Home
PhotographyOne should not judge people just because they don’t understand a scientific area – I personally don’t understand most scientific areas, and I guess that’s just the way things are today, even if you happen to be a scientist.
But maybe you can judge people who judge scientific areas without having the slightest clue about them?
Here is a wonderful rebuttal by Robert Kurzban, whom I consider to be pretty witty, against some of the (wrong) notions you regularly hear from feminists (and many other people) about Evolutionary Psychology. Moreover, it really is a decent introduction into Evolutionary Psychology, if you happen to be interested in what we do, what (some of us) think, and what we try to do.
There should be no tension between feminism and evolutionary psychology, and what tension there is derives from erroneous views such as those of Marcotte. At its heart, evolutionary psychology uses ideas from biology and other disciplines in the service of trying to understand and explain human behavior. It is, of course, a positive enterprise, and the normative ghosts Marcotte sees are just that, ghosts.
The problem, I think, boils down to this. Evolutionary psychologists say “biology” but what Marcotte hears is “genetic determinism.” Because she is in favor of political change, and because she (incorrectly) understands evolutionary explanations to pull the other way – against change – this causes her to frame us as enemies.
November 3rd, 2011 at 17:07
Thanks!
“There should be no tension between feminism and evolutionary psychology, and what tension there is derives from erroneous views” – that’s my view, too. As I’m studying psychology and sociology the question who’s right did surface quite naturally.
“A different idea would be to try to understand the work and the concepts that underlie it, and use those ideas to try to develop better models of human nature, which in turn might help you to effect the sorts of political changes you favor.”
For the sake of completeness it could be added that the case can be made the other way round, too. I yet have to meet the psychologist that’s understanding at least the outlines of, for example, Judith Butler’s argumentation.
[e->d]
Leider ist auch die von mir hochgeschätzte Prof. Bischof-Köhler hier kein Vorbild. Im Vorwort zur dritten Auflage kontert sie – möglicherweise übertriebene oder deplatzierte – Vorwürfe folgendermaßen (cf. Link):
“Ich wollte die Leserschaft einfach nicht durch fruchtlose Auseinandersetzungen mit purer Spekulation langweilen. Unter ,Forschung’ verstehe ich etwas anderes als die Postulate realitätsabgehobenen Wunschdenkens (…)”. Das ist, leider, auf eine ähnliche Weise peinlich wie die Auslassungen von Marcotte. Immerhin aber auf beschränkterem Raum.
November 7th, 2011 at 00:31
[...] feeling of being misunderstood among scholars there. A reply from an evolutionary psychologist that he referred me to disappointed me (I want to respond in detail to that later), as well as a recent journal [...]