[FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Well, again caveat my ignorance, many of these evolutionary justifications seem to ignore any possible eusocial effects.  The idea of transgenders showing a predisposition to hair dressing BEGS us to make a spitball eusocial (or at least semiotic) evolutionary argument ... you know, the benefits of good grooming and all.

The same could easily be said for curiosity and intelligence.  Groups with innovative members are likely to outperform groups without them ... like Steve's regular invocation of The Shaman.  I know *I'm* happier with people like Lady Gaga and Marilyn Manson running around making noise. 8^)

On 03/09/2018 10:26 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I thought of that factoid when looking over some of Peterson's remarks.   If this is generally true in the population, is it because of nature vs. nurture?   I anecdotally had the experience it was true, and that (just now) made me go look to see if there was any research on it.
> Lady Gaga's interpretation of Born This Way seems to be the politically-correct perspective these days.   (As opposed to the more sensible "Who the hell are you to tell me how to live?")
> Presumably, the T in LGBT would also tend to adopt that perspective.   Running with that, it seems to be reasonable to ask what other pseudo-gender differences exist, like intelligence, and the other things mentioned.
> There could be cognitive benefits to the alternative wiring, like there might be creative benefits from having synesthesia.    
> 
> Alternatively, a Peterson (faced with robust statistics on this) would have to consider the hypothesis that the (maladaptive?) lifestyle selected for intelligence or perhaps even improved it.


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