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.
Tbh to me (never saw omega verse crap), all this birth control pseudoscience sounds like a big group of new-right conservatives laying the groundwork for a federal birth control ban in the U.S (or "giving it to the states" like they did with Abortion in the U.S).
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
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.
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
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?
I also put my hands in my pockets to self-soothe. Some genius tried to go “Why are you nervous if you’re not hiding something?” I said, blank-faced, “Because a wahoo getting in my face, accusing me of theft, is stressful.”
I do it all the time. It doesn't mean dishonesty- at least not for everyone. It's self soothing, anxious people might do this for that reason. Most body language is either self soothing or as simple as "I was cold/itchy/tired".
I hate all the body language bullcrap. Not everyone's body language is the same and most of the stuff people state as universal, objective truth is learned cultural behavior.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
This video makes me appreciate my Sexual Psych professor so much. He was ADAMANTLY opposed to any evolutionary theories (he'd still tell us what they were and their internal logic) but I remember vividly him saying "I find it absolutely disgusting to blame horrific crimes on the basis they are a man and therefore 'genetically predisposed' to SA, rather than that they are a cruel or deeply unwell individual". Shouts out Professor Locke
Kind of an issue though. Male pathology is very deeply male and shows how men behave in male typical ways when being pathological. Your professor has the very hard problem of then explaining why men do sexual violence way more than women. For a much more nuanced and realistic explanation, see David Buss' book When Men Behave Badly. And maybe try to get your money back for that course because you were ripped off.
@@Bradley_Lute So you look at the fact that men commit more SA and conclude... what, exactly? That it's baked into their brains? This is the exact error that evopsych (including David Buss, an evopsychologist) makes all the damn time: spurious correlation. Two things can be correlated highly and have no causal relationship. You could far more reliably explain that difference in the frequency of SA committed by men vs women through sociohistorical factors. What do you think is more likely? That AMAB people are born with the Rape Gene inside of them that makes them rape people, or that centuries upon centuries of male supremacy over women (that was and is so strong that for most of that time rape was not considered a crime) continues to prop up a toxic social, moral, and political view of women as objects and thus unworthy of respect and consent? Evopsych's main sin is the unscientific privileging of biological explanations over social ones. But humans are social creatures-you will almost always fail to produce reliable, replicable results on social phenomena if you base your explanation on biological factors alone.
@@Bradley_Luteit's because men aren't being taught that women's opinions matter or what boundaries are. Society has been sexist for a long time and we need to be better. It's societal, not evolutionary. Consent is a biological thing, a lot of closely related mammals also engage in a form of consent and reciprocation in a partner. SA is a societal problem of people lacking empathy, it's not normal. We evolved to have empathy and SA goes entirely against actual evolutionary psychology of us as a species pack bonding and supporting each other so we could survive. Men who lack empathy would probably die, either from being killed or exiled, and you can't survive on your own.
@@Bradley_Lute A massive portion of what you might describe as 'uniquely male' responses line up extremely well with what scociety says a male 'should be', making this just another version of the nature vs nurture dilemma. Having a lot of sex is a 'good thing' in men, and not in women, so extreme emotions regarding sex (especially the common mentality of sex being somehow deserved) in men will be far more common. I think that the concept of 'inherent differences' that are impossible to bridge is misguided, it removes accountability and reduces the ability to empathize with others. The most "women can't understand us" sort of groups that I've ever seen are incels and boomers, both of which aren't exactly known for being sympathetic.
@scottygagnon4287 yes, but there is actual evidence to back up why men and women behave differently. Our physiology is different. Different sized bodies, different sized gametes. Primates show these similar traits. Mammals show these similar traits. These are conserved differences over millions of years. And Trans people act differently than they are supposed to despite a ton of social learning in the opposite direction. Lots of studies pointing to these differences too. Social constructionism doesn't test anything nor does it have any actual mechanisms to explain its theories.
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.
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.
