- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topics
- Tests
- Magazine
- Psych Basics
- Blogs
- Diagnosis Dictionary
A few weeks ago I commented to a colleague that PT blogger Satoshi Kanazawa only wrote one of his recent posts so that someone would write a parody of that post. There could be no other explanation. Apparently I was right. Read More
Finally, a PT blogger with
Finally, a PT blogger with backhanded humor.
Cool post!
Cool post!
cool
yes, cool post. but you should use the "reply to this post" at the bottom of the Phelps piece feature so Kanazawa's readers will see a link to your post.
Let's face it Satoshi is
Let's face it Satoshi is right. It's obvious though it goes without saying. Of course Phelps pushes himself because of his in built drive to be better than other males in order to get the girls. Need for a female is for reproductions so yes Kanazawa was right. But yes it was obvious.
Other reasons would be a need to make money in order to build up a home or nest in order to raise the children in. It's all about reproduction which if i am not mistake is what Satoshi was talking about.
It does not really matter whether anyone parodies his stuff or not. I think the central theme he argues is spot on.
obvious, maybe; true, not really
There is a world of
There is a world of difference between males doing everything in order to have sex. And males doing everything in order to increase chances of reproductive success. Women do the same thing but they do it in a different way because they have different interests involved. The way to increase reproductive success does not mean that everyone is always aggressive in their pursuit of females.
There are various ideas about why homosexual humans get up in the morning. After all we are not designed we are not a perfect being, we are an evolved animal.
Why would someone retire early. Well surely once reproductive success is acheived then the human starts to wind down. Obviously still wanting to avoid dying, and to prefer comfort. But the drive to reproduce has disipated somewhat and therefore their need for competition also dies down. Not just their mind but their body has no longer a reason to be competitive in the jungle and just dies. As it has acheived what it has evolved to do. I mean if OAPs went crazy when they got older then i would admit that it counters evolutionary ideas, but it all makes sense.
The questions you ask are not mysterious at all in the eyes of evolution.
I actually find it hard to understand how anything else could be true. Please enlighten me as to why evolution could not have affected everything. As i cannot think of any other explanation.
I am abit confused as to your position, do you accept that Evolutionary principles have affected the way the brain has developed? Is your arguement that Kanazawa's interpretation of the ideas are wrong and not the central idea itself? Are you religious?
I'll check out your book, of course. But i'll have to wait till it's published.
Awesome. I have to ask though, you seem like you are promoting a loving image, but you have alot of aggression towards this evolutionary psychology stance. Is there something about it that if it is true that you would question the way you feel about your relationship with your wife? I presume this is Chris that has written. I agree most definatly that an obessession with the logic of evolution will not seduce a women into bed. But then out logical side was never meant to induce pleasurable trances into the minds of the female opposite. That was not the part of the mind which evolved to do that.
Anyway i look forward to reading your book, it's always good to get different points of view. Unless it's got religious undertones in which case i won't waste my time.
p.s.
Archangel Mikael,
Archangel Mikael,
Disagreeing with Kanazawa's evolutionary stance (no matter how 'intuitive' or common sense to you it may seem) on the basis of scientific evidence running contrary to it, does not imply in any measure that Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá are religious.
It's time to get this idea out of your head and come up with some empirical studies which you think support Kanazawa's view, otherwise you are merely trumpeting rubbish.
I just want to know what
I just want to know what their ideas are. If they think that evolution worked differently to the way I think it worked. Then I want to know so that I can adjust my thinking if they seem to be right.
However, if it turned out that they looked at evolutionary psychology with a religious point of view. I can immediately discredit their work as a waste of time. So I am just trying to understand better.
I am just slightly confused because their work seems mostly based on just being Contrary to what other people say. Instead of trying to promote their ideas with irrefutable logic. Maybe they are trying to save it for their book.
nice.
Saving it for the book
Ultimate vs. Proximate
I hope your post doesn't perpetuate a common confusion in evolutionary psychology, the difference between proximate goals and ultimate goals.
We have both goals, the proximate is often conscious and deliberate. We may pursue status and resources in various ways, such as winning a race or writing a blog post. In evolutionary parlance, a distal goal is that these accomplishments ultimately lead to survival and reproduction.
Thus, when an evolutionary psychologist makes a point about ultimate goals, the proximate mechanism might occasionally fall into various categories, but not have survival and reproduction consciously in mind.
NP, fair enough, but I think
NP, fair enough, but I think one could accuse Kanazawa of perpetuating that same confusion, or at the very very least of not trying to dispel that confusion on the part of his readers. That was part of what this post meant to parody.
Post new comment