Bleeding from the Bunghole

[Dick Strawkins]

I notice Damion is still on his high horse trying to look down on the slymepit - this time over trnas-hating radfem Cathy Brennan's post about the identities of the blockbot team.
http://storify.com/D4M10N/slymepitters- ... co-twitter

According to Damion we should drop everything to condemn this action.

I didn't read that statement from him on the link you provided.

If you read his recent tweets you'll notice the theme.

[deLurch]

http://i.imgur.com/0XosDFj.jpg

Yes, it was the obvious joke. But did you really have to jump ahead 3 levels and spoil the game.

[deLurch]

BTW You can find a XKCD font here:
http://simonsoftware.se/other/xkcd.ttf
or Humor-Sans here:
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1230 ... r-Sans.ttf

[LurkerPerson]

....

Ahahahah nice, I was just going to make a similar type of comment, but a 'shop is worth a thousand words (sorry Steers ;()

[bhoytony]

[youtube]iaN8M0pDOeM[/youtube]

[Za-zen]

I've been in love with Kate since i was ten, having my eldest daughter quietened and entranced by this song, assures me that their is still magic left in this world

[youtube]No5FkAmTaJY[/youtube]

[Gumby]

BTW You can find a XKCD font here:
http://simonsoftware.se/other/xkcd.ttf
or Humor-Sans here:
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1230 ... r-Sans.ttf

Ooh, thank you. Those will come in handy.

[Steersman]

....

Ahahahah nice, I was just going to make a similar type of comment, but a 'shop is worth a thousand words (sorry Steers ;()

:) No problemo. Generally agree with you, although I find that at times a dozen or so words can be worth a thousand pictures; kind of depends on context .... ;-)

[Parody Accountant]

Code: Select all

[quote][u][i][b][list=][*][img][url][color=#80BF80][/color][/url][/img][/list][/b][/i][/u][/quote]

   
  

[bhoytony]

I've been in love with Kate since i was ten, having my eldest daughter quietened and entranced by this song, assures me that their is still magic left in this world

[youtube]No5FkAmTaJY[/youtube]

I've seen her live several times and I was supposed to attend one of her gigs a couple of days ago, but something came up. Gutted.

[Parody Accountant]

dammit. Sorry.

[Bourne Skeptic]

Code: Select all

[quote][u][i][b][list=][*][img][url][color=#80BF80][/color][/url][/img][/list][/b][/i][/u][/quote]

   
  

Well put PA,
[youtube]Wvan5cHhPq4[/youtube]

[Steersman]

<snip>
Relative to which I think one might reasonably argue that women have some moral responsibility to protect themselves from being raped – as we all have for looking after our “stuff” as in locking our homes and cars and not taking more risk than seems “reasonable”. But the criminals still have the legal responsibility for having perpetrated the crime. In the former cases one might argue that a woman being raped, or a man falling asleep drunk on the BART and having their stuff stolen as Matt Cavanaugh described earlier, may be at fault, may have been *responsible* to some extent for those crimes without that, ideally at least, in the least allowing the perpetrators off the hook of the *legal responsibility* for having committed the crime.

True story. I have a couple of bad habits:

• - not locking my car.
  
  - withdrawing $200-$300 at the drive through ATM, throwing it into the glove compartment and forgetting it there for a week at a time.

One of these days the laws of probabilities/averages is going to catch up with me.

True. Although I think you mentioned something about living in a “high trust area”, a HTA – kind of a “catchy” concept, sort of like the MTA – whose “fate is still unlearned”. Which probably has some relevance to how much risk you’re really subjecting yourself to in those actions.

But I think it highlights the question of how much is a reasonable level of risk and in which circumstances. Whether we go hang-gliding, parachute-jumping, getting out of bed in the morning, engaging the services of courtesans of one stripe or another, drinking with those ethics and degree of self-control is unknown, over-eating, or smoking various “weeds”, noble or otherwise, whose provenance is unknown, I figure we all engage in risky behaviour of one sort or another, and which entail various and frequently unknown levels of risk. Probably has something to do with our evolution and success as a species.

Responsiblity goes both ways, and in such cases lies totally and squarely on the person who commits the crime.

Need I say anything more other than I am just begging for it? I am not going to absolve myself from all responsibility and I am certainly not going to do the same for others.

I am going to blame the victim as well and no amount of weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth is going to change this one iota.

Interesting spectrum of evidence in such cases: stealing something from an unlocked car isn’t likely to leave much of that – unless the perp had tar on their hands and left massive fingerprints all over it. Absent which it might be something of a challenge to insist to the police that someone had stolen something from your car. Somewhat analogous, I think, to the question of rape, at least of the “date-rape” variety, “consent” being somewhat ephemeral, somewhat "volatile", and easily evaporated. So to speak.

[another lurker]

Speaking of unlocked cars one time I went hiking with my mom and I left the car door wide open for the entire 3 hours that we were gone. I was distracted getting out of the car, and forgot to close the door. It was wide open during that entire 3 hours, with our wallets and everything inside. No one touched it.

The car was parked at a very busy rest stop, and I am betting that potential thieves avoided it because who the fuck would go on a 3 hour hike and leave the car doors wide open? Any rational person would just assume that the owner was probably a few feet away, pissing in the bush or something.

[bhoytony]

Speaking of unlocked cars one time I went hiking with my mom and I left the car door wide open for the entire 3 hours that we were gone. I was distracted getting out of the car, and forgot to close the door. It was wide open during that entire 3 hours, with our wallets and everything inside. No one touched it.

The car was parked at a very busy rest stop, and I am betting that potential thieves avoided it because who the fuck would go on a 3 hour hike and leave the car doors wide open? Any rational person would just assume that the owner was probably a few feet away, pissing in the bush or something.

I once came home from work and discovered I'd left my front door wide open for about twelve hours.

[deLurch]

Speaking of unlocked cars one time I went hiking with my mom and I left the car door wide open for the entire 3 hours that we were gone. I was distracted getting out of the car, and forgot to close the door. It was wide open during that entire 3 hours, with our wallets and everything inside. No one touched it.

The car was parked at a very busy rest stop, and I am betting that potential thieves avoided it because who the fuck would go on a 3 hour hike and leave the car doors wide open? Any rational person would just assume that the owner was probably a few feet away, pissing in the bush or something.