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 RU-vid content creators
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
@@philosophicalbraps1975 they didn’t😂 Evolutionary psychology is all about speculation and methodological systems to addressed through reason. The problem of this is, it’s hard to use science to make methodological system hence why you need spread sheet and have to understand the shift in thinking and brain development in history when population spike and goes down. Once you understand this you can create your own system that effective. I know this because I know 10 people who use evolutionary psychological assessment, brain scan of women and what their aroused by to make correct moves in certain situation. They also read alot of book. Now you wonder why I say this, it because these ten people use this methodology and have a net body count 9000+.
@@philosophicalbraps1975 when k think about 1000 isn’t even that crazy when doing this. Like first month my guys reported 50+. However that was luck because it drop to 10-30. Also depends on the person
Why would they have to debunk nonsense? You only have to debunk the truth with fake news. Have you ever realized she is taking everything out of context and when you put that back only the truth is left behind. 😂
@@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.
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!
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.
I'm pretty disappointed that you think this supposed complete debunking of a field in place of conjecture that human culture is a social construct. It does not give me faith in your fields to put out critical thinkers...
“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
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
Had a moment with a psychology professor where I ended up talking shop about hiring processes, and on the topic of interviews, I pointed out that “do you have transportation to get to work”, while seemingly a nonsense question given you’re at an interview, is actually a legally safe way of asking “do you have enough money to own and maintain a car?” It’s an old tool of classism. This prof is probably double/triple my age, and this has never occurred to them. I love psychology so much, but also please do not revere them as all-knowing oracles
This comment reminded me of when I was still doing comsci pre covid at a pretty pricey college that was proud about being so modern and up to date... I had to retake psych 101 thrice because I kept failing the final project (which was always "make a video of a social experiment in a group, youtube style") and I noticed that the curriculum never changed and the exams were always the same exact copy every time (iirc I took it once a year so that's 3 years of the exact same test paper used by different professors). Freud was a big part of the curriculum and his stuff was treated as gospel.
@@lancesmith8298 So true Ive been asked that question many times and many time over have been denied a job when the irony is that I WOULD have enough money to buy and maintain a car if I got that job so I was always stuck with minimum wage jobs working fast food drive thru's
You know nothing about modern psychology and it shows. When was the last time you actually read a paper in a high tier journal? Exactly. So why comment?
@@robertmusil1107 Well frankly I don’t think you understand people, probably to a greater extent than they don’t understand psychology, by a statistically significant margin. There’s so much more to life than being correct about everything forever
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.”
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.
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.........
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.
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.
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.
Same reason why eugenics always fall flat. Who is going to determine whose genes get passed on? Who is going to decide what traits are desirable and what are not? It’d be nearly impossible for a person to decide that objectively, and AI programs are heavily influenced by our biases, so bang to that theory too.
Shouldn't you be equaly suspicious if someone who believes in equality just happens to find the evidence to support equality while using ridicule to portray every other opinion?
instinct for this instinct for that , its like looking for the color red and then conveniently painting everything red , thus all you found is red , like just kill me at this point lol
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.
I listened to DoaC a short while, during which that episode was uploaded. I found it interesting up to abt the midpoint and when that "at least five women pregnant" story came up I just lost faith in the conversation.
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.
@@zr5438did you watch the video? if you did you must have missed the several times it was shown that it is not true. You can also find tons of anthropological finds that contradict the european “men hunt women gather” bullshit, it is so easy to disprove it’s shocking the idea is still common and not looked at the same way as asbestos in buildings.
@@victorumgh7575 listen, it's overwhelmingly clear that men were the primary hunters back when we hunted. Sure, women helped out when extra help was needed, or when the men were injured/killed. Men certainly also took part in gathering resources. Women and men worked as teams/communities back then, and everyone's contribution was essential. But men's bodies are clearly more adapted to hunting. Men's superior upper body strength being the main physical difference, and higher average levels of aggression/lower risk aversion on the personality side. I don't think this is controversial or questionable in any way.
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.
@@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
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
The guy saying he’s right about things “because I’m aspie” almost makes me embarrassed to be autistic, except not really because it’s got nothing to do with what anyone else with those traits thinks. It’s true that neurodivergent people view the world differently, and sometimes that can lead to different conclusions that may be better. But it doesn’t mean we can’t be wrong, susceptible to bias, or have emotions affecting our judgement. In this case I think all three are the case - sorry, the aspie card doesn’t make you an automatic genius and always right.
makes me wonder whether or not I am on the spectrum or just seem like it due to having anxiety and ADHD. Still neurodivergent, but I sure as hell break the stereotype of neurodivergent people being smart.
