Can someone explain to me why sociologists and gender studies are inherently against evolutionary psychology? Why are they so quick to deny anything that may indicate that social constructivism is wrong?
Are there truly no differences that can't be explained by culture?
Other urls found in this thread:
nature.com
twitter.com
It goes against everything they stand for and debunks hundreds of "research papers" about gender. Their goal is to force normal people into feeling shameful about succumbing to "societal pressures" to be a certain way when it's better for everyone in their society to do whatever they feel is right for them.
>evolutionary psychology
that's such a tippy toe field tho, 100% theorized with no way of confirming or test
>Evolutionary psychology
Nice meme.
Anything that can't be quantified to the molecular level like biology, is not a science worth paying attention to. That includes most of psychology too.
How can you make assumptions about the mind if you don't understand how it works? All we know for sure is that the brain possesses plasticity and is particularly susceptible to environmental effects. And even that is hardly understood. Anything beyond that requires more molecular evidence than we have.
Gender is a constructed series of roles probably growing out of how the different sexes needed to act in a tribal setting. Given that in a hunter-gatherer tribe a female often has a baby on her hip to feed it and therefor cannot really hunt, she is typically given the role of gathering food and herbs for the tribe. There are other more specific examples of the way females and males must live differently in such tribes, due to their psyho/physiological differences and the fact that females are the ones that must give birth. Gender roles, such as they are, likely sprang from this natural, near-animalistic system. Gender exists in the same way money exists. It's a very useful humanwide fabrication for large societies, an abstraction of something culturally important- with money, it is trade value. With gender, it is one's societal role.
Money is a social construct, gender is a social construct, race is a social construct, money is a social construct, etc.
Protip : Every thing human related is a social construct.
Gender Studies is a sub-field of sociology. And sociology is heavily based on anti-positivist social constructivist critical theory, which basically argues for a non-scientific approach to interpersonal relationships. Evolutionary psychology on the other hand tries to reconcile biology and general scientific data with psychological behavior.
tl;dr incompatible ideologies
you do realize that the scientific communities that study sex have pretty much reached a consensus that sex is a spectrum, or at least not binary? why are you ignoring the rigorous science on this topic? why are you ignoring the thousands of psychologists, biologists, sexologists, etc. that have all determined that sex and gender are not as simple as YOU think it is?
what do you even mean when you say social constructivism is wrong? social constructivists don't claim that there is no underlying biological nature to sex, lmfao. thats so fucking obvious. how can you even deny social constructivism when you necessarily use social constructs literally every fucking day to navigate your own thoughts and the world? do you not realize that the social constructs surrounding sex and gender are just our ways of interpreting our underlying biological nature? it's similar with race. obviously race is not ONLY a social construct (just like sex is not ONLY a social construct, and yes, sex IS, to a degree, a social construct, you god damn fucking idiot). but considering the fact that we lump people into races based on skin color, when there is literally no biological reason to do ss, pretty much proves that our UNDERSTANDING OF RACE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. this is proven. and it's essentially because categorizing people by skin color doesn't really make sense, since people of the same color don't all share the same general biological traits, i.e. the sickle cell gene, which is not limited to fucking black people.
god damn
> which basically argues for a non-scientific approach to blah fucking blah
yes, there are other ways to think about things than the scientific method. you ever fucking heard of scientific racism? they aren't arguing that you must ONLY use their approach. do you even know what interdisciplinary studies is?
all of you. this whole board practically. please. shut. the. fuck. up.
>reading an opinion into a matter of fact statement
This isn't actually true, you can easily perform experiments designed to test differing hypotheses and see if they replicate. Obviously something like the sexy sons hypothesis is hard to actually test/observe in action, but you can identify psychological mechanisms which would play a part in it (differences in mate preference during ovulation, etc).
Sociologists and gender studies "researchers" tend to be against evo psych because it directly contradicts their views and threatens their livelihoods. When the differences between males and females are presented and generally accepted, it becomes a lot harder to make money by selling books about how fluid physics is more complicated than rigid body physics because vaginas flow and cocks get hard.
>very small minority of abnormalities justifies redefining a definition that holds true for 99.5 percent of the population
Take your agenda driven research and shove it down your butt
Man, you sound incredibly angry but you really don't seem to understand your opposition. People aren't divided into races solely on the basis of skin-colour - look up photos of albino africans. Similarly, you could just travel to Asia - there are clear differences between ethnic Japanese, Koreans and Han Chinese despite their incredibly similar skin-colour.
i think the point is that on an intellectual level, there isnt any noticable difference between the races dispite the clear physical adaptations of different ethnic peoples
What is your gender? nu-male for me.
>differences in mate preference during ovulation
this is something biological
you are basically testing for hormones and shit
evolutionary psychology is much more vague
I am ionized gender plasma
>2017
>saying the G word.
>not being nonsexualized cell clumps
you fucking bigot
>99.5 percent of the population
it's not true. Only 5-10% of male today can be classified as "men", most just a pussy in male body.
I am 1/8th Chinese so bigotry is part of my heritage you racist swine
im 1/1047294.285781 japanese you ching chong fuck. its my biology to burn and rape you like its nanking ninety nine
I identify as a sperm whale, so I would like you to apologize on behalf of your people for century long systematic oppression.
Yes, it is in fact something biological. Huge swathes of evolutionary psychology cover strictly or mostly biological phenomenon - the Sexy Son hypothesis is deeply related to topics like ovulation.
thats the point im making lol.
lol. this isn't the only study faggot
This isn't really the case though. The "warrior gene" is one example, but there are a host of others that can play an effect on behavior and aren't equally distributed between different racial/ethnic categories.
>but considering the fact that we lump people into races based on skin color, when there is literally no biological reason to do ss, pretty much proves that our UNDERSTANDING OF RACE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. this is proven. and it's essentially because categorizing people by skin color doesn't really make sense, since people of the same color don't all share the same general biological traits, i.e. the sickle cell gene, which is not limited to fucking black people.
Really? It seems like you're saying that when people talk about race they're talking about skin-colour, but there's a mountain of evidence that suggests they're talking about something more than skin-deep.