I know a guy who leaves his car unlocked all of the time in the city with phone and everything else in it. His car has only been stolen once. And it was found a few days later.

Most people are honest. Odds are you can leave your home doors unlocked all of the time and the majority of the time nothing will happen.

[Aneris]

[.img]http://i.imgur.com/0XosDFj.jpg[/img]

Yes, it was the obvious joke. But did you really have to jump ahead 3 levels and spoil the game.

Yes. :)

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

How is that irony? One can believe in thing A without believing in thing B even if B "could be used to support A". I don't see how that's ironic.

Nor am I sure what it means to "believe in EvoPsych". EvoPsych is not a true/false claim. Unless you mean the idea that the brain evolved over time which I don't think anyone who believes in evolution would deny.

Nor am I sure what it would mean to "validate" "notions of human goodness and cooperation".

It's Peeze that you need to be telling this to. He and his cronies concoct rationalisations for their dislike of the field. The irony is that they appear to reject thing B BECAUSE they regard it as inconvenient to thing A.

Well let's see....

I detest evolutionary psychology, not because I dislike the answers it gives, but on purely methodological and empirical grounds: it is a grandiose exercise in leaping to conclusions on inadequate evidence, it is built on premises that simply don’t work, and it’s a field that seems to do a very poor job of training and policing its practitioners, so that it primarily serves as a dump for bad research that then supplies tabloids with a feast of garbage science that discredits the rest of us.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... y-critics/

You can speculate that this is merely a "rationalization" and that he really doesn't like EvoPsych for other reasons. But his critique is pretty standard (at least the first part of it is) and it is not something that is merely prevalent within social justice circles.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

There is a broad consensus among philosophers of science that evolutionary psychology is a deeply flawed enterprise.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolu ... sychology/

I sometimes get the impression that people defend EP just because feminists tend to dislike it and because it has a sciencey sounding name. But that's just my speculation, much like your assessment of PZ is speculation.

There may be good arguments in defense of EP, but I've had a tendency to run into bad ones. In this JREF thread for example, I (cornsail) was met with some mind-numbingly bad arguments in defense of EP.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... son&page=3

My favorite part:

[Lorentzen] is making the claim that biology has NO effect on our behaviours and thought processes. That's an extreme claim, so extreme its practically Creationist...

This is one of the same claims you attributed to [Rebecca Watson]. It's a far more extreme claim than I expect a creationist would make. It would mean that our brains play no role in thinking and our legs play no role in walking. Or that brains and legs are somehow not "biological". I do not remember Lorentzen making this claim.

Im sorry but Im not going to bother with the rest of your post because you get this so wrong...

I didn't get it wrong. If one believes biology doesn't play a role in thinking or behavior, then they must either believe that the brain plays no role in thinking and the legs play no role in walking or that human body parts aren't biological. This seems trivially obvious to me...

Who cares what arguments are put forward on the JREF? If you want a meaningful discussion you would surely be better served having it at a serious Evo Psych blog.The few times I've visited actual Evo Psych blogs sites I've picked up a sense of frustration with critics who attack the whole field without much understanding of what they actually research and how they do it. It's unfair to attack climate science for the work of the Heartland Institute and it's unfair to attack Evo P for the actions of some populist kooks. The problem Evo Psych has is that any idiot can concoct theories about the evolution of behaviours and the serious researchers get damaged by association. It's not their fault.People like Marcotte don't like what they erroneously take as the motivations and conclusions of EP research and dump all over it. When challenged they quote critics from outside of the field, like Myers, who is definitely NOT an Evolutionary Psychologist. PZ Myers has long had an antipathy and his troupe of monkeys trash EP. I'd love to see how Myers scientifically justifies his "it's all neuroplasticity" and "gender is a social construct" views. Unless he can do that then I think it's quite reasonable to suspect that his hatred of EP is motivated by it's supposed challenge to those views. Did you see the ad hominem attacks Myers launched on Ed Clint after Clint critiqued Watson's crappy talk on Evo Psych? This is clearly an emotive issue for him.

[bovarchist]

Speaking of unlocked cars one time I went hiking with my mom and I left the car door wide open for the entire 3 hours that we were gone. I was distracted getting out of the car, and forgot to close the door. It was wide open during that entire 3 hours, with our wallets and everything inside. No one touched it.

The car was parked at a very busy rest stop, and I am betting that potential thieves avoided it because who the fuck would go on a 3 hour hike and leave the car doors wide open? Any rational person would just assume that the owner was probably a few feet away, pissing in the bush or something.

I know a guy who leaves his car unlocked all of the time in the city with phone and everything else in it. His car has only been stolen once. And it was found a few days later.

Most people are honest. Odds are you can leave your home doors unlocked all of the time and the majority of the time nothing will happen.

Plus, people see the front door open, they assume someone's home. ;)

[Linus]

Well let's see....

I detest evolutionary psychology, not because I dislike the answers it gives, but on purely methodological and empirical grounds: it is a grandiose exercise in leaping to conclusions on inadequate evidence, it is built on premises that simply don’t work, and it’s a field that seems to do a very poor job of training and policing its practitioners, so that it primarily serves as a dump for bad research that then supplies tabloids with a feast of garbage science that discredits the rest of us.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... y-critics/

You can speculate that this is merely a "rationalization" and that he really doesn't like EvoPsych for other reasons. But his critique is pretty standard (at least the first part of it is) and it is not something that is merely prevalent within social justice circles.

Of course it's possible to dislike a field because you don't like it's methods or premises but, just like a creationist claiming that they don't dislike evolution because of it's threat to biblical literacy but because it's (so they allege) poor science, PZ's reactions do ring hollow if he claims them to be made in the spirit of good academic critique. I'll list a few examples of why I think this:

1) PZ's blog post in which he kind-of-but-not-quite blames EP for pick up artistry (see here for more details: http://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/ ... -evopsych/)

2) PZ's refusal to engage in good faith with Coyne and Pinker (http://psych0drama.blogspot.co.uk/2013/ ... inker.html).

3) PZ's willingness to share a panel with Amanda Marcotte who says stuff like (I paraphrase) "evolutionary psychologists promote the idea that women are more frivolous than men" and other such nonsense, apparently without objection.