@@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!
At around 2:13:30 they say "survival of the fit" and equate "fit" with "strong". This is the most common misunderstanding of Darwin. Not the "strongest" will survive, but those who have the best fit to their environment. What "fitting" means is very complex, but there's a good chance human beings can "survive" nowadays with 2% less muscular mass than other peers.
@@Bradley_Lute read the original comment again. fit is not strength in this context, its referring to fitting the environment. i.e. adaptation. the species which adapts the best to their environment results in a better chance for survival.
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
@@catxtrallways 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..
@@catxtrallways 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.
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.)
@@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.
My friend's mother was an evolutionarily psychologist. They were the two most insufferable people on the planet. The son just parroted his mother's crazy talking points. He split the world into two categories: you were either empathic or autistic. Wild.
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 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
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.
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.
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!
@@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.
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.
It doesn't. You are just missing the nuance. These are average differences between sexes which are observable, persistent across time and the principles are generalizable across species. You can't get that with gender studies.
@@Bradley_Lute Gender studies? What are you on about? I wouldn't touch that stuff either. I just follow a simple principal: Judge people as individuals first, who they are above what they are. And so, I can't agree with those that hyper-focus on what they and others are. Whether it's men or woman, there will be some common non-physical traits that you may see, yes, but those are in no way universal and I will not treat them as such. We as humans are especially different in that way compared to other animal species; We are far more varied in terms of psychological and social matters. People are people, so I'm not going to bother splitting hairs and grouping everyone into tightly-defined categories.
@Aimela136 these are not tightly defined categories. The manosphere would have you believe that, but they are wrong. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Feminism tells the opposite story that this is all due to male control. Also not correct. Evo psych is somewhere in the middle if you actually follow it. I think it is important to understand our biology, especially as it is commonly denied in modern times. I am gender non-conforming but I still find it very helpful.
@@Bradley_Lute You do know that thoose difference are principally social created? Actually we know that the social idea has an impact to the point he create a mental comportment and transmissible. But fun fact, thooses are variable depend the class you are. That why some class have less gendered comportment than the "popular class" for exemple. Some very underestimate the power of social construction, but it's a major factor. That doesn't make only comportement but also tastes. But when a human grow up, he acumulate more information than we think. Thoose genre things too. They are some biological part, the vast of gender comportement them, are not.
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.
@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
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.
@@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!"
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😂
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.
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.
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.
I wrote a paper discussing the fallacies behind gender essentialism and we were supposed to include a paragraph with a counter point from the opposing side and it was genuinely so difficult to find a single academic source that wasn't 30+ years old and already debunked by my earlier paragraphs and sources
Wow Münecat gets DESTROYED in this video!! 😳 If she was smart she would report this video and have it taken down for completely dismanteling her argument!! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-b8r5efHXjQo.htmlsi=LVybdI9KuqzOpz7G
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
Sometimes is the operative here. Sometimes genes have no benefit. But the case you are talking about it relatively rare due to time of evolution creating fit species.
@@tianna1116 by that I meant the red pill bs, eugenics and evolutionary theory is a load of pseudo-scientific bullshit that could be picked apart by a child, and doesn’t even need an eloquent deconstruction like this video. Apologies for the confusion.
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
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
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.
It is a little silly, on its face, to assume that every trait must serve some purpose or confer some advantage. The threshold for your genes to survive into the next generation is, "Managed to fuck at least once before dying." Moreover, selection pressures, as you deftly explained, act upon populations, not individuals. So, all that is required for a trait to survive, is that it doesn't result in entire population going extinct. As long as the population is able to survive with the trait present, the trait is free to persist, no matter what difficulty it may produce for individuals that have it.
Confer some advantage and be a result of evolution are not the same. Behaviors, like physical traits, can be shoddily designed and still be a product of evolution.
