…and this is a 
I was not kind in my assessment of Jesse Bering's story about the evolutionary psychology of homophobia. He was quite irate with me and several other people who pointed out the tattered fabric of his evidence. Now he has gone scurrying back to the author of the study he described, Gordon Gallup, and gotten his take in a rather tendentious interview. Between the two of them, unfortunately, they still can't manage to address anyou of our criticisms. It's a very weird conversation: here's how he handles me.
One common complaint lodged against evolutionary psychology is that its methods, which typically do not track the claimed fitness benefit, are inadequate for testing its hypotheses. PZ Myers, in surveying your homophobia studies, writes:
They know nothing about heritability, they've shown nothing about differential survival or fecundity ... Is this to be the fate of evolutionary psychology, that it shrivels away into irrelevancy as its proponents overhype (sic) feeble, pathetic data sets?
Myers is, of course, notorious for such over-the-top statements—like the Jim Bakker of New Atheists, a caricature of sweat, histrionics and stage glitter, he sees religious conspiracies as often as evangelicals see the Devil.
Oh, man, glitter! I just knew I'd been forgetting something for my stage show.
Despite that useful bit of information, however, it's dodging the issue with irrelevancies. I did not accuse Gallup or Bering of committing some religious conspiracy, nor did I even mention religion in my complaint. I said there was no evidence to back up their claims that homophobia conferred a fitness benefit, or even that it was a heritable trait. I know, expecting evidence of an evolutionary psychologist may be a sign of hysteria, and certainly is over-the-top, but I would expect that a reply to shoot me down would be the presentation of evidence to show I was wrong.
They don't do that.
Instead, Gallup mentions a series of papers he's published that have nothing to do with homophobia. For instance, he claims that they've "shown that a person's voice is also related to fitness." But they haven't! I looked at the paper: it's another self-reporting exercise in which they determined that people perceive women's voices as more or less attractive in different stages of their menstrual cycle. Again, there is no attempt to examine inheritance, or whether this perception actually affects survival or fecundity…so we're right back at my original complaint.
I'm not even going to touch Bering's unwarranted moral indignation at the idea that Gallup might be a homophobe, which is not only irrelevant but wasn't even suggested by any of his critics, or his silly conclusion that he'll do anything to understand why gay men and women are bullied and murdered around the world…as if all of his critics are somehow just fine with the oppression of homosexuals.
Again, Jeremy Yoder has another solid response to the nonsense.
Life Science
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
March 23, 2011 12:33 PM
Hm, I wonder why religion occurred to Bering, when PZ didn't mention it at all.
Does the evidentially-inadequate "case" that he makes strike him as being akin to religion? Perish the thought, or better, project the thought.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: cary
|
March 23, 2011 12:37 PM
Off-topic, but maybe if I
post this early enough in a thread:
how do I go about bringing items
of interest (I believe) to PZ's attention?
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 23, 2011 12:38 PM
Oh, that clears it up then.
Thanks, evolutionary psychology!
Posted by: Paul Burnett
|
March 23, 2011 12:39 PM
If Gordon Gallup does a Gish Gallop, would it be called a Gallup Gallop?
Posted by: skeptifem
|
March 23, 2011 12:40 PM
oh my fucking god, THAT was bering too? I thought he only did the rape avoidance/sperm in latex vaginas study. What a bigoted piece of shit. A bunch of other EP's defended him, too.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 23, 2011 12:45 PM
Evopsyche is a bunch of people standing around a car trying to figure out whats broken and stubbornly refusing to look under the hood.
Posted by: ThirdMonkey
|
March 23, 2011 12:52 PM
Nothing discredits one faster than responding to demands of evidence with attacks on those making the demands.
Posted by: pilotkono
|
March 23, 2011 12:52 PM
Or, examining the naked king's attire whilst children proclaim the same to be unclothed.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
March 23, 2011 12:58 PM
If evo-psych people want to be taken seriously, they ought to be the ones at the forefront of ripping studies like these to shreds, loudly and obnoxiously and prominently. And yet, they don't seem to be doing that.
Posted by: saspainting
|
March 23, 2011 12:59 PM
I would like to applaud the people in evolutionary psychology for their contribution to the advancement of science in not only their own field, but across the whole field of scientific endeavor.