4) Holding up Satoshi Kanazawa as indicative of the field in a number of places, despite the fields general dismissiveness of Satoshi as an embarrassment.

Some differences:

-Evolution is a theory. EvoPsych is more like a framework. It makes sense to say "I believe in evolution" or "I believe evolution is true". It does not make much sense to say "I believe in evopsych" or "I believe evopsych is true".
-Evolution is backed up by mountains of evidence. The value of EP as a framework/methodology/field is (AFAIK) not backed up by mountains of evidence.
-Evolution and creationism tend to be mutually exclusive. EP is not mutually exclusive with feminism, humanism or any social justice theories that I'm aware of. You pointed this out yourself.

Of course, any EP claims about psychological differences between sexes or races, I can understand being worrisome or unwelcome to humanist activists/advocates, because such things could potentially be used to promote stereotyping, constrict gender roles and/or justify sexism and racism. So yes, your point is still there to a certain extent, despite the differences. And one could certainly have ulterior motives either decrying or lauding EvoPsych. This isn't limited to EP, as EP is certainly not the only 'field' in which people have reached conclusions about differences between sexes and races.

As for "PZ's reactions do ring hollow if he claims them to be made in the spirit of good academic critique." Well you are probably right here. I say that not because I'm familiar with PZ's reactions to EP in detail, but because I find PZ to be an intellectually dishoenst, petty asshole in general. OTOH I've heard some absurd claims made about PZ and Rebecca Watson with respect to EP such as "they don't believe evolution plays any role in our thinking" or "they believe humans are blank slates", which they haven't been able to back up. And I found Ed Clint's critique of Waton's anti-EP talk to be over the top and ridiculous on some points. Even though Watson's talk was lazily researched and involved some false generalizing. So I'd say there's some irrationality and dishonesty on both sides of the argument.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

There is a broad consensus among philosophers of science that evolutionary psychology is a deeply flawed enterprise.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolu ... sychology/

But what is it about this article that impresses you that this is a fair summary?

Oh nothing in particular. Just that Stanford is a reputable institution and I've found its encyclopedia of philosophy useful at times. I haven't read the Evo Psych article in depth. It is certainly possible that it's unfair.

I'll be honest, I have only given it a quick read, but in at least two of it's articles it doesn't even seem to be talking about what I was taught was evolutionary psychology during my degree course with the OU.

In section 1 it builds a case that evolutionary psychology stands apart from disciplines such as behavioural ecology, citing Sarah Blaffer Hrdy as an example of someone who does things right. But she is massively indebted to evolutionary psychology (see here for quotes in green, many of them taken from her recent work: http://psych0drama.blogspot.co.uk/2013/ ... cript.html).

I don't understand how those quotes demonstrate that Sarah Blaffer Hrdy is massively indebted to evolutionary psychology.

It also says that evolutionary psychologists cite a single period of evolutionary history as creating human psychology. This is just a lie, that a tentative contention that no innate changes have occurred since the late Pleistocene does not rule out older psychological mechanisms.

In article 4 the author takes issue with Fodor's massive modularity. Not only does it massively confuse the issue of modularity in the neuroscience sense (which is irrelevant to the topic) but it fails to distinguish between the problem set out by Fodor (that the induction problem implies to him that all potential knowledge is somehow ready and waiting in the human brain) and that posed by evolutionary psychologists (that some behaviours are innate and therefore there is the implication that they are packaged in our genes). This whole thing is an argument from incredulity (they don't actually explain why massive modularity is wrong) with some added guilt by association (Fodor isn't an EP guy - he's pretty hostile to the field iirc - but because Tooby thinks there's some correlation here Fodor's ideas are deemed central to, rather than just plausibly coexisting with, the sort of modularity expected by EP).

It seems to me that what they are doing - rather than engaging honestly with the primary literature - is saying "well here's some wacky notions about psychology that have been cited approvingly by Tooby in a paper somewhere - so we will deem it archetypal of EP".

You may be right. I don't know enough about the topics to have an opinion.

The qualms about an over-reliance on adaptationalism are old news, Pinker gives it short shrift in How the Mind Works and there are a couple of nice answers to it here:

Wait are you saying that because the book How the Mind Works doesn't rely heavily on adaptationalism that that suggests EvoPsych doesn't rely heavily on adaptationalism? It's just a pop science book and I don't think it can be described as an EP book even if it contains some EP.


Out of curiosity, Dave, what would you say is the most important (or one of the most important) contributions of evolutionary psychology to human knowledge?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Evo Psych is simply ethology applied to the genus homo. TFB if it screws with PoMo constructs.

[Linus]

Who cares what arguments are put forward on the JREF? If you want a meaningful discussion you would surely be better served having it at a serious Evo Psych blog.The few times I've visited actual Evo Psych blogs sites I've picked up a sense of frustration with critics who attack the whole field without much understanding of what they actually research and how they do it. It's unfair to attack climate science for the work of the Heartland Institute and it's unfair to attack Evo P for the actions of some populist kooks. The problem Evo Psych has is that any idiot can concoct theories about the evolution of behaviours and the serious researchers get damaged by association. It's not their fault.People like Marcotte don't like what they erroneously take as the motivations and conclusions of EP research and dump all over it. When challenged they quote critics from outside of the field, like Myers, who is definitely NOT an Evolutionary Psychologist. PZ Myers has long had an antipathy and his troupe of monkeys trash EP. I'd love to see how Myers scientifically justifies his "it's all neuroplasticity" and "gender is a social construct" views. Unless he can do that then I think it's quite reasonable to suspect that his hatred of EP is motivated by it's supposed challenge to those views. Did you see the ad hominem attacks Myers launched on Ed Clint after Clint critiqued Watson's crappy talk on Evo Psych? This is clearly an emotive issue for him.

Who cares? It was to back up my statement that sometimes I get the impression people defend EP simply because they are anti-feminist or dislike Watson/Myers and because it has a sciencey sounding name. To be clear, I don't mean that to apply to everyone who defends EP.

Re: EP blogs, any recommendations?

You say: "The problem Evo Psych has is that any idiot can condoct theories about the evolution of behaviors and the serious researchers get damaged by association." How is this not true of every field? Any idiot can concoct theories about any subject.

[Linus]

Evo Psych is simply ethology applied to the genus, homo. TFB if it screws with PoMo constructs.

