Is evolutionary psychology a pseudoscience?

[Trom]

@you_with_the_face

Here’s another interesting study. It found that 8.5% of U.S. women reported being raped as children, with 11 being the average age of victimization.

According to this cite, 17% of women in the U.S. have been raped either as children or adults.

So where is the basis for saying that child rape is rarer than adult rape? Do the math.

Neat. Yet, still completely irrelevant.

I don’t understand how you aren’t seeing that you’ve misinterpreted a minor point, had it pointed out and explicitly clarified, yet still insist on fighting an imaginary opponent.

Let’s try again:

When attempting to learn about the general reproductive strategies of humans, it seems intuitive that studying the typical sexual behavior found amongst most members of the species will be more fruitful than focusing on the deviant individuals.

That’s it - just a passing comment. Do you agree?

[you_with_the_face]

@Trom

Neat. Yet, still completely irrelevant.

Not irrelevant to the statement that Mijin just made. Let’s play back the footage once again. Gonna enlarge the font this time, okay?

@Mijin

I would consider child rape to be more rare than rape of women, I’m sure the data would bear this out.

I don’t understand how you aren’t seeing that you’ve misinterpreted a minor point, had it pointed out and explicitly clarified, yet still insist on fighting an imaginary opponent.

Yeah, it’s such a minor point that he just went on ahead and stated it again, in case there was any doubt that he meant what he said the first time. Even went so far as to express certainty about data that he didn’t even bother supplying.

And then here you come along, right on schedule, to tell me that the sky ain’t blue but rather neon green. Okay. Right.

[Trom]

@you_with_the_face

Not irrelevant to the statement that Mijin just made. Let’s play back the footage once again. Gonna enlarge the font this time, okay?

Yeah, it’s such a minor point that he just went on ahead and stated it again, in case there was any doubt that he meant what he said the first time. Even went so far as to express certainty about data that he didn’t even bother supplying.

And then here you come along, right on schedule, to tell me that the sky ain’t blue but rather neon green. Okay. Right.

Christ-on-a-pogo-stick.

This situation is hopeless. I’m sure you’ll wear yourself out eventually.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@even_sven

Please refer to the quote I was replying to. If EP is not about tying instincts to specific social patterns in modern society, then a lot of people didn’t get the memo.

Of course EP is about tying modern behavior, including specific social patterns, to our evolution.

Would you argue that the near universal pattern of human females leaving their natal group while males do not is not evolved? Especially since our closest relative shows the same pattern of behavior? Even if you accept this, would you then say it had no effect on social conventions?

Similarly, do you not accept that males evolve behavior to assure their paternity in mammals? Even if you accept this, would you then say it has no effect on social conventions?

[even_sven]

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

Of course EP is about tying modern behavior, including specific social patterns, to our evolution.

Would you argue that the near universal pattern of human females leaving their natal group while males do not is not evolved? Especially since our closest relative shows the same pattern of behavior? Even if you accept this, would you then say it had no effect on social conventions?

Similarly, do you not accept that males evolve behavior to assure their paternity in mammals? Even if you accept this, would you then say it has no effect on social conventions?

In order to convince me that something is near universal, it needs to be near universal. This means present in all kinds of societies. I am convinced it exists in most agricultural societies- which make up the majority of documented human existence, but certainly is not some kind of perfect expression of human genetic impulses. I think earlier and different human societies are a mixed bag. And post-agricultural societies are almost overwhelmingly rejecting of this particular behavior. I am not so arrogant as to believe that my society just happens to be the one that has uniquely transcended human instinct. Therefor, I must conclude that not only are out mating behaviors deeply shaped by society and the environment, but so were our ancestors. And just like gender roles today are most clearly understood in terms of things like wealth, power, norms, and upbringing, so were our ancestors. This, gender roles of, say, 1590s Britain show us no more about our instincts that those in 2011 New York

[Mijin]

@you_with_the_face

Not irrelevant to the statement that Mijin just made. Let’s play back the footage once again. Gonna enlarge the font this time, okay?

Oh that’s the statement that you’ve been talking about all this time? I mean, talking about before I had even said it?
The statement I made after being pressed about this repeatedly?

Yes, IMO, rape of women is probably more common than rape of children. No, it was not this that began this absurd tangent.

Let’s go back to the very first interaction between me and you. It was:

@you with the face

When a man rapes a child, a post-menopausal woman, or another man, what is the “strategy” behind that? Clearly it’s not reproduction.

@Mijin

<several points about instincts>
Going to very extreme behaviour like rare forms of rape is not a good place to start in studying human sexuality.

