Original research
4 Mar 2010 11:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
firecatIn reaction to a lot of articles about evolutionary psychology/sociobiology I've read over the years, and especially this news article reporting on one such person's claim that people with higher IQs are more liberal and more likely to be sexually exclusive:
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/03/02/Higher-IQ-linked-to-liberalism-atheism/UPI-68381267513202/
Less intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be evolutionary psychologists, a researcher sitting at home in front of her computer suggests.
firecat, whose morning caffeine consumption is correlated with an urge to be a loudmouth on the Internet, argues that the tendency to associate complex modern concepts with simplistic notions of biological urges is a preference that the ancestors of evolutionary psychologists had for millions of years.
These so-called "scientists" are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their sexual interest in young females. Being able to understand the limits of using one's sexual desires to explain the entire universe and the possibility that other people might have different sexual preferences and even nonsexual interests is evolutionarily novel.
Data from the Wasted Money Endlessly Going to Sociobiology Study supportfirecat's hypothesis. Middle-aged white males who frequently try to write papers explaining why attraction to young thin white European females is essential to the understanding of human evolution, history, and the popularity of red sports cars have an average IQ (whatever that is) of π, whereas people who pay attention to the way other people actually behave have an average IQ that matches the boiling point of water in Celsius.
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/03/02/Higher-IQ-linked-to-liberalism-atheism/UPI-68381267513202/
Less intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be evolutionary psychologists, a researcher sitting at home in front of her computer suggests.
firecat, whose morning caffeine consumption is correlated with an urge to be a loudmouth on the Internet, argues that the tendency to associate complex modern concepts with simplistic notions of biological urges is a preference that the ancestors of evolutionary psychologists had for millions of years.These so-called "scientists" are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their sexual interest in young females. Being able to understand the limits of using one's sexual desires to explain the entire universe and the possibility that other people might have different sexual preferences and even nonsexual interests is evolutionarily novel.
Data from the Wasted Money Endlessly Going to Sociobiology Study support
firecat's hypothesis. Middle-aged white males who frequently try to write papers explaining why attraction to young thin white European females is essential to the understanding of human evolution, history, and the popularity of red sports cars have an average IQ (whatever that is) of π, whereas people who pay attention to the way other people actually behave have an average IQ that matches the boiling point of water in Celsius.
no subject
Date: 5 Mar 2010 01:57 pm (UTC)"Critics of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology have advanced an adaptationists-as-right-wing-conspirators (ARC) hypothesis, suggesting that adaptationists use their research to support a right-wing political agenda. We report the first quantitative test of the ARC hypothesis based on an online survey of political and scientific attitudes among 168 US psychology Ph.D. students, 31 of whom selfidentified as adaptationists and 137 others who identified with another nonadaptationist meta-theory. Results indicate that adaptationists are much less politically conservative than typical US citizens and no more politically conservative than non-adaptationist graduate students. Also, contrary to the “adaptationists-aspseudo-scientists” stereotype, adaptationists endorse more rigorous, progressive, quantitative scientific methods in the study of human behavior than nonadaptationists." Tybur, J. M., Miller, G. F., & Gangestad, S. W. (2007). Testing the controversy: An empirical examination of adaptationists' attitudes towards politics and science. Human Nature, 18(4). (PDF (http://www.unm.edu/~psych/faculty/articles/tybur%202007%20politics.pdf)).