FYP

[LurkerPerson]

Exactly, if you "believe" in evolution, and you if "believe" that homo sapiens was throughout it's various previous stages and even presently subjected to the same evoltuonary pressures as any other living organism, then you should "believe" in evo psych. The real arguement is about the conclusions to be drawn thereof, not whether evolution has had a role in shaping the human psyche. That's a given as far as I'm concerned.

[rayshul]

We've had a few evo psych folk in here. Can't bloody remember the blog one of them ran though. Agh. But if you look through the "other" parts of the site you'll probably find her.

[JackRayner]

It all makes sense if you think of women as....sinks?

http://laurietobyedison.com/discuss/ima ... _sinks.png

That's pretty cool! I want one if I ever own a home. Should go great with a Christmas Story-style leg lamp. :mrgreen:



Anyways, I'm about 54 pages behind at this point. I'll make a shitty attempt to skim as much as possible, but I can't make any promises. Namely, I'm interested in catching up to the part where you guys are all apparently people being doxxed.

That shitty cunt Daimon said it though, so it's probably bullshit, but I'll try to withhold my judgment for now. :D

[Lsuoma]

Namely, I'm interested in catching up to the part where you guys are all apparently people being doxxed.

That shitty cunt Daimon said it though, so it's probably bullshit, but I'll try to withhold my judgment for now. :D

There's no charge that people are being doxxed here, just that we're not contemplating suicide because we've not condemned every instance ever of doxxing, IIRC. In other new, Damion (sp?) is a dishonest, supercilious cunt who is just stirring shit.

[Suet Cardigan]

"PZ wrote:I detest evolutionary psychology, not because I dislike the answers it gives, but on purely methodological and empirical grounds: it is a grandiose exercise in leaping to conclusions on inadequate evidence"

Unlike Patriarchy Theory, which is highly scientific and backed by a mountain of evidence.

Also, how can PZ say that he doesn't dislike the answers evolutionary psychology gives, but then say that he objects on empirical grounds? Surely the empirical objection would be that the answers EvoPsych gives are wrong?

[Badger3k]

We've had a few evo psych folk in here. Can't bloody remember the blog one of them ran though. Agh. But if you look through the "other" parts of the site you'll probably find her.

Not sure if I found it here or at WEIT, but Evolutionary Psychology is one site.

[Badger3k]

We've had a few evo psych folk in here. Can't bloody remember the blog one of them ran though. Agh. But if you look through the "other" parts of the site you'll probably find her.

Not sure if I found it here or at WEIT, but Evolutionary Psychology is one site.

And ed clint's blog, the name of which escapes me and I can't find it quickly by skimming their site (yeah, combination of too lazy and in too much pain to google it)

[Trophy]

@Andrew:

I've not really read much by her. I began reading "Reading Lolita" but I gave up. From what I can see, she has two other works, one is a translation and another a biography. In general she's mostly a low-key figure.

OK thanks anyway. I will continue to settle for Muslimas actually living in Iran (Shia Muslim site) then.

BTW, and feel free NOT to answer this, but do you have any connections with Iran yourself?

Yeah, my parents live there so I go there every other year but most of my friends have left the country though. But the one of the best experiences is to go and sit in a taxi in Tehran. With a slight poke the taxi drivers just outburst political ramblings that is sometimes very fun :D.

[Ape+lust]

[Dave2]

Some differences:

-Evolution is a theory. EvoPsych is more like a framework. It makes sense to say "I believe in evolution" or "I believe evolution is true". It does not make much sense to say "I believe in evopsych" or "I believe evopsych is true".

Maybe, but that's because it's a field rather than a theory. I would imagine that if you replaced "evopsych" with palaeontology or even evolutionary biology you would have the same sort of sentence there, to the same end.

And like palaeontology EP is, at times, going to explore the wrong road, or a cul-de-sac. That's not a reason to recognise that palaeontology is increasingly exploring genuinely interesting/convincing territory. Whilst EP is not as established as palaeontology I think the same sort of thing is happening.

-Evolution is backed up by mountains of evidence. The value of EP as a framework/methodology/field is (AFAIK) not backed up by mountains of evidence.

It depends what you're talking about. Something like the Stroop effect has masses of evidentiary support - and marries well with evolutionary explanations. Something like Theory of Mind is well demonstrated not only cross human cultures, but also compared to the ability of great apes to show degrees of the pertinent skills.

I'd even, tentatively, suggest that phenomena which are well illustrated in psychology tend to have more evidence in their support than those demonstrated by biology precisely because so many different variations on experiments need to be run to account for confounding variables.

-Evolution and creationism tend to be mutually exclusive. EP is not mutually exclusive with feminism, humanism or any social justice theories that I'm aware of. You pointed this out yourself.

Right. But my point isn't in the lack of a potential synthesis but in regards to the attitude and quality of the arguments that are marshalled against (in the case of Rebecca, PZ, Amanda Marcotte and so on).

Of course, any EP claims about psychological differences between sexes or races, I can understand being worrisome or unwelcome to humanist activists/advocates, because such things could potentially be used to promote stereotyping, constrict gender roles and/or justify sexism and racism. So yes, your point is still there to a certain extent, despite the differences. And one could certainly have ulterior motives either decrying or lauding EvoPsych. This isn't limited to EP, as EP is certainly not the only 'field' in which people have reached conclusions about differences between sexes and races.

Regarding race - the contention shared between most EPers is that there are no differences. We (as a species) are thought to have the same psychological capacities and innate propensities as those who lived @40,000 years ago - and this is down precisely to the observation that there is no delineation between typical modern humans of various races that cannot be said to be sociocultural. There are some tentative explorations regarding circumstantial evidence to the fact that some jewish and/or parsee people might lay myelin down faster - making for a quicker neural network and better neurological connectivity - that's about it really.

Unless you're talking about some of Kanazawa's ideas - which have been deemed invalid by EPers in general.

Sex differences are illustrated, they could be used to justify oppressive notions of social roles - they could be used to justify greater compassion and understanding between the genders. So what do we do? Pretend they don't exist?

