Why is evolutionary psychology so controversial?

>>17826690 (OP)
Tabula rasa is still taken for granted. I mean after all the average normie is a liberal (not American use of liberal, like liberal from a world view point of view)

Because "muh feelings!"
People with sub-100 IQs think that applying the sceintific method to human psychology and behavior trivializes the human experience. It doesn't unless you choose to look at it that way, which people with a tiny brain tend to do for some reason

Because we wuz furry animals for much longer than we wuz apes, but we wuz scaly amniotes for much longer than we wuz furry animals, and we lived under da sea for much longer than we lived on trees or crawled on the floor, and we wuz unicellular organisms for much longer than we ever wuz multicellular heterotrophs, so evolutionary psychology is inherently untrustworthy because it is most heavily biased towards behavior that is currently present and clearly evident in humans that has its origins at a relatively late evolutionary stage that is not old enough so as to become completely obsolete and to have been completely discarded, but still relatively old enough to sound like it's no longer part of our lifestyles as "civilized" human beings.

>>17826708
granted, I see some applicability to phenomenological approaches just as the same as positivist approaches, its best to operate in shades of grey when tackling complex subjects like human behavior and cognition anyways.

>>17826690 (OP)
Because premodernists (mystics) think we were created perfectly in the image of their imaginary friend. Postmodernists (trannies) think should all be the same in some scary egalitarian totalitarian system.
Applying evolutionary psychology we find out man evolved, survived and eventually conquered nature by using his incredibly complex mind to change reality to his will. If we keep this in mind, initiating force on a human is bypassing that mind and mistreating a human. This leaves reciprocal individual freedom as laissez-faire free market as the only moral system. Pre- and postmodernists can only thrive when they control the masses so capitalism has been deemed yucky and "selfish" i.e. why are you trying to live a good life for yourself and your family when you should be sacrificing to the collective?

In addition to the above reasons, evopsych hypotheses are usually impossible to verify or falsify. A lot of them sound very plausible and I personally think many of them make sense, but it's hard to objectively judge them without your own modern worldview coloring things in a way that isn't true of say, cell biology or biochemistry.

>>17826690 (OP)
Evopsych is when you capture all the wolves and lock them up in randomized groups so that each of them can finally have its Alpha male.

As nature intended.

>>17826690 (OP)
That's a jew.

>>17826690 (OP)
it's built on evolution, which is a lie

>>17826690 (OP)
Because a lot of it is pseudoscientific and unprovable. It’s the same problem normal psychology has
>Oh, this person has a mommy fetish? It’s because their great x200 grandfather had to fuck their own mother to procreate because they couldn’t find any suitable mates
There’s some good stuff in Ev-Psych but a lot of it is like the above

>>17826734
> This leaves reciprocal individual freedom as laissez-faire free market as the only moral system
But morals are fake in ev-psych. They are only a survival mechanism that can be discarded when inconvenient

>>17826690 (OP)
Because it undermines feminism by showing there are intrinsic, immutable differences between men and women

>>17826690 (OP)
Because it's basically impossible to know why most psychological traits evolved because we don't know when they appeared or what the people who acquired them were like mentally or how their society was or what specific environmental pressures they were facing. Fossils aren't good at telling us what went on in people's heads. I mean you can assume some obvious, surface level stuff, like the reason most women like muscular guys is because strength was necessary for survival, but you very quickly get into ungrounded speculation.

>>17827467
Except with normal psychology we can gather data on the persons life and ask them questions on their relationships that make it easier to understand their thoughts process. It’s close to impossible to do that in Evolutionary Psychology.

>>17826690 (OP)
Academia is largely centrally steered and it was an attempt at driving new paradigm that the controllers didn't like, so instead of grants being given to evo-psych researchers you've had grants being given to people who poo poo on them.

The field had tendency of some complete hacks latching onto it, failed hypotheses etc. etc. but this is normal when you're trying something new, sadly because academia adopted "fair" measures to rate academic performance and again, used it to distribute grants it means that majority of fields, especially in humanities are stuck in the 1970's.

>>17827507
In evolutionary psychology you can just do quantitative genetics instead.

because it contradicts the libcuck egalitarian dogma that all humans are born the same
And secondly it contradicts another libcuck dogma that they hold almost as dear which is that all humans are born with a blank slate such that all human behaviour is culturally learned and malleable.

same reason why libcucks seethe and bend over backwards making retarded excuses to deny behavioural genetics and IQ

>>17826690 (OP)
I think people are upset because it's information, but without telling you how to feel about it. There's nothing good or bad about evolutionary psychology, you can use the information for good or bad. I am personally fascinated with the field, it's helped elevate my interpersonal relationships and sexual strategy.

>>17826734
It's not just post modernists but liberals in general.

Even in 1800s liberal academics and philosophers were repeating the claim that all humans were born the same and only end up different due to how they're raised.

https://ncofnas.com/p/why-we-need-to-talk-about-the-rights

>The central tenet of wokism, namely, psychological equality, was first expressed by the English philosopher John Locke in 1690. Locke—the father of both blank slatism and political liberalism—declared that the human mind begins as “white paper, void of all characters.” In regard to race, he wrote:

>Had you or I been born at the Bay of Soldania, possibly our thoughts and notions had not exceeded those brutish ones of the Hottentots that inhabit there. And had the Virginia king Apochancana been educated in England, he had been perhaps as knowing a divine, and as good a mathematician as any in it; the difference between him and a more improved Englishman lying barely in this, that the exercise of his faculties was bounded within the ways, modes, and notions of his own country, and never directed to any other or further inquiries.

>In other words, race differences are environmental. In 1758, Claude-Adrien Helvétius, who was arguably more influential than Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the decades preceding the Revolution in France, developed a radically egalitarian political philosophy based on Lockean psychology. Another English philosopher, John Stuart Mill, may have been the first liberal in a semi-contemporary sense, and he was a Lockean with respect to group differences. In 1848, he wrote that “attributing the diversities of conduct and character to inherent natural influences” is the “most vulgar” way of “escaping from the consideration of the effects of social influences on the human mind.” In 1873, he wrote that “by far the greater part of those differences, whether between individuals, races, or sexes,” are “produced by differences in circumstances.”

>>17827467
not in modern Evopsych.
Modern Evopsych uses evolutionary theory to generate hypotheses, then gathers data to test these hypotheses.

Infact I think that has been the norm for peer reviewed evopsych papers for decades.

I get the impression from reading things like
>>Oh, this person has a mommy fetish? It’s because their great x200 grandfather had to fuck their own mother to procreate because they couldn’t find any suitable mates
that anti-evopsych people think that evopsych is just when any poster or journalist looks at some data and then makes up an evolutionary just so story afterwards
like this guy >>17827507 seems not to have a clue about the fact that evolutionary psychologists generate hypotheses then gather data to test them afterwards.

There was a great article on Areomagazine called "evolutionary psychology: predictively powerful or riddled with just so stories?" which linked to a bunch of different examples of evopsych creating testable predictions first then gathering data to test them , but unfortunately the magazine has been taken down now and only an abbreviated version remains online
http://evolutionmoralitypolitics.com/evolutionary-psychology-predictively-powerful-or-riddled-with-just-so-stories-by-laith-al-shawaf-areo-magazine/

>>17827615
Just wondering, is Elon rich enough to single-handedly destroy the statistic relation between IQ and economic outcome?

>>17827642
elon is high IQ

>>17827473
If you are utilitarian yes, but otherwise no. Utilitarianism is the explicit ignoring of principles for convenience.

>>17827615
Protip: Modern liberals are postmodernist.

>>17826690 (OP)
Never heard of it so it's probably irrelevant

>>17826708
>>17827473
>>17827503
>>17827607
Like racism, it's deterministic and sure to be misused by ordinary people. The average person doesn't understand why everything they study seems to have deep universal truth in it. Just because something is resoundingly true doesn't mean the world is different from how you thought it was before learning. Great truths are everywhere you look.

>civilization literally being held at gunpoint to deny reality for muh feels

Will the leftwing postmodern dystopia ever end

>>17828576
they humored German ultra literalists to see exactly how superior aryans were. Want to go again?

>>17826734
>If we keep this in mind, initiating force on a human is bypassing that mind and mistreating a human.
What if I can get away with killing all of you and excuse it as "le evolutionary pressure"?
Your beliefs are tautological and have as much basis as bith mystics and postmodernists which simply is "it's just ok?", your argument only goes as long as the group convices itself you need to enforce it.

>>17826708
How is evolutionary psychology scientific?
What falsifiable hypothesis have been proposed that may be tested in a controlled experiment?

>>17830007
Cope, name one other reason humans have survived on earth other then "their mind is the best on earth". We're not half as strong, fast or tough as most creatures out there. Our mind is our only chance of survival.

>>17827642
>Just wondering, is Elon rich enough to single-handedly destroy the statistic relation between IQ and economic outcome?
No, because he spends all his time being a ketamine-addicted retard who shitposts and desperately seeks approval from the ignorant, unwashed masses.

>>17827681
>elon is high IQ
Every time he posts something retarded (and then deletes it) I become more and more convinced he's just another lucky richfag.

>>17827642
I misread your post lol >>17830610
For some reason, I thought you mean "destroy" as in "disprove" through scientific refutation.
Elon is just a horrific disappointment to me.

Asserting conclusions with no evidence or rigor is typically looked down upon. It's in the same boat as general psychology, sociology, and economics.