- cross-posted to:
- ghazi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- cross-posted to:
- ghazi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
Edit - Addendum: The video title is quite clickbait-y. The video doesn’t want to debunk any “serious” science, but rather investigates how badly done research with no reproducability or horrible statistical significance is used to influence the discourse in favour of regressive politics.
The title caught my eye because I learnt evolutionary psychology + behavioural ecology + game theory in a combined course, in university, back in the days.
I don’t think any of them can be debunked, they are solid methods for studying why an agent behaves in some way. The study could be done poorly, the studied behaviour might be adequate for the current environment, or detrimental since the environment has changed. The agent could be anything from amoebas to people (but also an algorithm, company, state or alliance). You can use an evolutionary perspective if it has faced evolution - copying, mutation and selection. Just to introduce the toolkit:
Evolutionary psychology:
Behavioural ecology:
Game theory:
I think the video is needlessly long. The author (I don’t know their name, just their YouTube handle “münecat”) gets to the essential point fairly early:
…and that’s about it. People aren’t prepared to use scientific methods. Just like you get social darwinism if you introduce a person with strong prejudices and weak scientific habits to the concept of evolution, we seem to have various silly approaches to evolutionary psychology floating around. I have noticed these on my own, and noted that they mostly float in a field that I would call “popular explanations to gender relations” - because sex sells.
In adequate hands, all three methods have considerable analytical value, however. You can use them to understand seemingly irrational actions, find hidden variables and build better models to predict how animals, people and organizations interact. Ultimately, you can use these tools to prevent people from doing stupid things - either by making them aware of the typical pitfalls, or by designing environments which don’t have the pits to fall into. :)
The video addresses the social impact evopsych pundits currently have, especially when it comes to “mating behaviour”. From what I’ve gathered, there’s more or less two camps of evopsych: Theories that explain states of fear or that the only conditioning that only needs one exposure to manifest is disgust and theories that claim that women smell genetical traits in potential mates when ovulating. One of these is valid, the other one is used by conservatives to justify the status quo.
The video tackles the social phenomenon and all the pseudo-scientific grifters who perpetuate regressive worldviews (pseudo-scientific grifters are usually a target of her videos). I actually gsnuinely learned something about genetics from the video, so I think it’s worth the watch.
And the video also adresses that there are a ton of badly done, but published and cited papers in evopsych. That’s a well established problem of psychology: lots of papers can’t be reproduced in psychology and are over-cited, due to a bias against doing control studies.
Please keep in mind that Eugenics was also considered a solid method. A scientific solid method, actually. It was taught in medical schools all over the world. Well, the colonial world that is.
You could be interested in the following article:
Eugenics and its evolution in the history of western psychology: A critical archival review
I’m aware of what eugenics is / was, along with some other curious things that preceded (e.g. phrenology). I would say: a branch of science is likely to deserve the prefix “pseudo” if it has a single-minded goal to improve before understanding. Eugenics was such a doctrine.
Hypothetically, after gaining actual understanding of what genes are “good” or “bad” (quotation marks since “good” genes are only good in a given environment together with compatible other genes), eugenics might rise from the dead, but likely under another name and with a different character - since the original name has a ruined reputation and the original character was one of repression / discrimination. Indeed, maybe the resurrection has already happened, and the name is medical genetics - finding genetic patterns of risk and ways to avoid risk or fix results (apply gene therapy).
I find it extremely unlikely that either evolutionary psychology, behavioural ecology or game theory would end up in the rubbish bin where eugenics went, because the premises of these studies seem quite strong.
I could say “evolutionary psychology is useless” but then I’d have to prove that: a) humans haven’t participated in evolution or b) evolution cannot produce psychological traits or c) psychological traits cannot have evolutionary value or generally aren’t worth study. I cannot prove that, so the foundation seems solid. Applicability - well, that is another question. I find the greatest applicability in explaining animal psychology, because you cannot ask animals why they do things.
I could say “behavioural ecology is useless”, but then I’d have to prove that either: a) behaviour has no part in ecological interactions or b) behaviour has no patterns worthy of study or c) ecological relations have no patterns worthy of study. I cannot.
I could say “game theory is useless”, but then I would have to prove that rational agents don’t use strategic calculations, or there are no rational agents, or that strategy is not worthy of study. I can’t - instead I find it extremely useful.
I think the video is very much for someone like you. It actually addresses why eugenics is always a bad idea, even if we know what genes are “bad” and “good”, since evolution follows the strategy of increasing the variance of inheritable traits in order to make life resilient to catastrophic events.
No one criticizes behavioral ecology or game theory. You brought those up, but they don’t have anything to do with the video at hand.
The issues of evolutionary psychology isn’t that humans supposedly didn’t “partake in evolution”, but rather that it has inherent problems with the scientific method. Most evopsych theses can’t be tested and are prone to just-so justification. Seriously: watch the video. It’s all it there.
The video is 3 hours, 21 minutes and some seconds long. I watched the beginning, end and some samples from the center. The video is too long, she accuses others of communication failures and bad-faith communication (with good reason), but is also doing a communication failure.
To be blunt, the title of the video is also a false or exaggerated statement, hinting of the author’s excessive ambition. I think I was generous enough to try catching the point without devoting 3.5 hours to it.
I do not think you would welcome if I watched all the video, made notes about every problem, and posted them. I think you would consider that obsessive (well, at least I would).
There are behaviour patterns in animals and humans which evolutionary psychology can help explain, and knowing how evolution (past societies, past models of competing and cooperating, past interactions with food, disease, parasites and predators) can shape the psychological profiles of creatures is useful. There will be poor research in almost every field. I’m aware that psychology has a widely known problem with experiment repeatability. That’s no reason to discontinue doing psychology (or discontinue doing experiments). It’s a reason to increase diligence and to slow down jumping to conclusions.
You’re constantly making points already made in the video.
Edit: why are you on a breadtube community if you don’t like to watch hour long videos? Ever heard of hbomberguy, or Contrapoints?
Btw: Here’s the explanation why eugenics doesn’t work in the video
Actually, I’m not in the Breadtube community, I’m just a user of the “slrpnk.net” Lemmy server. Thus, I noticed the video on my feed, and as I explained above, it caught my attention because the title claimed to have “debunked” something that I was familiar with and had found useful.
Thank you, but you don’t need to explain me why eugenics was a bad idea. :) I understand that.
Nope, never heard about them.
You still critizised a video without watching it. That’s as close to judging a book by its’ cover as you can get.
As stated before, I watched the beginning, end, and various samples from the center.
You can not invalidate criticism by publishing a N-hour video and complaining that the critics didn’t watch every second.
Let’s switch perspective for a moment: if I publish a 24-hour video titled “I debunked classical mechanics” and talked about journalism during 23 hours of it, I should not be able to deflect criticism with the claim that “you didn’t watch all of it”.
Part of my criticism is inability to come up with short and falsifiable points. Public communication about science pretty much requires doing that. Already in my first post, I mentioned that I thought the video was needlessly long.
And yes, I’m not a fan of misleading people. When I see someone doing that, yes, I will criticize.
I don’t think this is a conversation about how useful or useless the specific field is. Hitting a child can be useful in order to make them do what you want, we don’t do that anymore tho. And we don’t approve of this approach.
I think we could have a more productive conversation on the topic after we both watch münecat’s video (admittedly I haven’t watched it all yet)
Should we continue this conversation after doing that?