As for "PZ's reactions do ring hollow if he claims them to be made in the spirit of good academic critique." Well you are probably right here. I say that not because I'm familiar with PZ's reactions to EP in detail, but because I find PZ to be an intellectually dishoenst, petty asshole in general. OTOH I've heard some absurd claims made about PZ and Rebecca Watson with respect to EP such as "they don't believe evolution plays any role in our thinking" or "they believe humans are blank slates", which they haven't been able to back up.

I wouldn't level those charges against him myself, I can understand the feelings of those that do. PZ has a number of times said stuff like "plasticity is everything" - this differs from the notion of an effective blank slate ... how?

Also various people, Jerry Coyne, Steven Pinker, Ed Clint, Jesse Marczyk and Chas Peterson, have entered PZ's ambit with the intention of talking seriously about the issue and he has either ignored or dismissed them.

So the impression I'm left with is that despite his protests that he isn't a "blank slater" that is little more than the minimum he needs to do to retain an air of scientific credibility on the issue.

And I found Ed Clint's critique of Waton's anti-EP talk to be over the top and ridiculous on some points. Even though Watson's talk was lazily researched and involved some false generalizing. So I'd say there's some irrationality and dishonesty on both sides of the argument.

Where would you say Ed was irrational or dishonest? For my taste he spent too much of the post talking about his impression of her as a denier - whereas the interesting stuff was in her list of mistakes - but that's a matter of taste - I can't see where he was technically wrong about her, and in a couple of issues he was too generous in taking her word for things.

I don't understand how those quotes demonstrate that Sarah Blaffer Hrdy is massively indebted to evolutionary psychology.

Well for example when she says:

Custom, language, and personal experiences shape the specifics, but the urge to share is hard-wired, and neurophysiologists are getting to the point where they can actually monitor, if still only crudely, the pleasure humans derive from being generous, helping, and sharing.
- Mothers and Others, page 25.

She is talking about the search for innate mechanisms which is central to EP.

We are told again and again that "the human ability to generate in-group amity often goes hand in hand with out-group enmity." Such generalisations are probably accurate enough for humans where groups are in competition with one another for resources, but how much sense would it have made for our Pleistocene ancestors eking out a living in the woodland and savannahs of tropical Africa to fight with neighbouring groups rather than just moving?
- Mothers and Others, page 19.

Which illustrates the importance of the Pleistocene which is central to EP.

The fact that humans are better equipped to cooperate than other apes does not mean that men do not compete with one another for status or for access to mates, or that women are not fiercely competitive in the domains that matter to them, striving for desirable mates, local clout and access to resources for themselves and their children.
- Mothers and Others, page 11.

The sort of sex differences explored by EP.

It's highly doubtful to me that Sarah would be citing such ideas without EP, so for the article to suggest otherwise (as it seems to do to me) is misleading.

Wait are you saying that because the book How the Mind Works doesn't rely heavily on adaptationalism that that suggests EvoPsych doesn't rely heavily on adaptationalism? It's just a pop science book and I don't think it can be described as an EP book even if it contains some EP.

It really is the central piece of primary literature at this point in time. Yes it's "pop" (I'd argue that it's pretty heavy on the science for a pop book myself) but it's pop in the way that On the Origin of Species or Brief History of Time is pop. In other words it does a better job of illustrating the field than reading a dozen papers or so will.

Out of curiosity, Dave, what would you say is the most important (or one of the most important) contributions of evolutionary psychology to human knowledge?

Theory of Mind is my particular favourite - and is having some practical applications in illustrating what it is about the psychology of classic autism that differs from the neurotypical mind. The undermining of a behaviourist bias in explaining human behaviour is another important factor. Beyond that it's mostly an appreciation of it's explanatory power - but for a young field to have those two under it's belt is potentially of great practical value.

[Suet Cardigan]

Thanks for posting that. I now have an image in my mind of Oolon and Big Red doing it. Someone pass the fucking mind bleach.

[James Caruthers]

Big red wouldn't be so bad looking without that shitty dye job and hipster glasses. Oh, and the fake lab coat.

Basically, if she stopped being a hipster, she would be reasonably attractive. Out of Oolon's league, honestly.

[Cunt of Personality]

Big red wouldn't be so bad looking without that shitty dye job and hipster glasses. Oh, and the fake lab coat.

Basically, if she stopped being a hipster, she would be reasonably attractive. Out of Oolon's league, honestly.

Yeah, it really is a shame that she goes for the comedy hipster look because it seems like she has a great personality disorder.

[jimthepleb]

....

Ahahahah nice, I was just going to make a similar type of comment, but a 'shop is worth a thousand words (sorry Steers ;()

:) No problemo. Generally agree with you, although I find that at times a few thousand or so words can be worth a picture; kind of depends on context .... ;-)

ftfy steers me auld mucker.

[Gumby]

New FtB blogger recruitment poster - "Freethought Calling!"

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... aadf12.jpg

Complete with Comrade Ophie holding the Porcupine Manifesto.

[Gumby]

Oh, and props to Google Translate.

[Dick Strawkins]

New FtB blogger recruitment poster - "Freethought Calling!"

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... aadf12.jpg

Complete with Comrade Ophie holding the Porcupine Manifesto.

She has a starling resemblance to one of the villains of Kickass 2, Mother Russia.

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... ina%29.png

[Service Dog]

Ophie's "in your face" Lysergic Acid Attack on Small Boy at Christian Event

http://i.imgur.com/GIdWpqh.jpg

Although any decent atheist would today condemn such extreme activist pedagogy,
1974 was a different time,
and I am wary of judging Ophie by the standards we would apply today.

On the bright side,
one of her Easter Sunday victims grew up to be a model atheist
and a brave hero,
but I disagree with Dawkins' claim that there were no lasting effects.

http://i.imgur.com/tt2ZdIK.jpg

[justinvacula]

Final day of live-tweeting at #FFRF2013...just a member's meeting today.

http://i.imgur.com/1wKKU6B.jpg

^^ Picture with sole protester

[debaser71]

For me, the bottom line is that much of E.P. is dragged down by the general lousiness of social science. Theory of Mind being a good example of what's wrong with social sciences. The social sciences have a large amount of garbage that is considered data. Obviously if your data is garbage your results will be garbage too.

http://www.parentingscience.com/cogniti ... pment.html

Talks about what's wrong with some of the ToM experiments done on young children.

[screwtape]

Evo Psych is simply ethology applied to the genus homo.