Oh my god, thank you. It bothers me so much when people frame evolution as specifically "choosing" the "best" traits. They just have such a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.
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.
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.
It's like how teenagers don't live in the abandoned building just out of town, they just go there to have fun. Humans will always be humans, and therefore humans like to have fun, even when we were trying to stay alive. No one is taught to exaggerate their feats, we just do because it's fun to tell stories and have people we like be impressed that we caught a fish THIS big.
Humans did live in caves though bro..just cause I say I live at home doesn't mean I never leave my house..granted I don't but it doesn't necessarily mean that linguistically..it means that's where your shelters at..not that you never leave
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
1:49:00 note that when she refers to bi women in her "source: i made it up" rant, she says that off the pill, some ARE fully straight, and some others THINK theyre fully lesbian. THINK. Mmhm. Right. 🙄
im just stuck on the whole anecdote about gay women on bc pissing estrogen into the water to make the freakin men feminine. like it would be Less weird if it was some kinda golden shower forcfem lesbian porn.
That's weird, cause I met sooo many lesbians on the pill to, you know, to not get pregnant, there's a big market of contraceptives amongst the queer community
The munepoints section is so important. It's a strategic form of dehumanization towards women by removing any nuance and gendering complex human states of mind with a pinch of inserting arbitrary connotations to your own benefit. •Emotional is "whatever women thinks and feels" therefore whatever they say doesn't matter. •Logical is "whatever men thinks and feels" therefore whatever they say is law.
As someone who grew up playing sports, i found the woman saying that women want to be in the game even at the cost of winning, but men have the rationality to take themselves out to benefit the team absolutely baffling. Has she ever spent any time around a male sports team? Pretty much the only guys who don't want to be in with the game on the line are the kids who are only playing because their parents forced them to (no shade to those guys). There's a lot of Uncle Ricos out there.
As someone with a psych degree, the thing that frustrates me the most about evo psych is how much it’s permeated the whole pop psych space. My sister in law got hooked on some guy’s social media that talks about which kids’ cartoons are “safe” for children and when I looked him up, he was just ranting about how too many scene changes invoke hunter-gatherer instincts and make your kids more violent. Nothing he said had any real evidence to support it, and if you take his premises to their logical conclusion, the best educational show for kids would be 30 minutes of a gray screen because any stimulation is bad. Looked into the guy and he doesn’t have any psychology degrees or experience in child education or anything. He’s just a failed tech bro who found a new grift by saying all modern cartoons are bad and the only good ones are the ones from the 90s you feel nostalgic about. The great thing about evo psych is that since we can’t actually study the brains or behaviors of early humans, you can just make up whatever you want and use some big science sounding words and it sounds like a convincing argument to people who don’t know otherwise. It’s the perfect premise for snake oil.
What annoys me is you probably didn't even notice she was miss quoting things. She cited, twins are often reunited for years. Implying this is an issue for all these twin studies. When they quote was specific to a set of twins. Way to go professor.
I won't lie, quick scene changes does mess with my attention, lots of movies new and old that bother holding long scenes or camera angles always gets my appreciation/I appreciate the scene more.
I like when she quoted that "the twins were reunited most of the time from" Implying that this was representative of twins in the study. When it was actually talking about one set of twins. This lady is a liar.
@@PeterPeter-qc7ky She doesn't say there are no genetic differences. She argues that those "scientists" do not prove with their "research" that any of that influences the behavior they want to show. It's actually a rather profound video. Having so many papers with very small sample sizes, using wrong models shows that the field has major credibility problems. In particular if you want to test for traits that are very variable across humans, you need a lot more data and way more robust statistical tools than they are using.
@@PeterPeter-qc7kyBy large i assume you mean switching out an X chromosome with a Y chromosome (this not counting the fact that in multiple cases the similarities might stay the same or be very similar genetically if one X chromosome has more dominant traits than the other. The differences in race are so minimal that it doesnt matter and the only real difference tenfs to be skin color.
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.
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.
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
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
@@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.
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
How to tell that an evolutionary psychology person has literally never spoken to an archaeologist? XD My god theyre so... just using the word caveman, early humans were so fucking cool.
