In my sedentary state I have been reading a ton of fascinating books on evolutionary psychology.
Like evolutionsim, the idea is that our psychology is a function of our ancestral past. The book that introduced me to the idea is called “The Moral Animal” by Robert Wright.
Such social phenomena as kin selection (I will treat you as a friend/brother/sister) and reciprocal altruism (you pick my nits, I’ll pick yours) are explained clearly by this idea and nonzero sum game theory.
Just wondering whachall think, if you’ve heard of this, especially Billy the Mountain and Cathwood!
Sorry, really late/early in the morning here, so there is every possibility that I am not thinking clearly, but isn’t it the case that evolutionary psychology is simply a branch of standard, or genetic evolution?
i.e. in that the nit picking and kin preference stuff favours particular genes? Isn’t the whole thing more biological than psychological?
Am now waiting for Mr the Mountain and Ms Wood to respond and put my in my place…
Oh, I haven’t read “The Moral Animal” so just have Richard Dawkins to go on.
Yes S7veO, it is an extention od Darwinism. Darwin didn’t have genes to work with, they hadn’t been discovered and he didn’t extend his ideas to behavior, but it isn’t a big leap even though it took about 80 years to make.
Here is a picture drawn by Paul Kleein 1904 called “Two men meet, each supposing the other to be of superior rank.” the painting is old, but the behavior it portrays is very much in keeping with the notions of this type of psychology is behave respectfully around the alpha to win the possibility of reproduction/resouce privledges.
About the feminism, Darwinism came before feminism, yes, and evolutionary psychology definitely acknowledges that women MUST invest more of their resources in each offspring and men MUST invest resources in more offspring, thereby resulting in substantial differences in mating and social strategies between the genders. The way I have always viewed gender politics is different but with equal rights.
Evolutionary psychology seems to support strategical differences between the genders, but I have not encountered any inquiry or conclusions into differences among races, although I am just introducing myself to this.
It seems to explain a lot, even about me, and I am usually a conundrum! I also think it is a pwerful tool that draws connections between humanity and other life on our planet. Maybe it can help us have empathy and respect for some of our fellow Earthlings ig we see that we’re made of the same stuff physically and psychologically.
Mostly, though, it should help you understand your man’s desire to be promiscuous, and it should help your man understand that you’re saying no to him tonight in the hopes you’ll get the opportunity to offer your egg to a man with better genes (even if you CLAIM you have a headache).
It’ll help you both understand why superficial appearances are a major factor in mating (facial symmetry) and why women have children with a man who reliably gives them orgasms, because a considerate lover will be a sensitive stable father.
I’m not really that high on all that stuff, actually.
I prefer idiographic understanding over this nomothetic stuff. I’m more psychological than sociological/anthropological.
Bill Maher is a smart and insightful observer. But occassionally, not often enough, the middle ground between boredom and disgust is discovered. That’s what’s worth living for.
I have read evolutionary psychology books that argue that all mental health problems/psychological distress can be explained in evolutionary terms. Depression being a functional reaction to loss of status, etc. But:
a) this kind of explanation doesn’t help anyone who is depressed
b) it all seems a bit contrived to me
c) it can be used against me
d) like Billy I would prefer an idoegraphic formulation of a person’s difficulties every time.
