[FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?

[Steven A Smith]

On 2/20/18 12:14 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> It seems to me the best way to have the conversation is to see the "women at the GG" topic as the exact same (pseudoscience) as the "alpha male" nonsense invoked by Peterson.  Both you and Steve seem to have succumbed to the "every thought is tracable back to some prehistoric evolutionary trait" when you say:
>
>> I suppose it's, "I can't make the sale if I can't make the contact".
I doubt that Nick nor I believe that *every* thought is traceable back
to some prehistoric evolutionary trait".   Speaking only for myself, I'd
say rather that every significant behavior or habit that is identifiable
across populations with disparate "nurture" contexts is worth
considering for a "nature" argument, and those which are less obviously
so, STILL might have a measurable "nature" contribution, but not as easy
to recognize?

Female "display" is the one I identified here.   And it *definitely*
doesn't rule out precisely what you say in the next paragraph being at
work as well.  I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
> And Steve talks about an "instinctual response".  I'd like to propose that men act like idiots because their peers act like idiots, women wear tight dresses because their peers wear tight dresses ... and teens have cell phones glued to their hands because their peers have cell phones glued to their hands.
> If evopsych is NOT a pseudoscience, then every pseudoscientific claim made in the NAME of evopsych should be buttressed by a better counter-claim.  Perhaps a counter claim for all this "dress for sex" nonsense is that, perhaps we are evolutionarily wired to have (at least some of) our thoughts socially programmed into us by our context.  Going back to the squirrels, perhaps our biology wires our thoughts simply to play *games*, the details of which will change depending on the circumstance?  I don't know ... I'm just tossing out ideas.
I am inclined to agree that "gaming" both in the sense of trying to
negotiate a stronger role in a social context and in the sense of more
simple "play" are pretty deep in us.   But that looks like what you have
already (tried to?) dismiss.   If you don't like "dress for sex" in any
of it's variants as having any validity, then let's talk about "play" or
"gaming" and whatever "nature" roots it might have. 
> And, going back to Dave's questions, do we have a sense for what questions evopsych can and cannot answer?
Like most questions of this type, the questions EP cannot answer well
are likely diverse and uncountable, so I guess I'd be more inclined to
try to outline a spectrum of more/less likely and more/less interesting
more/less relevant ones?

The question of "dress for sex" (or "success") was on the table, maybe
it isn't relevant.    On the other hand, I think the history (as
presented to us) of earlier ages includes significant male foppery (to
use a perjorative term)... huge display via clothing, makeup and even
wigs to establish *something* about their role in society.  

- Steve