3 ms·

It's interesting to think of evo-psych as essentially the discipline of trying to explain the underlying rationale for the "chesterton fences" within our own su

It's interesting to think of evo-psych as essentially the discipline of trying to explain the underlying rationale for the "chesterton fences" within our own subconscious/preconscious behaviors.

brazzy 7y ago
In my experience, evo-psych is essentially the discipline of trying to turn your favourite cultural practice into a "fact of nature".
- lliamander 7y ago
  I don't know that it's any worse off than anthropology, or any of the other social sciences. There is certainly the temptation to engage in the naturalistic fallacy (i.e. "just because something is natural that it is therefore necessarily moral"). At the base of it, evo-psych rests on the premise that for a behavior to persist, it must have a purpose. Asking what that purpose is, without ascribing a value judgement, seems like a reasonable avenue of inquiry.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > At the base of it, evo-psych rests on the premise that for a behavior to persist, it must have a purpose. Asking what that purpose is, without ascribing a value judgement, seems like a reasonable avenue of inquiry. This conflicts with the broader understanding of evolution in general, which treats "selection" (changes that have a purpose) and "genetic drift" (changes that have no purpose) separately.
    - brazzy 7y ago
      "Purpose" is also the wrong word, isn't it? A more correct way would be the changes that improve the chances of survival and procreation, and changes that don't but persist because they at least don't decrease those chances.
  - brazzy 7y ago
    > There is certainly the temptation to engage in the naturalistic fallacy (i.e. "just because something is natural that it is therefore necessarily moral"). My point was more that with evo psych, you can additionally declare almost any behaviour to be "natural" by coming up with some convoluted reasoning why it confers an evolutionary advantage.

It's interesting to think of evo-psych as essentially the discipline of trying to explain the underlying rationale for the "chesterton fences" within our own subconscious/preconscious behaviors.

brazzy 7y ago

In my experience, evo-psych is essentially the discipline of trying to turn your favourite cultural practice into a "fact of nature".

lliamander 7y ago
I don't know that it's any worse off than anthropology, or any of the other social sciences. There is certainly the temptation to engage in the naturalistic fallacy (i.e. "just because something is natural that it is therefore necessarily moral"). At the base of it, evo-psych rests on the premise that for a behavior to persist, it must have a purpose. Asking what that purpose is, without ascribing a value judgement, seems like a reasonable avenue of inquiry.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > At the base of it, evo-psych rests on the premise that for a behavior to persist, it must have a purpose. Asking what that purpose is, without ascribing a value judgement, seems like a reasonable avenue of inquiry. This conflicts with the broader understanding of evolution in general, which treats "selection" (changes that have a purpose) and "genetic drift" (changes that have no purpose) separately.
  - brazzy 7y ago
    "Purpose" is also the wrong word, isn't it? A more correct way would be the changes that improve the chances of survival and procreation, and changes that don't but persist because they at least don't decrease those chances.
- brazzy 7y ago
  > There is certainly the temptation to engage in the naturalistic fallacy (i.e. "just because something is natural that it is therefore necessarily moral"). My point was more that with evo psych, you can additionally declare almost any behaviour to be "natural" by coming up with some convoluted reasoning why it confers an evolutionary advantage.