In the conventional understanding of science, you start by looking at a data set, seeking patterns. When you find an interesting pattern, you propose a hypothesis to explain it. Then you perform experiments, in an attempt to prove yourself wrong. If your best efforts to prove yourself wrong fail, you have a working theory.
It is clear from even a cursory analysis that this process is unwieldy and inefficient. A huge portion of your time and resources are wasted on attempts to disconfirm your ideas, attempts that you are hoping will fail!
I learned growing up that the surest way to fail is not to try, and this is the inovation that the people from evolutionary psychology have brought to the scientific method. By not making any attempt to disconfirm their hypotheses, they are able to not only guarantee that they will become full fledged theories, but drastically reduce the time and money required to bring their ideas forward to publication.
If we are to advance as a people, we need just this kind of tough-minded, budget-enhancing, cut-to-the-chase thinking. It is all well and good to talk about the integrity of the process, and spout off about peer review, but doing so all too often occludes the human element. These people work HARD on their theories, and it is grossly unfair that they should have to invest their time and effort on an idea, only to find their efforts wasted simply because their ideas fail to correspond to some arbitrary conception of 'objective fact.'
So, in conclusion I believe that by dispensing completely with the idea of testing our ideas, we can jack up our scientific output 10,000,000%, and pretty soon we'll all have flying cars and robots that do all our work for us. Unless the confidence of my assertion somehow fails to ensure its accuracy, we're set! See you in the future, folks.
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
March 23, 2011 1:02 PM
I gave up on even skimming the interview when I got to the claim that "in contrast to women, men have a monopoly on paraphilias and kinky sex/"
"[citation needed]" doesn't begin to cover it.
Posted by: Sastra
|
March 23, 2011 1:03 PM
Aside from the irrelevance of crying out "Hey, look, my opponent is an ATHEIST!!!" -- the mention of bogus "religious conspiracies" is puzzling. Assuming it was in context, what PZ-invented conspiracy could he be referring to? Creationism? The Wedge Document? Biologos? The Templeton Foundation? The Vatican, the Illuminati, and the French Freemasons?
Posted by: Hairhead
|
March 23, 2011 1:04 PM
Um . . . project much, Mr. Bering?
Really, how does, "Your data is weak and your presentation makes you look stupid." become:
The crowd awaits, murmuring restlessly in the dark. Suddenly a small figure slips through the curtain and is illuminated by a harsh follow-spot. He walks up to the microphone, the diamonds in “Atheists Rule, God Drools” necklace sending sparks of light dancing over the audience. It is . . . Richard Dawkins. His cultured Oxonian vowels reverberate through the air of packed stadium.
“AAARRREE YOOOOOUU RRRREADDYYY TOOO RUMMMMBBBLLLEE!”, Dawkins yells into the microphone.
The crowd roars and someone begins a chant, “God is Dead. God is Dead. God is Dead.”
“Then welcome,” Dawkins continues over the ugly roars of the mob, “Your Master Debater, Religion-Hater, Our Logical Lord, Author, Educator, and all-around Deity Destroyer ---- P. Z. Myers!!! HOOOOO!!!”
The mass of hating non-idolators erupts in a frenzy of noise. The curtains draw back to a thunderous set of explosions, flames from special torches ringing the stage licking twenty, thirty feet in the air as PZ Myers is lowered from the ceiling on a magisterial throne.
Twenty feet above the stage, PZ launches himself from the throne, his cape, emblazoned with a three-dimensional “A” fluttering above him. The mighty professor lands on the stage with a mighty thud, amplified by his microphone; he falls to one knee, his legs bare, his mighty thews exposed. He takes a deep breath.
“Your data is weak,” he whispers hoarsely into his mic. His zombie-like minions cheer wildly. He stands up and points one finger dramatically, like Babe Ruth forecasting his home run “Your presentation makes you look stupid.” The crowd erupts in apelike, hooting enthusiasm. Myers drops dramatically to one knee, exhausted by the effort. Daniel Dennett rushes from stage left to drape a heavy cape over the enervated atheist; but Myers thrusts him and staggers to his feet, sweat dripping . . . .
There now, Mr. Bering, have I fulfilled your fantasy?
Posted by: Loreo
|
March 23, 2011 1:08 PM
Evolutionary Psychology seems like such an interesting field, but all I've found are Just So Stories.