A very perceptive comment, and one that might explain the attraction of EvoPsych. Ethology's just-so stories are remarkably attractive, even when completely wrong. In my case, I found a copy of Ardrey's The Social Contract when I was 18 and it was in my girlfriend's father's bookcase. Having read it I went on to read Rousseau's version, and stuck with Jean-Jacques till I finally completed his Confessions (the naughty bits are not worth the effort, and weren't even in the mid-1970's when I was reading it). After that I was no longer daunted by the idea of reading political tomes written long ago, and I still thank Robert Ardrey for it, even though I recognise the almost completely imaginary nature of his version of the Social Contract. Imagination is a good thing in that it allows us to create hypotheses, some of which can be tested (those of evo-psych - I can't imagine how) and it is both entertaining and informative for those capable of holding a concept as tentative in their minds to use imagination as a rough-cut tool in the scientific method. Now, ethologists such as Ardrey did apply their ideas to homo, and The Territorial Imperative attempted to explain, amongst other things, the reason for America's loss of the war in Vietnam. Ardrey obviously didn't buy into Ambrose Bierce's view that "war is God's way of teaching Americans geography." (Which is a splendid thing as I have been waiting to use that quote for years.) So, yeah, I approve of Evo-Psych as kind of game that might just teach us to use our imaginations for a useful purpose, and no, it isn't a science.

Screw
Still married to that girlfriend 37 years later.

[Hemisphere]

For me, the bottom line is that much of E.P. is dragged down by the general lousiness of social science. Theory of Mind being a good example of what's wrong with social sciences. The social sciences have a large amount of garbage that is considered data. Obviously if your data is garbage your results will be garbage too.

http://www.parentingscience.com/cogniti ... pment.html

Talks about what's wrong with some of the ToM experiments done on young children.

That article doesn't seem to mention any of the ToM experiments that were conducted on infants w/o any verbal questioning or instructions, but instead monitors their attention to certain events in which actors hold false beliefs (for example Onishi and Baillergeon, 2005; or Buttelmann et al., 2009). These experiments typically show that below 15 months old the infants are unable to understand the concept that someone can believe something that is false, whereas 18 month old's are markedly superior. I think it's somewhat rash to blame all cognitive failures that children seem to uniquely experience (in various age ranges) on the experimenters' use of language.

[Parody Accountant]

New FtB blogger recruitment poster - "Freethought Calling!"

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... aadf12.jpg

Complete with Comrade Ophie holding the Porcupine Manifesto.

Gumby - you've leveled up recently. 10/10.

[Parody Accountant]

Service dog you are mad cap.

bwahahaha

[Dick Strawkins]

Potential for some sparks from this one...

Anne-Marie Waters is the co-director of the organization 'One Law for All', a UK based group that campaigns against Sharia Law being applied within secular societies - and thus leading to a two tiered system of justice (and hence, the fact that muslim women would be subjected to Islamic law rather than be treated as equal to men.)
http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/

Waters is well known for being a brave outspoken campaigner on this issue and as such has run into problems with the SJW left of the UK who believe in multicultural relativism - and thus find it easy to excuse Islamic misogyny and criticise those like Waters who oppose it.

Waters has just written a scathing post about PZ Myers treatment of Pat Condells recent video.
I'll quote the whole thing as it is worth reading in total.

The reason why this post may be important is that Myers cannot simply dismiss her as a silly anti-feminist, or as a racist.
If he does he may run into the problem that Waters co-director of 'One Law for All' is (current FTB blogger) Maryam Namazie.

:popcorn:

I'll have to quote her post in the following message due to character limits.

[Dick Strawkins]

In defence of Pat Condell



Whilst I realise that a certain Mr Pat Condell hardly requires defending from me, I am the nosey and interfering type (apparently) so I insist on adding my tuppence worth nonetheless.



Now I know that the “so-and-so follows so-and-so on Twitter who once retweeted so-and-so who once agreed with so-and-so and therefore they’re all bigots” brigade will label me a fellow racist of Condell’s, but they shouldn’t bother. I cottoned on to that dirty little game a long ago and I refuse to play it. I don’t agree with every word Condell says, but amazingly that doesn’t stop me recognising that he has raised a solid point here, and that calling him a racist for doing so is grossly dishonest, and yet another attempt to silence criticism of anything related to Islam or Islamism.



Anyway, on with the story.



Earlier this week, PZ Myers offered a rather disingenuous analysis of Pat Condell’s latest video “The Curse of Progressive Feminism”. He began by calling Pat a “racist cretin”, thereby devaluing the once-powerful word racist even further than it already has been by people like him.



Much of the post is a misrepresentation and an evasion of the points Condell actually raised.



Here is the first point of many:



Condell: ”progressive” feminists who confidently challenge everyday sexism but who are struck deaf and dumb by Islamic misogyny…they turn a blind eye to religiously endorsed wife-beating, forced marriage, honour killing, genital mutilation, organised rape gangs, sharia courts that treat women as less than fully human, and little girls forced to dress like nuns”.



Myers: “I really don’t know of any feminists who think anything on that list is at all acceptable. Who are these mysterious feminists who have no problem with honor killing or rape gangs?”



Pat didn’t quite say that though, did he? At no point did Condell state that “progressive western feminists” have “no problem” with the horrors listed above, but that the majority of them remain silent and do absolutely nothing about it. Simultaneously, all over Twitter you will find campaigns to stop Tesco/Asda/Whoever from stocking magazines that might contain a picture of a woman’s breasts.



Condell’s question is a good one, and I wouldn’t mind an answer either – where are all those feminists on matters concerning Islam?



Let me tell you from vast experience, if you ask your average politically active feminist whether she condemns domestic violence, forced marriage, genital mutilation or any of the rest of it, she will insist that she does – and then she will do precisely zero.



Even worse than that is the demonization of those of us who do. I have personally sat through many meetings of “feminists” who spend endless hours agonizing about Page 3, and I have myself been reprimanded by those very same “feminists” for raising the issue of FGM. “We don’t want to alienate the Somali community” I’ve been told. The maiming of Somali girls doesn’t seem to feature on their radar. By “Somali community” who they actually mean are Somali patriarchs who (it seems) should be able to rule over their women-folk and mutilate them at will. Anything else would be culturally insensitive and stir up division (that’s a big favourite – it never seems to occur to them that FGM itself may be stirring up division).



