3 ms·

"There are reasons to prefer equal/same age relationships, but we shouldn't clutch our pearls when a boss dates a secretary" Boss A dumps his menopausal spouse

"There are reasons to prefer equal/same age relationships, but we shouldn't clutch our pearls when a boss dates a secretary" Boss A dumps his menopausal spouse and dates a young secretary. An evolutionary psychiatrist says "He evolved to do that! Dating a younger woman increases his reproductive opportunity." Meanwhile, Boss B stays faithful to his wife. An Evolutionary psychiatrist says "he evolved to do that! Women increase their reproductive success by looking for mates that are monogomous, because monogomous mates will stick around and keep their children safe, so men evolved to exhibit monogomy so as to be chosen by women for reproductive opportunities" Boss C would rather not date and has no kids. Evolutionary psychiatrist "He evolved to do this! Or rather specifically, he evolved to run around in the evolutionary environment prowling for mates, so since he's not in that environment but a modern city it's not surprising he doesn't want kids or sex, his genes were only selected to date and mate in the evolutionary environment." So basically these explanations are about as scientific as saying "God did it" over and over, since there is no way to prove or disprove them as the claims is tailored to any conceivable fact pattern. So people should be wary of the line of reasoning you presented in your post, since whatever it is it isn't scientific.

cat_plus_plus 4y ago
People used to have no problem reproducing whatsoever and now they do. Can't blame birth control because they are not even doing it in the first place. Looking at newly emerged obstacles to dating is a valid scientific hypothesis. Got a better one?
- vkou 4y ago
  There is nothing valid or scientific about an undisprovable just-so story, which is what 95% of evo-psych is. The other 5% doesn't make claims that are very useful in internet arguments.
- staticman2 4y ago
  Hypothesis is defined as " a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." Also am I to understand that you will be conducting an experiment as to whether or not we should clutch our pearls when a boss dates a secretary? And you have little evidence in support of this notion at the present time, you were proposing it to begin your investigation? As for people having no trouble reproducing, well... lots of people had lots of trouble reproducing. Evolution doesn't work if everyone reproduces. There pretty much has to be a whole lot of people not reproducing for natural selection to "select" the ones who will be reproducing. I think you really mean people in recent years had no trouble reproducing but I'm being pendantic and just wanted to push back a little on the idea we should expect everyone to reproduce. I already gave you one evolutionary psychiatrist's vague proposal for why we should have trouble reproducing: we no longer live in the evolutionary environment, so it wouldn't be unexpected to see us not acting like our ancestors. It's vague enough that it isn't obviously wrong, or obviously made up by someone trying to sell you something. While "we shouldn't clutch our pearls when a boss dates a secretary" sounds suspiciously like what someone would say who is trying to sell us something I don't believe you have such a motivation, but I recall watching a lecture where the professor was saying how all the old evolutionary psychiatrist professors were divorcing their wives to hook up with young women half their age. They were clearly inventing a justification for their behavior, or drawn to that field because of their personal oddities.

cat_plus_plus 4y ago

People used to have no problem reproducing whatsoever and now they do. Can't blame birth control because they are not even doing it in the first place. Looking at newly emerged obstacles to dating is a valid scientific hypothesis. Got a better one?

vkou 4y ago
There is nothing valid or scientific about an undisprovable just-so story, which is what 95% of evo-psych is. The other 5% doesn't make claims that are very useful in internet arguments.
staticman2 4y ago
Hypothesis is defined as " a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." Also am I to understand that you will be conducting an experiment as to whether or not we should clutch our pearls when a boss dates a secretary? And you have little evidence in support of this notion at the present time, you were proposing it to begin your investigation? As for people having no trouble reproducing, well... lots of people had lots of trouble reproducing. Evolution doesn't work if everyone reproduces. There pretty much has to be a whole lot of people not reproducing for natural selection to "select" the ones who will be reproducing. I think you really mean people in recent years had no trouble reproducing but I'm being pendantic and just wanted to push back a little on the idea we should expect everyone to reproduce. I already gave you one evolutionary psychiatrist's vague proposal for why we should have trouble reproducing: we no longer live in the evolutionary environment, so it wouldn't be unexpected to see us not acting like our ancestors. It's vague enough that it isn't obviously wrong, or obviously made up by someone trying to sell you something. While "we shouldn't clutch our pearls when a boss dates a secretary" sounds suspiciously like what someone would say who is trying to sell us something I don't believe you have such a motivation, but I recall watching a lecture where the professor was saying how all the old evolutionary psychiatrist professors were divorcing their wives to hook up with young women half their age. They were clearly inventing a justification for their behavior, or drawn to that field because of their personal oddities.