Why is that? Is it just temporary problems like poor methodology, or are there fundamental flaws with the whole discipline?
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
March 23, 2011 1:14 PM
Hairhead!
*dies laughing*
Posted by: Taemon
|
March 23, 2011 1:20 PM
Loreo, the first one. It's a very young discipline. Give it time.
Posted by: Jeanette
|
March 23, 2011 1:28 PM
Wow, that was the worst dodge I've ever read. He could have at least picked something vaguely relevant...but to be fair, what Hairhead #13 wrote is a show I would pay good money to see. Brilliant!
There has got to be like, at least two evolutionary psychologists that do good research. I feel really really bad for them, getting represented by these hacks.
Posted by: jbyoder
|
March 23, 2011 1:31 PM
Thanks for the link again, P.Z. (And sorry I misspelled your name initially. Oy.) Bering's not acquitting himself particularly well on any point made in that post, but the personal jabs are especially telling.
Posted by: menckensghost
|
March 23, 2011 1:33 PM
This isn't encouraging: Gallup, from the linked interview:
[spellinglictor] First graf OP: "anyou" [/spellinglictor]
Posted by: feralboy12, der Ken-Puppe Sie außerhalb in 1983 verlassen
|
March 23, 2011 1:45 PM
Jim Bakker? Man, there's no call for that shit.
I'm having a hard time envisioning P.Z. being taken away in handcuffs & leg irons while making blubbery noises. That's my dominant memory of Jim Bakker.
And it's a good memory. I just wish I could have been there, standing nearby, poking him with a stick.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 23, 2011 1:46 PM
In my opinion both.
The poor methodology is inexcusable but could be corrected, however the Evopsyche proponents defend such methodology. There was a quote form the last thread on this topic "Well how ARE we supposed to figure out what's cultural or not!" more or less. Which points to a fundamental problem; that's the sort of thing that should be fucking important and a starting point for every study, but they see it as irrelevant and ignorable, seemingly because "it's hard".
Posted by: lautrec85
|
March 23, 2011 1:50 PM
I asked this at Jeremy Yoder's, but noone answered:
Is there any evopsych study that does not conclude that its subject is adaptive for something?
Posted by: quantheory
|
March 23, 2011 1:52 PM
This was really frustrating. For one, they forgot to mention that openly gay men are not only not more likely to molest children, but actually seem to be less so! Most boys are molested either by straight men or by men who readily pass as straight. In fact, this is one suspected factor behind why so many molested children are boys; people are more protective of young girls around straight men, who thus have easier access to young boys. So this dancing around how heterosexuals molest children too is silly.
For another, they just almost ignore the really obvious alternative explanation for child-related homophobia: culture. It gets brushed aside in one or two sentences, without the cultural hypothesis being seriously dismissed.
But it's a serious question. Homosexuality has been equated with child molestation for decades at least. Not only that, but people do seem to have a general fear of children being exposed to anything sexual, which is not specific to homosexuality. So how do we tell the difference between a homophobic instinct, and a general child-protective instinct coupled with a culturally-ingrained feeling that homosexuality is intrinsically perverted or a sexual contaminant? Going to another country that also has generic homophobia (Taiwan) cannot settle this question.
Simple question that seems to have some bearing: do the parents of daughters often have homophobic feelings towards gay men? If so, how does that square with this hypothesis?
And of course, there's all the little gaps not filled in. Does molestation really affect rates of homosexuality that much (and what is the best way to find this out, in a world where childhood gender nonconformity makes children targets for abuse, and in a culture that also encourages gay people to think about being abused and how that might have caused their orientation, but doesn't so much encourage straight people to do so)? Does mere exposure to gay people change the rates of homosexuality? How much does homosexuality affect one's chances of reproducing? How heritable is homophobia? Is it heritable by itself, or is that heritability simply something "riding" on other personality traits (such as general aggression, anxiety, lack of openness, etc.), which are more important to overall behavior and fitness? Does homophobia actually succeed in "protecting" children, or does it merely block out harmless, openly gay people, while having no impact on pedophiles?
If the hypothesis survives each individual objection, does it nonetheless get whittled down by each one until the "adaption" confers an insignificant amount of benefit?