@@JustIsold One family! One fucking family was lucky enough to find a cave that didn't have bears and for all of time our scientists are like 'WE ALL LIVED IN CAVES' Well maybe their shit lasted better cuz ya know it was in a cave and you just think that was how it was for everyone.
@@sadece-birisi😂 Forgive me, but the thought of cavemen haunting paleo earth totally cracks me up. That must be the best auto correct error ever. 😂😂😂👏
Working on my Doctorate in Psychology and my Dissertation threw me into this same rabbit hole. The fact my field allows so many unfalsifable hypotheses that are propped up by p-hacked one off studies is genuinely distressing. Thank you so much for making this video.
remember that there are always people pushing back on this sort of thing; when the lancet published wakefield's writing, they published a rebuttal by a colleague in that same edition of the journal. no reason you can't also be one of those people, too!
Bro, I started studying psychology like 10 years ago and quit within a year. One of the first things you learn, is the scientific method and it should already be clear by that point, that psychological experimentation can't produce falsifable results just by the sheer number of variables and influences you have no control over even with all of humanity as your sample size
@wernerbeinhart2320 Imperfect experimental controls does not mean hypotheses are unfalsifiable (which is a good thing since no field has perfect control over all variables). There's a lot of solid research in psychology indicating the efficacy of various treatments as well as the impacts (both physiological and psychological) of various mental illnesses. The longstanding and generational impacts of trauma, the fact that western beauty standards and advertising increase the prevalence of disordered eating, and of course the mountain of research that's been done demonstrating no evidence of gender or race differences in performance or intelligence are all positive example of psychological research with a clear falsifiable hypothesis that have robust research supporting them. Psych has a lot of garbage research but to argue it's impossible to for research on the human experience to be scientific is just inaccurate.
Don't worry, most here know that even studies done multiple times in the area of soft sciences are most likely wrong or are wrong more than they are right.
I just don’t understand how someone can research psychology without a solid foundation or degree in biology. Even simple things, like how a nervous system works are entirely disregarded. You need expertise evolutionary development and developmental biology. For example: Right now, antidepressants are being prescribed for mainly “mental” disorders. How they effect gastrointestinal neurons and what that impact does or if it falsifies results is not a common conversation I hear or read in papers. Even though, biologically, there may be an impact (most definitely). How many people with peristaltic dysregulation are profiting from antidepressants and experience “improvement” of their “psychosomatic” mental anguish are actually do to physiological causes? How panic attacks may actually coincide with physiological illness through underlying illness is also not well understood. Moreover I dislike the lack of appreciation towards normal occurring variance and instead, pathologizing otherness. Whether this is the case with various disabilities, how left-handed or even homosexuals have been treated in the past. Or with more modern discoveries like “autism” and “adhd”. Most populations, especially social ones, profit from diverse perspectives. Psychology tries to measure human behavior through imagining conformity or some “base-line” normative value which just isn’t how biologists approach organisms. (I could go into many still stigmatized illness like chronic fatigue or ms where patients were gaslit into finding psychological causes…) Biologists also are aware of how a “happy ecosystem makes happy organisms”. Very rarely do animals underperform or experience debilitating (mental) illness when kept right. - Which is why Environment Protection and conservation efforts are so damn, damn crucial! - Psychology isn’t critical enough of the systems we humans are a part of. It observes a lot of “what” but very little “why”. That’s fine, but it’s influence in human society is too strong for such low reliability. I feel a lot of psychologists try to order the world in a linear fashion. But Mother Nature is n-dimensional. There are multiple planes which need considering. What is a negative in one regard, may have a positive impact in another. At the end of the day, there are no mistakes in biology. All we require is a niche. Psychologists should focus on creating niches or the tools to do so. Not blabber on about what is a human. We don’t know. We never will. Life is a spectrum and so are people.
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.
I was feeling insecure recently, having applied for a scholarship program that I felt I might not be good enough for. Then I watched this video and realised all these useless studies got funding and now I'm at peace with the world.
Don't forget, Mr. Eunuch, that you can also read the studies of sociology, anthropology and constructivism to laugh for a while, but since these pseudosciences provide you with an excuse for your perversions, then you won't say anything.
