4 ms·

I don't like the way this article presents the viewpoint of evolutionary psychology. A conception such as morality vs evolution is nothing short of dangerous.

by arketyp 17y ago

I don't like the way this article presents the viewpoint of evolutionary psychology. A conception such as morality vs evolution is nothing short of dangerous. I think this is a probable scenario: "Oh, look, a wallet. I wonder what's inside... Alright, no money anyway. Some tickets and shit. Should I return it? Can I be bothered? Must be a real hassle for the owner with all these cards of course. - Oh, a picture of a baby. I bet this person is stressed out with the kid as it is. Hey, might as well be a Good Samaritan today..."

inerte 17y ago
My first thoughts too. Why does everything in psychology/social has to be tied to evolution these days? Once upon a time, you did it because someone told you too. Then, some god. Later, because you're of a certain class. Today, we're doing it because it helps the "evolution". This is nice, if you know why the evolution does what it does. Which is turtle all the way down. Shit, something helps us to last longer as a species? It's the answer. If we know how it helps us. Heck, I'll throw an evolutionary bias into this research. Why should I help another male? It's my desire that he fails so I can own the offspring-maker. (yes, I'm aware of some studies that show cooperation is better for the group. WITH FISHES). "For evolutionary reasons" is the new thing on social studies. 3pt14159's comment is spot on http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=700571 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=700571 this study has too many random variables to have any credulity.
Dove 17y ago
Yeah. I love how they ask a professor to tack a completely spurious evolutionary explanation on there. You know, a speculation coming from a professor on the basis of a sound scientific theory is still just a speculation. On the whole, I wish people didn't feel the need to jazz up empirical results with that kind of pseudo-technical commentary. It muddies the reader's mind about which part actually constitutes the science.

by arketyp 17y ago

inerte 17y ago

My first thoughts too. Why does everything in psychology/social has to be tied to evolution these days? Once upon a time, you did it because someone told you too. Then, some god. Later, because you're of a certain class. Today, we're doing it because it helps the "evolution". This is nice, if you know why the evolution does what it does. Which is turtle all the way down. Shit, something helps us to last longer as a species? It's the answer. If we know how it helps us. Heck, I'll throw an evolutionary bias into this research. Why should I help another male? It's my desire that he fails so I can own the offspring-maker. (yes, I'm aware of some studies that show cooperation is better for the group. WITH FISHES). "For evolutionary reasons" is the new thing on social studies. 3pt14159's comment is spot on http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=700571 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=700571 this study has too many random variables to have any credulity.

Dove 17y ago

Yeah. I love how they ask a professor to tack a completely spurious evolutionary explanation on there. You know, a speculation coming from a professor on the basis of a sound scientific theory is still just a speculation. On the whole, I wish people didn't feel the need to jazz up empirical results with that kind of pseudo-technical commentary. It muddies the reader's mind about which part actually constitutes the science.