The problem isn't that the research is "bad". I totally buy the simple conclusion, which is that people's homophobic feelings can be augmented by thinking about children. I would expect that just from the cultural observation that anti-gay hate groups have been exploiting the supposed homosexuals=pedophiles connection since at least the 50's. The problem is that this conclusion is light years, I mean light years away from the idea that homophobia is an actual adaptation to protect one's children from being turned gay.
And these guys are being assholes by hiding behind the fact that their statements are controversial (yes, you can do that). You don't get to propose something that's politically incorrect, then insinuate that every time you are criticized it's a matter of political sniping. A serious scientific objection (and there have been many) demands a serious answer, not vague hand-waving about "we're not homophobes, we are just delivering inconvenient truths". It's a transparent diversion.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 23, 2011 1:53 PM
@Taemon
Yes because Homeopathy's only problem is "time is needed to work out the methodology bugs"
Posted by: hje
|
March 23, 2011 1:54 PM
Unicorns *and* glitter.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 23, 2011 2:03 PM
And as Ichthyic pointed out before, there are domains that have already been worked on by other fields. Evopsyche is pretending to be unique, while retreading old material (and refusing apparently to LOOK at the past research) and favoring shitty methodology.
Posted by: quantheory
|
March 23, 2011 2:04 PM
@#11
Oh yeah, there was that quote! It's true that women are not as big a market for, say, kinky porn, or whatever. But it's not "a monopoly" by men, and porn sales =\= actual sex being had.
And frankly, what counts as "kinky" is pretty subjective. The whole Twilight phenomenon creeped me the hell out, for example.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 23, 2011 2:15 PM
I actually think that is disputed.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 23, 2011 2:17 PM
Depending on "whatever" is
Posted by: quantheory
|
March 23, 2011 2:25 PM
"I actually think that is disputed."
Hmm, I should have put it rather that, when it's possible to determine the sex of people buying porn in general, marketing data shows that men buy more of what's sold. But I don't know about "kinky" porn in particular (or where to even draw that line), so I retract my statement.
Posted by: shonny
|
March 23, 2011 2:36 PM
Wouldn't it be more interesting to find the very real correlation between homophobia and religion, including suppressed homosexuality and religiosity?
Seems like the religious closet homosexuals are the ones most outspokenly intolerant of homosexuality.
But I guess if you accept who you are when it comes to sexual leanings, you don't really give a shit one way or the other as you have nothing to prove.
Main suppliers of homophobia and intolerance are no doubt the clergy and the religious.
Posted by: triskelethecat
|
March 23, 2011 2:45 PM
First, I don't think I want this guy looking in my drawers and closets if he thinks MEN are the only purchasers of sex toys.
Second: as I told a family member when he came out to us, (and I have 2 children, both girls) that I would have been a lot more upset if he had come out as a pedophile. I had/have no problem with his being gay, since his (absolutly adorable) partner was/is also above the age of consent. (And I was only upset with him because he didn't have the courage to tell me personally and delegated it to another family member. I tore him apart for not trusting me after all those years we had known each other and thinking that I would equate homosexuality with pedophilia)
Posted by: Schenck
|
March 23, 2011 2:45 PM
It seems like the big charge that they are ignoring is that correlation does not mean causation. They see correlation, maybe even a 'strong' correlation, and maybe even a strong correlation with a good statistical base, and assume causation. But you can't, so they shouldn't. Thats what they should be addressing.
Posted by: triskelethecat
|
March 23, 2011 2:48 PM
First, I don't think I want this guy looking in my drawers and closets if he thinks MEN are the only purchasers of sex toys.
Second: as I told a family member when he came out to us, (and I have 2 children, both girls) that I would have been a lot more upset if he had come out as a pedophile. I had/have no problem with his being gay, since his (absolutly adorable) partner was/is also above the age of consent. (And I was only upset with him because he didn't have the courage to tell me personally and delegated it to another family member. I tore him apart for not trusting me after all those years we had known each other and thinking that I would equate homosexuality with pedophilia)
Posted by: CalliopeJane
|
March 23, 2011 2:53 PM
OMG, I'm a man! Has anyone seen my penis? I seem to have misplaced it....oh, right, here it is -- with the harness, in the toy box.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
March 23, 2011 2:54 PM
trisklethecat,
I am hoping the story was a little more detailed. I keep reading your comment and what leaps into my head is that your first response to your gay friend was to mention pedophilia and I get really upset. Please help me understand that was not your actual response.