On another occasion, I sat with a “women’s forum”, a body specifically set up to promote an “inclusive” feminism. Having suggested that the burqa, and what it respresents (“the covering of women prevents rape”), might not be an entirely positive step forward; I was told that the burqa “must be looked at in a cultural context” and to shut up about it. The obligatory racist implication wasn’t far behind when I was asked, quite sternly, whether I condemned thongs as well. I’m still not sure quite what the two things have in common but I had grown too weary to argue.



In April, the BBC screened a Panorama episode featuring an undercover reporter who attended the Islamic Sharia Council in east London and told a senior cleric there, Suhaib Hasan, that her husband had been violent towards her. Hasan was quick to ask the reporter just what she had done to deserve such treatment. He suggested that she ask her husband “is it because of my cooking? Because I see my friends?”. He then advised that she “correct” herself in accordance with his response.



You might expect feminist organisations the length and breadth of Britain to immediately launch a plethora of campaigns and demand that the Government take firm action against such vile and dangerous misogyny. But no, no they didn’t.



I wrote to the Campaign Against Domestic Violence to ask them when I could expect the launch of their crusade to end sharia-approved domestic violence. They didn’t answer. “They’re probably too busy with the campaign” I thought, so I went to their website to check. Nothing there either.



Around the same time, pictures of TV chef Nigella Lawson with her husband’s hand on her throat were splashed all over the press. The high-profile domestic violence campaign group Refuge issued a statement on this, part of which read: “But the fact is, if a woman lives in a state of fear, changing her behaviour to avoid making her partner angry, she is being abused.” It also stated “Domestic violence is a serious crime. It has no place in our so-called civilised society.”



Of course I agree with every word, but there was no statement from Refuge following the Panorama broadcast, nor has there been one on sharia law generally. This is despite the fact that sharia law allows men to beat their wives (provided they leave no marks of course).



When Maryam Namazie and I debated Ahmaddiyya Muslims at UCL in 2011, part of the debate centred around domestic violence. There was no dispute from the other side about whether a man may hit his wife, but how hard. This is sharia law; but do a search for sharia on the website of Refuge and you’ll find zero results.



Similarly, Women’s Aid, another otherwise admirable organisation that fights domestic violence, has issued no statement, launched no campaign, and the only mentions of sharia on their website are on their forum (3 examples) which are written by users, not the campaign group itself.



The Fawcett Society, “working for women’s rights since 1866”, has zero to say about sharia either – search their site for yourself.



This is not limited to feminist organisations either. Other groups, and mainstream parties, are completely silent on the misogyny (and the homophobia) of Islamists. When was the last time Labour, or the Lib Dems, condemned sharia-based sexism and brutality? They haven’t. They let it carry on with absolute impunity while condemning domestic violence elsewhere. None of the main parties had anything to say about Mr Hasan's comments on Panorama either.



Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, was forced to issue a statement on Nigella Lawson saying he condemned “all forms of domestic violence”. He did so after he was criticised for his reply on a radio show when asked what he would have done if he had seen the incident involving Lawson and her husband; he answered “When you see a couple having an argument…most people, you know, just assume that the couple will resolve it themselves. If of course something descends into outright violence then that’s something different”.



Who jumped to criticise Clegg? Yvette Cooper of the Labour Party. She said "Nick Clegg revealed how little he understands violence against women this morning. Far too often violence against women is dismissed as fleeting or unimportant. Too often public institutions don't take it seriously enough. Domestic violence is still a hidden crime, and victims suffer or are ignored as a result”. Get that? “Victims suffer or are ignored”. Now, see if you can find Yvette Cooper speaking out against the Islamic Sharia Council. I’ve tried. I couldn't.



In his post, Myers later says: “I do see plenty of conservative racist dorks turning a blind eye to the fact that the majority of the victims of Islamic misogyny are Muslim women”.



False again. Condell did not turn a blind eye to this at all. He clearly addresses the fact that women in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia “who get beaten every day, will continue to be beaten and treated as a piece of property, as will their daughters and granddaughters”. I think Condell does acknowledge that Muslim women are the ones who suffer, it is Myers who doesn’t. He added “You know that backward, ugly attitude? Islam didn’t invent it. We’ve got plenty of it to go around in the western world as well”.



This is a gross insult to every single suffering woman in every single Islamic state on the planet.

[Dick Strawkins]

Final part of Waters post:

Yes, there is misogyny and violence against women in the west but to compare it to what women face in Islamic states demonstrates total ignorance, and is a crass belittlement of the true horror of life for females under sharia law. I wonder if Mr Myers has ever tried to help a woman escape from Saudi Arabia, or find a safe place in Pakistan. I’m guessing he hasn’t, but I have, and I can tell you it is nothing short of a nightmare. I wonder if he has ever had a phone-call from a frightened girl escaping a forced marriage but who can’t turn to a woman’s shelter because they might turn her over to her father. I’m guessing he hasn’t, but I have.



When women in west face violence, the law – though imperfect – tends to be on their side. Try finding a safe house in Pakistan or Saudi, or a police station women can turn to without the risk of being handed over to their families, or punished for running away. They often have absolutely nowhere to turn and to compare their plight to western sexism is nothing short of disgusting; not to mention a kick in the teeth for the brave women across the Islamic world who risk their lives every day fighting for the basic rights and freedoms that most western women take for granted.



Condell is absolutely right about this. Most “western progressive feminists” do ignore misogyny carried out in the name of Islam (in the case of sharia), or any misogynist practice rightly or wrongly associated with Islam.



I see it over and over again.



I don’t know what world PZ Myers lives in, but he needs to spend more time with some “progressive western feminists” and see exactly what the majority of them are thinking. They’re not thinking about Islam, that much I can promise him.

[debaser71]

For me, the bottom line is that much of E.P. is dragged down by the general lousiness of social science. Theory of Mind being a good example of what's wrong with social sciences. The social sciences have a large amount of garbage that is considered data. Obviously if your data is garbage your results will be garbage too.

http://www.parentingscience.com/cogniti ... pment.html

Talks about what's wrong with some of the ToM experiments done on young children.