@@AmbarGriss Which of all your pseudosciences do you want me to refute? This is how I show you and the stupid woman in the video how to actually make a definitive refutation that is not based solely on "muh papers" that you don't even know how to interpret.
@@rixs2630Evopsych incels are one of my favourite kind of right wing losers. Y'all are like one of the 3 subgroups that hasn't abandoned empiricism altogether, but your entire worldview relies on pseudoscientific nonsense that fell out of favour academically over a decade ago. I also like how you try to equivocate your nonsense with 2 completely valid and defensible feilds of study, as well as what I presume is one of the 7 key learning philosophies, widely accepted in educational psychology. I don't really care about your defence of evopsych, but I am curious about your beef with those feilds. Are you an actual academic or just another youtube PhD, radicalised into anti-academia bias?
As I post this before watching the almost 3.5 hour long video, I realize that all my most watched and anticipated creators can be summed up as "Independent researcher falls into a months long rabbit hole on an important but toxic topic and somehow emerges intact with a multi-hour documentary in hand." And for that, thank you for your diligence and education, Mune.
Commenting also for recommendations - mainly I think of Hbomberguy, Shaun, and Philosophy Tube from that description and I would be very pleased to add more names.
@@jocelynnielsen9154 I might add Dan Olson (Folding Ideas) to the mix. All these people listed here produce the most thoughtful and -provoking content on YT and every video of them is a must watch for me. Edit: I forgot Contrapoints! She's also awesome!
@@gregoryolbek9491 attraction isn't only based on physical characterics.. What about humour, intelligence, attitude, overall personnality ? Why label demisexual someone you don't know ?
@@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.
The idea of doing a 'hunter gatherer computer simulation' and putting modern day humans through it to figure out how hunter gatherers society operated is insane. "I did a study on raisins in order to tell you about grapes."
It’s already flawed on the basis that early hunter gatherers assuming we’re talking about the anatomically modern Homo sapiens were any less human than us is just wild, they were simply humans in a different cultural environment, if you nipped back 300,0000 years ago and stole a baby and raised it here it would have just as likely a chance of growing up and shilling nfts or other modern sillyness
Would we have evolved in the 20000 years since people stopped moving around as much. 1/15 of humanitys life has been sedentary and we see the results in our structure wisdom teeth goosebumps and vestigial organs and traits, so why wouldn't behaviors change with them, like dogs and cats and even mice.
12 minutes in and I'm already thankful I fell in love and found a healthy, equal relationship 10 years ago so never fell into the trap of looking for answers from menfluencers
I skimmed the outskirts of when trying to find ways to take better care of myself (hygiene, color coordination, etc) but never went beyond that. The tips on other things like standing and walking just seemed stupid to me so I usually avoided those kinds of videos.
@@bdd7881I've been in school with people that do need to learn to stand and walk though. They're slumped over and shuffle along, that's not attractive to the majority of people.
@@TheMysteryDriverhonestly theres a lot of good practical and extremely basic advice that would do some people well and none of it involves delving into the evolutionary psychology of women. little things that people (particularly men but also some women) may be doing when approaching people that make them come off as pushy/creepy/annoying, how to identify cues that somebody might be interested in them, bodily habits like walking while looking at the ground, how to dress, how to dance, etc. people write off the advice about simple stuff like how you walk and sit but i actually think that stuff is not only more practical and more useful (in that you can easily act on it) but also is probably more genuinely helpful for making yourself appear more attractive and interesting to others.
I'm 56, and a Cis-Het male. And I'm personally sick and tired of being told what to eat, who to love, how to love, how to sleep, how to exercise, etc. by these "thinkers". Thanks for blowing the lid off this garbage, it's greatly appreciated!
@nedgelord i would change your definition slightly to be specify that they are ONLY attracted to the opposite gender. I know it’s not your intention but a lot of people invalidate bisexuality due to their attractions to both genders and try to boil them down to just being straight or gay
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.