Posted by: Coleslaw
|
March 23, 2011 2:55 PM
Oh, that's easy! See, their daughter may eventually meet some gay dude who is trying to pass for straight. Daughter has teh sex with this dude and it is very unsatisfying. She gives up on men and becomes a Lesbian. I'm surprised I have to explain this to you.
Posted by: E.V.
|
March 23, 2011 3:06 PM
Evolution dictates that we either eat meat OR vegetables. Omnivores don't exist in the natural world and nature abhors a vegan.
Posted by: CanadianChick
|
March 23, 2011 3:13 PM
Hairhead @13:
I award you 100 sniny internets!
I am dying from laughter here. I really really really really want this to happen in real life. Or through the magic of television.
My life will not be complete until I see this in one form or another.
(hmmm...maybe the guy who did the video for George Hrab's God Is Not Great needs to read this thread)
Posted by: Hairhead
|
March 23, 2011 3:30 PM
My apologies to the ghost of James Brown. And sorry for the typos and dropped words; just typing quickly as the spirit moved me.
Posted by: quantheory
|
March 23, 2011 3:53 PM
@#37
Oh, of course! Silly me, how could I have missed that.
Posted by: Eric Saveau
|
March 23, 2011 4:01 PM
...for certain values of "whatever"...
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
March 23, 2011 4:04 PM
Says it all, really.Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
March 23, 2011 4:37 PM
Some kinks need toys, some kinks need... participants.
Guess who is a part of every hetero kinky party of more-than-one?
Minimum participants? One of either gender, no?
Who is calling the shots? Well... now that depends entirely doesn't it?
Posted by: rident
|
March 23, 2011 4:55 PM
But PZ, you did mention and accuse them of using religion:
Posted by: Pacal
|
March 23, 2011 4:56 PM
Gordon Gallup's attitude towards Gay people especially Gay men is not very positive. In a article he co-published in 1983 he argued that Gay men were Gay because they had lost out in the competition for women and were thus acting out of "hetrosexual frustration". In factGallup and his co author argued that hetrosexuality is de rigure and homsexuality is the result when it is thwarted. The similarity of this with certainp sychoanalytic ideas concerning homosexuality. I.E., that Gay people are really hetrosexual and homosexuality is an abnormal adaption to a severly disturbed state ("hetrosexual frustration") is not accidential. Gallup seems to meet Socarides and Berger.
Oh and since homosexuality is a failure to compete in the reproductive game homophobia is the response of the people around homosexuals because retiring from the reproductive game is bad. Gallup also seems to think homophobia is universal.
Later Gallup 1995 concluded from his research that homophobia was in part a reaction to protect the emerging sexuality of children hence parents being concerned about children being around Gay people. In the article Gallup argues that sexual orientation can be affected by what he calls "seduction effects" and argued from studies that sexual orientation developing in adolescence showed that this is true. So he concludes that homophobia protects children's sexual orientation.
Gallup also appears to think that homosexuals do in fact seduce children and distorts a study that allegedly supported his idea.
Gallup seems to believe that hetrosexuals fear of homosexuals is at least in part fact based otherwise homophobia would not be a real adaption.
Gallup seems to think there is something to homosexuality being produced by seduction. He also seems to be more than a little unclaear about the distinction between pedophilia and a homosexual orientation.
When Gallup was criticized for his study he included in his rebuttal some of the work of homphobe Paul Cameron, whoose "research" is a very bad joke. Further he argued that studies showed that "homosexual" pedophiles "seduced" more children and further that homosexual teachers were allegedly twice as likely to "seduce" their students. He concuded that male homosexuals were in fact a risk to kids and that therefore in some manner homophobia is a evolutionary adaption designed to protect kids.
I find it hard to believe that the similarity to bigoted opions about Gay people is accidental.
Gallup G., Suarez, S., Homosexuality as a by-product of selection for optimal hetrosexual strategies, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, v. 26, 1983, pp. 315-322.
Gallup, G., Have attitudes towards homosexuals been shaped by natural selection?, Ethology and Sociobiology, v. 16, 1995, pp. 53-70.
Gallup G., Attitudes towards homosexuals and evolutionary theory: The role of evidence, Ethology and Sociobiology, v. 17, 1996, pp. 281-284.
