MGTOW

On Evolutionary Psychology in MGTOW

arrowhead
Comments (8)
  1. Gregory Becker says:

    If evolutionary psychology walks side by side with evolutionary processes the it it is as immovable as the process that it is subjected to. Evolutionary processes are in motion but held as imperceptible to the here and now.
    Behaviors flow from biology and beliefs.
    Biology walks with evolutionary processes and therefore the behaviors that flow from them are not perceptively moving at a different rate of speed outside of the process except maybe producing defects as a result.
    Beliefs are, however, changeable in the here and now.
    I can appreciate evolutionary psychology but the focus should be on what is changeable not what appears to be standing still.

  2. You mentioned that you didn’t watch the recently produced videos on the subject, but I made many of the same points regarding fallibility, and also point to a complimentary field of study called behavioral ecology.

    My bottom line is that a theory should only be discarded when a better theory is discovered. If people want to discard a theory out of hand because “nobody really knows” that’s just willful ignorance.

  3. John Galt says:

    I was once asked if I believe in fate and if so how would I define it. I stated that fate would suggest that certain laws would dictate an outcome. One could expect not to find an elephant on the ocean floor but it does not mean that you won’t. The question is whether the “laws” that supposedly govern, reside in a fixed finite and predetermined environment.

    If one chooses to suppose that matter has a limited or finite random outcome it is no less significant to suppose that a disappearing and reappearing electron results in a random outcome or limited state that we refer to as gravity. I don’t believe we have yet been able to tag an electron to confirm that it’s reappearance is in fact the same electron or even in the same state. (except on star trek) But hey I could be behind in my reading.

    Suggesting that colonizing Mars would alter an evolutionary path is at this point somewhat of a disconnect. Given genetic technology and the ability in the near future to alter our own structures in a fraction of the time that evolution would offer. Evolution and it’s theory to some degree may have approximated where we came from, but it is in no way a predictor of where we are going. Evolution and it’s “theory” is quickly becoming irrelevant. Feel free to laugh but some humor has a best before date.

    Awesome article by the way. I’ll be rereading this a few times.

  4. John Nilsson says:

    If you are interested in the evolution of human culture and religion (and therefore the evolution of the human psyche), or the process of ‘humanization’, you have to read or listen to Rene Girard:

    http://youtu.be/g8Y8dVVV4To
    http://youtu.be/yJ0v0TESK4I

    (Peter Thiel has been a student of Rene Girard.)

  5. Darth Sin says:

    A very well written response Barb.

    Evo Psych may not be perfect but that is simply, as you stated, because we lack the science and tech necessary to make it so. For now.

    Doesn’t mean we should discard it though. We are not ruining anyone’s life or harming anyone who is against or pro evo psych like the Catholic Church did with heliocentrists.

  6. CS MGTOW says:

    Bi Bar, great post, I believe this is a crucial point for MGTOW. Feminists believe that women and men are apart from minor anatomical differences, identical. Therefore any differences in outcomes must be the result of systematic and deliberate discrimination. They fail to explain the reason for these anatomical differences however. While ‘Evo Psych’ is not a hard science it is in my option the best tool we currently have to attempt to explain key human behaviours. Men and women clearly have different reproductive strategies and motivations behind these strategies, this drives a huge amount of the differences we see between the genders. Michael Mills put it well, it would be more reliable to see men an women as two genders, but rather two distinct sub species of humans.

  7. Lord of minerals says:

    “The main aspect of un-falsifiability surrounds the fact that evo-psych is not something as simple as to be encapsulated in a elegant mathematical equation.”

    George Price made headway into this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation

    Furthermore we have statistical genomics yielding mutation rates.

    I’ve more recently been gaining an appreciation of the Woese Revolution in phylogenetics, and phylogenetics as a whole (tbh, I didn’t care much about something as macroscopic as phylogeny for a long time).

    Population genetics on humans is interesting, but often focuses on clinical aspects as opposed to normal variations. So while you might see studies on DISC1 and schizophrenia, you’ll see a lot less study around, say, SRY’s effect on the sexually dimorphic nucleus (of the medial preoptic area of the brain, largely responsible for visual arousal)… I mean, the sexually dimorphic nucleus is twice as big in men than it is in women… but, for some reason, this is pseudoscience to people like JtO. Neuroanatomy be damned, when taken into the context of genes and behavior.

    I’m trying to fully understand the epistemological consequences of Karl Popper’s kind of scientific inquiry, and how the standard of falsifiability became the primary standard.

    I have a lot more science history to read up on.

    I also have more shedding of the ego to read up on.

  8. MGTOW Boston says:

    Two sub species of human, yes CS! I have been thinking that for awhile now. Makes more sense. And if we understand that men came heer second, and so this is sorta her planet, and thats how she sees it at least, then we are really seeing things more clearly. Males came to exist after females, we are yet to break free like the Romulans from the Vulcans. (As the article talks about, they became Romulans after many years of being separated)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *