-expert people, who talk out of their arses... which happens on both the left and right fringe. Not unlike the above video.
@@celorfiwyn8193 cite your sources...oh wait they all agree with munecat. go do conservative things and leave us alone
@@celorfiwyn8193 See ya
@@celorfiwyn8193 wrong comment section pal
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
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"
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.
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.
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
If the statistical methodology is right, then sample size does not matter (as the statistics will take it into account).
When people wonder why certain traits havent been evolved out of humans miss the fact that evolution doesnt upgrade animals until perfection, but until they can survive their environment and pass on their genes. Which is why humans have a lot of these weird traits that could be better, but because theyre good enough for the purpose they were meant to serve, they stick around (eg our spines being a legacy leftover from our ancestors walking on 4 legs instead of 2). Also, as humans, we are very social and dont abandon members of our group due to evolutionary disadvantages like other animals do, so those people could survive to potentially have children later. Plus, many traits develop from random chance mutations, and survive because they dont stop you from having kids. Being gay doesnt stop people from having kids, and neither does having health conditions etc etc. A trait doesnt need to be good, it just needs to not suck enough to prevent you from having sex.
Also people tend to anthropomorphise evoltion. Its not 'picking' anything. There are traits that dont help you to survive, traits that help you to survive, and everything else in between. All that matters at the end of the day is that you survive long enough to pass on your genes. Thats it. And its really easy to see evolution as this scheming thing because we're kinda like that and see methods in madness in everything. But it can also be a pitfall when we allow ourselves to do that because then we get into discussion like this where "why hasnt being gay been bred out of our genepool" is a real question people ask
The eugenics bit gets me every time. It reminds me of how deaf people, especially those who were born to deaf and educated families, don't often see themselves as disabled, and deaf parents often hope their child is also deaf to ensure a closer relationship and community with their child. Our society, adaptiveness and capacity for empathy is our adaptation for environmental challenges. Not just our bodies.
Also, the reason """"smart""" people have less children is because countries with access to good healthcare and infrastructure tend to result in people having less children, but investing in them more. Especially because not all families have to rely on multiple generations of children for various laborious tasks. This isn't the case for countries that don't have access to healthcare, contraceptives, or education. They are subject to large, less healthy families that often have to endure unnecessary environmental stressors just to survive. Their population is greater as a whole because they are fighting against their higher statistical likelihood of death. The same way an insect that only lives for 3 days has millions of children, hoping some will survive. I don't know what kind of world these guys are planning if they think we need to be strong enough to fight elk to be worthy of being alive.
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.
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.
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.
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😂
My thoughts exactly. Such lack of awareness and even basic manners, and he’s a published “researcher”? Yikes…
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.
"primalpoly" sounds like a prehistoric parrot if you ask me
it's just a cave man pirate with a massive pteranodon on his shoulder
Worst game of Monopoly ever
@@comradequestion4206 I give you fire, you give me rock
@@ethanmiller3200 do not pass go, do not collect 200 rock
It sounds to me like the very first polygons to be rendered
I'm a microbiology research student, so our standards for sample sizes and basically everything else is much more rigorous than the papers shown in this video. its just so frustrating to see the shit thats allowed to be published, especially in a field that is highly prone to being twisted for politics. seeing all these 'scientists' show an awful lack of scientific integrity is very disheartening. Science is supposed to be open, honest.
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
I don't think you know what compulsion means
"compunctions" could work there
@@forgot7en one of compulsion's synoynms is coercion.
In fact if you look up coercion it will say
"NOUN as in Compulsion, Pressure"
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.
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
Even as a man I feel sort of insulted at the idea I can only ever be sexually attracted to a woman "visually" or however the fuck he put it.
Its ok, you are just demisexual. Nothing bad with that
@@gregoryolbek9491 attraction isn't only based on physical characterics.. What about humour, intelligence, attitude, overall personnality ? Why label demisexual someone you don't know ?
@@lunalmt4821 just kidding bro. Btw everyone in evo-psych know and support in research what you said. Don't fall for strawmen
@@gregoryolbek9491 oops my bad misread your comment then
I don't get why you're warning me about falling for straw men tho, but no worries, I'm not
@@gregoryolbek9491 What would be the "correct" Evo Psych research? As a biologist, I seem to have completely missed it because all I've ever seen has been pseudoscientific misinterpretations of natural selection and evolution.
Great video! As a scientist, I am so tired and frustrated of listening from such "guru's" shout "science!" or "research!" to support half-arsed, non-properly investigated ideas that are so intimately tied to their self-worth, self identity, or their most recent stupid motivation to maintain their biased world view. And also, whenever I hear the words "scientific method", alarms start to go off. Not like they know how it works anyway.
i want to tell evolutionary psychologists about the freak shit im into and make them try to rationalise why i evolved this way.
My guess would be toxic miseducation and interpersonal trauma.
@@wolfofthewest8019I present you with the Olympic gold medal for mental gymnastics
@@tikki2340 Please explain how I am engaging in "mental gymnastics."
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.
The scientists visit my dreams and impart this knowledge upon me.
@@Aiphiae Sociology follows citation rules just as any other branch of science does.
We are the council of science!
the scientist all agree with what i have to say. unless they're currently silencing me by putting me on this podcast!
@@RoonMian Means diddly squat when you're citing garbage research.
Even the way we breed dogs for „personality traits“ is massively exaggerated. The outcomes are still extremely unpredictable, like only a little percentage of shepherd digs are actually fit for herding, and sometimes you will see non-shepherds doing the job.
There are different personalities among dogs but to pretend we’d have them under control is completely false.
Same with "aggressive dog breeds". They can be more muscular if trained right, but are only aggressive if trained wrong. So, what happens if a badly behaved, muscular dog charges at you? It's never the dogs fault, always the owners fault. Maybe some owners with specific personality traits would like their dog to be packed with muscles and easy to anger ...
I know. Like these people have never experienced their dog having a litter of puppies, each puppy with variant personality traits--- extroverted vs introverted. Hotheaded vs calm. etc. You can literally OBSERVE these things including in purebred puppies, if you ever bothered to actually spend time and observe the actual animals. The breed "tendencies" are statistically more prevalent not UNIVERSALLY prevalent. Again nurture/ environment expected to play a role in "bred" puppies as well--- and there are pervasive differences between siblings there-- just as among siblings in any human family (speaking as one of a brood of five here).
I agree. Interestingly pitbulls we’re considered the all American sweethearts back in the 50s until they became the preferred dog brand for African Americans to own. This is when the slander began and the myths about „locked in jaws“ it’s an extension of racism.
Have you ever met a Patterdale Terrier?
@@letzte_maahsname Yea, studies on aggressions in dogs tend to have major issues around lack of controlling for contributing factors My take away:
- Breeds that tend to be in lower income households have increased risks due to complex reasons -- owners home less, housed outside more (which can increase chance to encounter stranger and get loose), owner more likely have higher levels of stress/poorer mental and physical health, have less experience with pets due to restrictions on pet owning (including historical racism that reduced black people from having pets), more likely working/guard dog, and the whole issues around less money to pay for help/training/care for chronic pain issues. There's ecomimic influence on breed.
- Some breeds may have increased behaviour issues, some of that may be genetic, as there's studies showing this that controls for similar income levels .
- Most studies that try to study class are just controlling for income itself, but a household with 10 members can have the same income as a household of 2, and people in the same neighborhood can very a lot (as some studies use zipcodes to determine income), and so likelyhood for bias is so high even when trying to contorl for lifestyle.
- Sterilization method and timing, and access to sterilization also may play a role -- reducing hormones can help with some behaviour issues, but may increase other behaviour issues long term, and may be even net more. Hormone reducation effects serotonin levels per studies in other species. Pre-adulthood hormone reducation may increase risk of this, but more studies needed (but that's for all of this). Reducing hormones soon after heat cycle can also cause a treatable condition called permenent false pregnancy that also causes behaviour issues, but not well known about issue. There may be finacial influences on timing, def finacial influence on sterilization method and access (If adopting an intact dog, check out alternative sterilization methods -- there's also similar physical health concerns with hormone reducation [in that it decreases some issues, but may be net increasing issues for some dogs], and similar issues in the studies For example, two main causes of intact dogs lower lifespan: trauma [car hits] and infections... they're outside more...).
- Size also plays a possible role -- smaller dogs have less annoying teenager stage for example, but larger dogs tend to have net less issues overall.
It's... a mess. Looking into dog sterilization + mental health + lack of accounting for socioeconomic factors compared to information on vetinary websites/wellness organization caused me to loose a lot of trust in that industry. Medical care should be supported by rigorous studies, not studies that someone not in the industry can easily notice the clear biases and issues. If income effects the access to something, that needs to be accounted for.
1:19:00
Just a small note, psychology is not exactly a science, it's more a humanities/social science field, bar certain areas of it that enter neuroscience for example. Part of this contention of psychology as a science is precisely because of how flawed research is in psychology.
And another thing, the null hypothesis is never accepted -- it is either rejected or failed to have been rejected, which is in line with the falsifiability requirement of scientific knowledge.
Listening to the Evo Psych in the Manosphere chapter, and I'm struck by this nagging thought: awhile back (maybe even still) a big anti-feminist talking point was "but what about boys' academic performance," because there were some stats suggesting that boys were performing less well than girls in schools; and I can't help but think it might have something to do with the fact that boys would rather believe someone who tells them what they want to hear (dressed up in a little naturalistic "but it sounds right" fallacy, of course) rather than the hoards of people trying to actually teach them.
Boys are taught to be defective girls by their majority female teachers in schools. It's a good example that proves feminism is a supremacy movement: assuming the female way is the only way and trying to force it upon boys. Same deal with people constantly telling men to share their emotions like women. There's also a personality bias in favor of extroversion at work in the ways people are taught. Especially as an introverted man, I can tell you I have felt wayyyy less happy when forced to emote/socialize like women do.
@@virtuousvoice The difference between masculinity and toxic masculinity is this: expressions of masculinity that arise from fear of being seen as feminine are toxic.
Manosphere types find this terrifying, of course. Because they don't know any other way to be masculine. So they see rejection of that toxicity as "female supremacist". Easier that way. Much harder to build something positive and real.
@@virtuousvoice I love this video but I also love reading incel cringe. Nothing better than someone who doesn't know anything explaining away their own weirdness by blaming feminism.
@@colorcommentary3009 You people are cringe, for using the same tired insult term over and over because you obviously don't have a creative bone in your body. And secondly, you telegraph that You've got no substantial argument by immediately resorting to an attempt to insult me. Incel = someone who hurt your fee fees by challenging your flimsy worldview. It's ok, this effort to transform boys into girls is going down as well as the effort to transform introverts into extroverts. Nothing wrong with introverts, nothing wrong with boys. Everything wrong with closed-minded people who refuse to listen to others and resort to lame insults instead.
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.
also, heritability for most complex (mulitlocus) traits tends to hover around 0.40. Hearing numbers like 0.80 around heritability is a red flag!
biology and genetics are so complicated, if there are two contradicting theories, they are probably both correct (to some degree)
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.
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.
@@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.
Evopshych is like if Calvinism went to a costume party dressed as Darwinism, got way too drunk, took off all its clothes because "it's too hot in here," and then everyone sees that it's just racism.
really thought Calvinism was something from Calvin and Hobbes and got a little confused for a second
That was a wild ride. Hearing all of the claims at once, makes evolutionary psychology seem even more ridiculous
Peterson dresses like a gd Batman supervillain.
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.
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
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.
@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.
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.
@@FoxdevilswildUnic thought the exact same, it's like the dude believes that all women can think about are men or something.
One thing I find highly disturbing about Evolutionary Psychology is how it's heavily underscored with dehumanization. It's true that we have base animalistic instincts, but they only serve as the basis for our more complex and transcendent human needs, ideals and philosophies. Men are aware this happens to them, yet when they hear someone like David Buss, they are utterly convinced women's needs haven't evolved past these raw animalistic instincts and they aren't as complex and as abstract as men's. They are quite literally denying women their humanity.
That is why, as a man, I always suggest to other men to have platonic friendships with women. If you don't see women as a thing to be acquired for status, as an object of your desire, a game to be played or a conquest to be navigated through, you're much more likely to relate to them and see them as humans, not as animals who are constantly on the lookout for the best genes. As a guy whose friends are mostly female, I find all these theories laughable. While we certainly have our differences (most of which are socially influenced), men and women are still way more similar than these idiots make us out to be.
I love this comment. I'd buy it if it was an embroidery 100%
Because it's based on eugenics.
You definitely need more male friends then
@@cointec5331 ... why?
I remember my sociology prof arguing that men can't be friends with women and I made this exact point. I obviously was also like "I'm bisexual, so no friends for me? And what about asexual people?" (he ignored me completely, because he legit hated that I wasn't on board with any of his bullshit). This guy had the most divorced energy I've ever seen and the fact that he apparently gave advice scared me.
Let's say I haven't learned much from him and took every single piece of his classes with a grain of salt. Fortunately most people from my group also talked about having friends of the oposite sex and how what he was saying was really harmful.
Yay, Müncat is back!
The world needs you young lady.
✌️
i see the "men were hunters, women were gatherers" trope is unfortunately still alive and well 💀
2:30:40
Even funnier is remembering that "mongrel" dogs are often healthier and more mentally stable than pure-bred dogs.
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
@@JRexRegis I do like the retro-pug project, trying to breed away the "pure-bred" qualities that causes them such pain.
@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
@@torylvahumans fucked pugs up hard, it is time humans set right what our predecessors did wrong.
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.
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
This video was funny but wouldn’t stand up to critique or debate
Another Munecat banger.
Evo psych has big phrenology vibes.
The assumption that every trait has been actively selected for by natural selection is such a common and basic misconception that it kind of drives me crazy. It's like people went from thinking that every part of every creature was ideally designed by a god, to thinking the exact same thing but swapping it out for a nebulous Nature. Evolution is beautiful and fascinating, but it is not a god. Yes, everything exists because of evolution by natural selection. No, that does not mean that literally every single trait has been selected for for a specific purpose. Applying this to aspects of human social life and psychology makes it infinitely worse
Personally I subscribe to the Mutation Theory of Evolution- recommend looking into it as it seems to align with some of your thoughts if you haven’t heard of it already
Lol, interesting how the f u put "god" and "natural selection" in 1 sentence and didn't crack ur head by using table....
Bipolar I suppose is the answer
But not about it, the thing is nature is not "laboratory" so its follow simple rule, if u survive u survive and give ur gens to next generation of ur species, literally no one with brain inside there head and scientific world doesn't says that it's best option but its how world was existing mills ears before us, so now we are here discussing this topic
I'd take it a bit further and say that not even every trait is the product of natural selection. it's like epigenetics get thrown right out the window when they want to assume "superior" genes are selected somehow by sexual reproduction. Even Darwin's own study of birds and beak shape, where he presupposes they came from the ones who HAPPENED to have good beaks' offspring surviving better. but we've known for more than half a century that those birds don't randomly develop a slew of varying beaks, and only the victors survive to mate, over thirty some generations. We've observed the birds change their beaks during their lifetimes, adapting to encountered stimuli, developing more keratin when moved to environments with thicker plants, making it a not an evolutionary trait at all.
The traits we see in living beings today are just the traits that died the least.
Who think every trait has been actively selected for except religious socialists like you?
She attacc
She protecc
But most importantly
She bacc
She attacc
She protecc
But most importantly
She debuncc
Noo that's impossible, according to evolutionary psychology, only men attacc and protecc!
This comment is my favorite
Reverse the first two lines for accurate memeage.
thank God you didn't use a ck at the end of those words, we might have thought you meant Crip Killer
that guy at 1:49:17.. why is he staring so intensely like that??? bro is freakin me out 😭
Trans woman/non-binary person dating a man here. By their standards, I shouldnt even be able to exist X3...... Im watching just thinking, "which one am I supposed to be?"
Unfortunately they probably just think you’re a “delusional” gay guy 😒 I think it’d be cooler if us nonbinary folk were “half-straight gender anomalies” with both “divine male and female energies”
Evolutionary psychology scientific method:
* Bad theory
* Bad experiment design
* Bad analysis
* Bad conclusion
Repeat until book deal or consultancy offer, attend podcast circle jerks until then.
That's all psychology.
This just proves so many dudes are so obsessed with retaining the status quo otherwise they will never get laid. All heterosexual cisgender men are incels.
@@HouseholdDog if you’re a cynic.
No. I am certain it is this:
- Identify action you wish to justify
- Say cavemen did it on a podcast
@@rahulmenon4357 This all those filthy cavemen's fault! I'd rather leave MY genetics with a bear!