Archer J., Attitudes towards homosexuals: An alternative Darwinian view, Ethology and Sociobiology, v. 17, 1996, pp. 275-280.
Posted by: quantheory
|
March 23, 2011 6:05 PM
@Pacal
Ha, he cited Paul Cameron? Doesn't that just give you the warm fuzzies.
It does tell you something about his academic respectability though.
Posted by: CalliopeJane
|
March 23, 2011 6:38 PM
I have identified as solely lesbian for a couple decades now, but when I was younger I considered myself bisexual and had partners of both sexes. And let me assure you, getting male partners was always WAY WAY easier than getting female partners. So this explanation is a total fail for lesbians.It really frustrates me when people put forth explanations for "homosexuality" that only come from their perceptions of MALE homosexuality. The near-invisibility of lesbians in the research and explaining about "homosexuality" is quite aggravating. Not to say that the same explanations would necessarily hold for both men and women, but gay women do in fact EXIST, ya know?
Posted by: John Morales
|
March 23, 2011 6:56 PM
Hairhead FTW!
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
March 23, 2011 7:12 PM
as PZ Myers is lowered from the ceiling on a magisterial throne.
That's a non-overlapping magisterial throne, I hope.
Posted by: Hairhead
|
March 23, 2011 7:20 PM
Randomfactor: thx. I wondered who would get the SJG reference.
Posted by: crowepps
|
March 23, 2011 7:28 PM
Assuming, of course, that you're only measuring porn designed for men, and the genre known as 'romance books' isn't included in the market. There isn't much around that's kinkier from a psychological perspective than Christine Feehan.Posted by: otrame
|
March 23, 2011 9:07 PM
I don't think these guys know much about gay men. Or women (gay or straight).
For instance there is the whole slash genre in fan fiction, which is very popular but does actually get purchased. And trust me there is a lot of porn and a lot of quite kinky porn.
Posted by: A Bad Idea (♀)
|
March 23, 2011 9:12 PM
"men have a monopoly on paraphilias and kinky sex"
... Does this person even KNOW any women???
Pacal: And anyone who thinks that all gay men "lost out" on attracting women, has never been a woman! The gay ones are always so cute, I tell you!
Posted by: Horace
|
March 23, 2011 9:17 PM
How does Bering explain cultures in Papua New Guinea, ancient Greece or Modern Afghanistan in which being a pedophile is as normal as not being one ? Public dispays of affection between men and women are also forbidden in many societies.
I think a better arguement for homophobia (assuming you want genetic a just so story) is that:
-"gay" genes are useful to society.
-homophobia encourages gays enter into heterosexual marriage and produce children.
So your gay basher is really saying I value your genetic material so much that I want to terrorize you into reproducing. This would explain also why there is less stigma attatched to lesbianism, if women are chattels who can be forced into marriage their desires are less genetically important.
Posted by: quantheory
|
March 23, 2011 9:32 PM
"Assuming, of course, that you're only measuring porn designed for men, and the genre known as 'romance books' isn't included in the market. There isn't much around that's kinkier from a psychological perspective than Christine Feehan."
All right, all right, I take it all back. I was really just kind of waving at that stuff and saying that I know that data exists; I know it doesn't support his point. =P
Speaking of which, I actually worked for a small press that sold, uh, fetish-y gay stories. I never actually was involved with sales, but I'm told that a good proportion of our purchasers were women.
Posted by: Cosmic Snark
|
March 23, 2011 9:39 PM
Hairhead, good stuff. I keep visualizing synchronized drug-crazed strippers writhing on the floor around PZ as he makes his pronouncements, though. It just seems more atheistic and god-hating that way, I dunno.
Posted by: Akira MacKenzie
|
March 23, 2011 9:52 PM
Aside from the irrelevance of crying out "Hey, look, my opponent is an ATHEIST!!!"
It reminds of a "debate" on Anderson Cooper 360 between James Randi and Linda Rossi, Business manager for "psychic" huckster Sylvia Browne, after child abductee Shawn Hornbeck turned up alive years after Browne told Hornbeck's parents that he was dead on the Montel Williams Show. Besides claiming that her boss is not "perfect," all Rossi would do is shriek at Randi "You have nothing to say! You're an atheist!"