That article doesn't seem to mention any of the ToM experiments that were conducted on infants w/o any verbal questioning or instructions, but instead monitors their attention to certain events in which actors hold false beliefs (for example Onishi and Baillergeon, 2005; or Buttelmann et al., 2009). These experiments typically show that below 15 months old the infants are unable to understand the concept that someone can believe something that is false, whereas 18 month old's are markedly superior. I think it's somewhat rash to blame all cognitive failures that children seem to uniquely experience (in various age ranges) on the experimenters' use of language.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101223/ ... 0.697.html
http://www.livescience.com/10924-7-mont ... oints.html

Anyway, and more in general, I thinks it's rash to base theories on bad experiments. I think much of the social sciences are still in the thoughtful speculation phase. Sort of like how serious astronomers would be without a telescope. Useful information can still be gathered and useful ideas created.

[Service Dog]

"In April, the BBC screened a Panorama episode featuring an undercover reporter who attended the Islamic Sharia Council in east London and told a senior cleric there, Suhaib Hasan, that her husband had been violent towards her. Hasan was quick to ask the reporter just what she had done to deserve such treatment. He suggested that she ask her husband “is it because of my cooking? Because I see my friends?”. He then advised that she “correct” herself in accordance with his response."

Ant-Hotel Tah-Jah Low-Knee Shah-tira

انتقل تجعلني شطيرة

http://translate.google.com/?tl=ar#auto ... 8%B1%D8%A9

[Dave2]

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101223/ ... 0.697.html
http://www.livescience.com/10924-7-mont ... oints.html

Anyway, and more in general, I thinks it's rash to base theories on bad experiments.

Yet the experiments you link to above illustrate the same theory. So are you denying the theory (because you feel shortcomings in a given experiment are somehow fatal to the theory's illustration) or citing it (by linking to examples of where it is taken for granted)?

What is illustrated by the links above is that aspects of Theory of Mind kick in earlier than others, and this is not news to psychologists who have recognised for a long time that - for example - babies will imitate facial expressions within minutes of birth. That sort of thing is crude empathy. Sally-Anne type tests don't show the whole picture, but do illustrate a certain degree of empathy developing, apparently unbidden, during a certain stage of child development. That some researchers can apparently break the experiment by altering it's design doesn't mean an awful lot.

[KenD]

Waters has just written a scathing post about PZ Myers treatment of Pat Condells recent video.
I'll quote the whole thing as it is worth reading in total.

Waters is spot on. Most mainstream feminists aren't actively defending Islamic sexism, but it's telling that they're generally too busy condemning Blurred Lines as a "rape anthem", talking about how "triggered" they are by seeing a thin woman in a bikini, or arguing about whether you can wear high heels and still be a feminist, to say anything about fundamentalists pushing Sharia law and defending domestic abuse.

This is particularly familiar from various feminist discussions:

On another occasion, I sat with a “women’s forum”, a body specifically set up to promote an “inclusive” feminism. Having suggested that the burqa, and what it respresents (“the covering of women prevents rape”), might not be an entirely positive step forward; I was told that the burqa “must be looked at in a cultural context” and to shut up about it. The obligatory racist implication wasn’t far behind when I was asked, quite sternly, whether I condemned thongs as well.

Feminists usually won't outright defend something like the burqa, but they'll evade discussing it by bringing up problem they have with Western society, as if it's wrong for people to criticise worse things in other cultures while their own isn't perfect. You can't discuss the forced wearing of the burqa, FGM, or domestic violence in Islamic culture, while thong undies, page 3 of The Sun, and Grand Theft Auto 5 still exist in the West.

[Tony Parsehole]

Potential for some sparks from this one...

Anne-Marie Waters is the co-director of the organization 'One Law for All', a UK based group that campaigns against Sharia Law being applied within secular societies - and thus leading to a two tiered system of justice (and hence, the fact that muslim women would be subjected to Islamic law rather than be treated as equal to men.)
http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/

Waters is well known for being a brave outspoken campaigner on this issue and as such has run into problems with the SJW left of the UK who believe in multicultural relativism - and thus find it easy to excuse Islamic misogyny and criticise those like Waters who oppose it.

Waters has just written a scathing post about PZ Myers treatment of Pat Condells recent video.
I'll quote the whole thing as it is worth reading in total.

The reason why this post may be important is that Myers cannot simply dismiss her as a silly anti-feminist, or as a racist.
If he does he may run into the problem that Waters co-director of 'One Law for All' is (current FTB blogger) Maryam Namazie.

:popcorn:

I'll have to quote her post in the following message due to character limits.

The link to the blogpost and yes, it's quite interesting.
http://www.annemariewaters.org/home/blog/

[Gumby]

Gumby - you've leveled up recently. 10/10.

Thanks... but as usual after I posted it I found things that needed improvement. Here's the final version with Comrade Ophie's face tweaked to fit in more with the original propaganda poster.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 1fecac.jpg

[Parody Accountant]

had to look side by side, but once I looked, it was a definite and worthy improvement.

I hate that.

[free thoughtpolice]

From Water's post:

When women in west face violence, the law – though imperfect – tends to be on their side. Try finding a safe house in Pakistan or Saudi, or a police station women can turn to without the risk of being handed over to their families, or punished for running away. They often have absolutely nowhere to turn and to compare their plight to western sexism is nothing short of disgusting; not to mention a kick in the teeth for the brave women across the Islamic world who risk their lives every day fighting for the basic rights and freedoms that most western women take for granted.

This very clearly says what Dawkins was talking about in his "Dear Muslima" comment.
I guess Anne Marie Waters now qualifies as a misogynist white supremacist too.

[feathers]

I don’t know what world PZ Myers lives in, but he needs to spend more time with some “progressive western feminists” and see exactly what the majority of them are thinking. They’re not thinking about Islam, that much I can promise him.

Well no, that is precisely the problem- he's spent too much time there already.

[Badger3k]

I don’t know what world PZ Myers lives in, but he needs to spend more time with some “progressive western feminists” and see exactly what the majority of them are thinking. They’re not thinking about Islam, that much I can promise him.

Well no, that is precisely the problem- he's spent too much time there already.

I think if we added something like "and he needs to critically examine what they do" to it, it might be better, assuming he is capable of looking at them without his ideological glasses on (which is in doubt).