4 ms·

I agree, she has a point, but then evolutionary psychologists don't only use 'made up' behaviors from imaginary cavemen in their extrapolations, but actual obse

I agree, she has a point, but then evolutionary psychologists don't only use 'made up' behaviors from imaginary cavemen in their extrapolations, but actual observed behaviors from other species, such as chimpanzees. I think this is where we enter the twilight zone. We have a story featuring a quite attractive and strong-looking colored woman, apparently challenging the evolutionary narrative, which has all too often been used to justify racial oppression. Good for her. But who is actually pushing this story? Gizmodo is all about clicks and 'engagement' Are they, really, trying to champion, or ridicule, this research, do they even care? IMHO the research seems flawed, but in any case, regardless of where we came from, we should just get on with the fact that we are all going forward, together.

throwaway894345 6y ago
> But who is actually pushing this story? Gizmodo is all about clicks and 'engagement'. Are they, really, trying to champion, or ridicule, this research, do they even care? I'm not really sure, but it smells fishy. What are lay people supposed to make of this article? We aren't qualified to evaluate the philosopher's critique and there is no counterpoint presented. Why should we trust her position over the other, presumably larger group of experts? Gizmodo was pretty transparent about its own biases in the first couple of paragraphs. Seems like this article could be reduced to the headline, "Publication finds expert to reinforce its own priors".