Posted by: cd
|
March 23, 2011 9:55 PM
Bad science is the fault of the people who generate it. So, it's the people.
In the biological sciences the sign of a field becoming serious is that hardcore geneticists enter it and generate a relevant, powerful, genetic toolkit which they apply to a set of meaningfully defined systems/problems.
This is, er, somewhat lacking in EvPsych.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 23, 2011 11:03 PM
@Horace
Just an FYI you might want to check your terminology. I'm not sure but an anthropologist might pick nits on the wide label of pedophilia across all those cultures you listed.
Posted by: Horace
|
March 23, 2011 11:07 PM
@60.
Ok, thanks.
Older men having sex with teenagers ?
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 23, 2011 11:11 PM
@Horace
Pederasty not pedophilia
Posted by: Horace
|
March 23, 2011 11:33 PM
Ok, I am corrected.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
March 23, 2011 11:48 PM
For those who are still confused about what an ad hominem argument is, Bering's comment about PZ being an atheist is a perfect example. PZ is attacked, not his comments about Bering's paper, and the attack has nothing to do with PZ's criticism of Bering's work.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
March 24, 2011 12:25 AM
Horace:
Ephebophile.
Posted by: crowepps
|
March 24, 2011 12:42 AM
I think women of a certain age just tend to be a lot more discreet about what they're doing. The annual sales at Ellora's Cave are projected to be $5 MILLION this year and yet I'll bet most men have never heard of it.Posted by: miller
|
March 24, 2011 1:14 AM
Men make up about 60% of Fetlife, which sounds decidedly less than a monopoly.
Oh look I just did what Gallup failed to do: provide evidence.
Posted by: F
|
March 24, 2011 3:39 AM
@ Dhorvath, The Impersonal You
I read that as, "My relative came out by proxy because he was afraid I equated homosexuality with pedophilia, and I couldn't believe he didn't know me better than that."
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
March 24, 2011 10:41 AM
F,
The comment twists easily to mean something far different for this reader. Probably more me than the comment as I note no one else was concerned.
_
Trisklethecat,
Sorry for misreading.
Posted by: Tumsup
|
March 24, 2011 10:57 AM
Look at what's universal. Cultural differences are a clue to what's cultural like language differences don't disprove the deep inherited capacity for language in general.
The EvoPsyche people have certainly brought disrepute to the field by their intellectual paredolia but our response shouldn't be to throw out the baby. To deny the idea of evopsyche altogether is to deny that humans are animals with inherited instinctive behaviour.
Where homophobia is concerned I believe that since it is nearly universal in human societies it probably is inherited. There's no reason to think that it's adaptive though, it's more likely a spandrel.
Two human behaviours that are adaptive are 1) The hatred of strangers. If we instinctively attack them, more resources will be available to our offspring. 2) Anti sex. There are two kinds of sexual passion, the one that makes us feel good and makes us want it so our genes survive and the one that makes us feel bad and makes us attack others in sexual display. If you can stop others from having sex then you can prevent your offspring from having competitors. This is very common behaviour in social animals.
Homosexuals stimulate both instincts. They are different and they are about sex so they get a double hate on from the rest of us.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 24, 2011 2:18 PM
Except that homophobia is NOT
It's to modern western societies but not universal.
The wiki also notes that the traditional Chinese religions were negative on exclusive homosexuality (because of the value of descendency/ancestry) but this is far from homophobia.
You know that homosexuality is prevalent in animals? Did you know that it is NOT a way to get others to not compete with you? Are you aware how some animals use it for social reasons? Did you know that pigs may even use lesbian activities as part of a mating receptivity display? Did you know it's beneficial and a good strategy genetically for some animals to not reproduce themselves (Yes it's a good strategy FOR THEIR GENES...The Good Uncle rather than spawn themselves helps raise a sibling's offspring which can be mathematically a better way to ensure their genes are passed on than risking having their own children) Do you know your generalizations are full of shit?
Posted by: Hakan
|
March 25, 2011 3:27 AM
Or, examining the naked king's attire whilst children proclaim the same to be unclothed.parça kontör
Posted by: jafafahots
|
December 29, 2011 4:20 PM
our response shouldn't be to throw out the baby.
Hard to throw out a baby when nobody's even demonstrated that there's one there in the first place.