Yeah, I hate the "It is normal to do studies with 200 people" crowd. It is normal, but that is the freaking problem. They can be a cheap way to see if something is worth pursuing, but that is pretty much it. The size of the sample (200) against the size of the population (all humans) is just completely out of scale. If you have a *perfectly* representative sample you could come up with numbers that were within a few percent of the real ones, but to get a perfectly representative sample of *all of humanity* is literally impossible.
@@Caelinus well not really. n = 200 can give a study enormous statistical power depending the size of the effect. In that sense, it may be very representative. Of course, you are right that is it impossible to get a perfect representative sample. However, no reasonable researcher claims this to be the case in their studies. And just because research cannot be perfect does not mean we should not try at all. Especially when we have the potential to get things mostly right.
hi munecat, thank you so much for not demonizing schizophrenics!! im always terrified when a video essay mentions psychotic disorders because it's almost always to say that we're evil/compare evil people to us/use sanist slurs/etc - nothing that is accurate. thank you so much for being normal about schizophrenia; we ARE in the audience and so many video commentators dont seem to understand that which makes their work very hard to watch and support. great video, so glad to see you on my home page again. all video essayists should be looking up to you right now
Does this boil down to some dudes being so insecure that theyd rather think women arent thinking rationally when they reject them than that they werent attracted?
Im mostly just mad that this has so many studies dedicated to it. Whenever I try to look for studies on important topics for actual work, I end up with underfunded dregs from 20 years ago.
Yes! Human behavior has nothing to do with evolution! It's magic! Please point to an alternative mechanism for any human behavior to appear, or one human behavior that has no relation to evolution.
A couple years ago there was a guy at my work who would listen to Joe Rogan every day (and make us all listen, too.) One time he told me he was an essentialist and tried to explain it to me by saying that a lion is a mammal with fur that eats meat and lives in the Savannah and that's what makes it a lion. And I was immediately like, "So is a lion in a zoo not a lion?" He was completely flummoxed and told me he was going to have to think about it.
I would think youre joking but I am pretty sure watching Joe Rogan for extended periods of time does results in you losing braincells so... Yea. I could see him being flummoxed by that question .
The philosopher Alan Watts was asked to participate in a panel about a theoretical eugenics project. Maybe for a generation space ship When it was his turn to suggest what traits to breed for his suggestion was "Diversity". Because it's impossible to predict what traits will be useful in the future
Absolutely real. The only true eugenics programme is just letting people choose partners on their own because natural, random diversity trumps any hand-picked human traits lol
Eugenics is bunk but using gene editing/therapy to help with genetic diseases/disorders isn’t inherently bad imo. And if you wondering after its effects down the line, unlike eugenics, these future children can also have this editing process applied to them as well.
@@gvd72 The ability to opt in and out is what makes this viable. Ensuring an at-risk couple has a healthy child is much better than preventing them from having one at all.
Really glad I came across this. You are utterly brilliant. Worth the 3.5 hours. Also, back in the 90s when I was looking for a job as an undergrad I actually interviewed at Buss's lab. Must've been shortly after he started at UT Austin. I had never heard of evo psych and his grad student handed me a paper on it and told me to let him know what I thought. It was hilariously bad and I emailed him to tell him that. Just-so stories galore. Never heard back from him. I imagine my response might have been a touch unhinged since back then I had untreated mental things going on, so he probably thought he dodged a bullet and was probably right if he thought that, but damn, so did I...
>I can smell your genetic profile I have never been more scared in my whole life Also, i am extremely intrigued by that fake pineapple next to the sofa, what the hell is that
The problem underpinning Evolutionary Psychology is that it attempts to ascribe meaning and create a guiding hand for evolution, the reality is that evolution includes many many mistakes and random mutations which have ended up being inherited, the significance of some of these are obvious but there are many others which are the drunken hangover of evolution that we've just happened to pass down
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.
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.
For people who claim to only be interested in cold hard facts, they sure seem to know a suspicious amount about how people lived in prehistory. You know, back when we lived in vaguely defined cave man times with one single human culture in the world.
This has been going on for a long time. The media has always liked it when academics create pet theories about sexuality that are loosely based on science. they are like a story about what could be rather than hard science.