Essentially, I was trying to steer the conversation to something more relevant. But from this, from the (possible) implication that child rape is a rare form of rape, you’ve basically killed the thread.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@even_sven

In order to convince me that something is near universal, it needs to be near universal. This means present in all kinds of societies. I am convinced it exists in most agricultural societies- which make up the majority of documented human existence, but certainly is not some kind of perfect expression of human genetic impulses. I think earlier and different human societies are a mixed bag. And post-agricultural societies are almost overwhelmingly rejecting of this particular behavior. I am not so arrogant as to believe that my society just happens to be the one that has uniquely transcended human instinct. Therefor, I must conclude that not only are out mating behaviors deeply shaped by society and the environment, but so were our ancestors. And just like gender roles today are most clearly understood in terms of things like wealth, power, norms, and upbringing, so were our ancestors. This, gender roles of, say, 1590s Britain show us no more about our instincts that those in 2011 New York

I think the essential difference between you and I in terms of EP is the word “instinct”. First, I never professionally used the term because it has specific definitions that depend entirely on the background of the person using it. So it is vague. Instinct, to someone that deals with animal behavior, is the kind of reflexive stimulus-response behavior we associate with infants copying facial expressions, or when you shake your head back and forth but can still focus on what is in front of you.

You seem to be taking this kind of definition of instinct and are applying it to behavior that is instinctual in the sense that as an organism we engage in behavior like mating, aggression, parenting, etc. Just because humans innately engage in these types of behaviors, does not mean that there is no environmental input necessary to shape these behaviors. It does not mean these behaviors will be identically expressed in all people. Even chimpanzees do not show this kind of fixed pattern of various social behaviors. Lots of fish species do not show this kind of fixed behavior in mating strategy.

You keep bringing up 1950s Britain or America as though this is not a long-refuted aspect of your argument. Females emigrating to a new family is expressed in more than just agricultural societies. It is still a prevalent idea in modern America and I think you really need to pay attention to the behavior of families, newlyweds and mother-in-laws to see that it alive and well. Even when you discuss the novel behavior of modern youth, you should remember it is spoken of in contrast to the vastly more dominant pattern of behavior found throughout the world. It may be expressed quite variably from culture to culture but its there.

The main reason why it is not as prevalent is due to economic decisions and not some fundamental cultural shift. Modern jobs in modern society require males and females to move out of their natal group in hopes of supporting themselves economically. Before we can reproduce we have to be eating and have shelter.

To take an extremely simplistic example of what I am talking about, think of eating. Nobody would argue that our bodies are evolved to motivate us to ingest food when certain chemical parameters fall outside of specification. This does not mean that people will eat all the exact same food, this does not mean that people will not fast, it does not mean these parameters are identical in all people, it just means given the right environment internally and externally, we’ll eat.

[you_with_the_face]

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

Females emigrating to a new family is expressed in more than just agricultural societies. It is still a prevalent idea in modern America and I think you really need to pay attention to the behavior of families, newlyweds and mother-in-laws to see that it alive and well.

Can you provide some cites for this? Because it’s not resonating truth to me. Most of the married women I know still remain as involved with their blood family, if not more involved, than they are with their husband’s families. Also, consider that when a woman’s parents become sickly and elderly, she and her sisters are more often the ones talking care of them. Their brothers (and sisters-in-law) are further down on the list of caretakers. This observation is difficult to reconcile with the idea that married females “emigrate” from their families.

The evidence described in this paper also seems to conflict with your assertion. One of the things the authors described is that married women are more likely to live within 25 miles of their parents than they are in-laws. They also found that maternal and paternal grandparents are just as likely to assist with childcare.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@you_with_the_face

Can you provide some cites for this? Because it’s not resonating truth to me. Most of the married women I know still remain as involved with their blood family, if not more involved, than they are with their husband’s families. Also, consider that when a woman’s parents become sickly and elderly, she and her sisters are more often the ones talking care of them. Their brothers (and sisters-in-law) are further down on the list of caretakers. This observation is difficult to reconcile with the idea that married females “emigrate” from their families.

The evidence described in this paper also seems to conflict with your assertion. One of the things the authors described is that married women are more likely to live within 25 miles of their parents than they are in-laws. They also found that maternal and paternal grandparents are just as likely to assist with childcare.

No problem. I am honestly surprised that I would be asked to provide a cite for the extremely common practice of wives adopting the last name of the family they marry into. I am happy to provide this one to give some numbers to argue about. I can only provide the first page but it at least gives some estimates of how common the practice is: somewhere between 90% and 96% of married women take on their husbands’ last name (as of 1995).

Remember in the post that you quoted from, I was speaking of the idea.

I read your first cite and it said daughters-in-law are third in line as caregivers. Daughters-in-law. I did not read your 2nd cite because I am very busy at the moment and I can’t stomach reading a 34 page manuscript when I have so many other articles to read. I am sure it is a very exciting article for those in the field.

Here is an article presenting genetic evidence for female emigration. You only need read the first 17 lines.

…A higher female than male migration rate (via patrilocality, the tendency
for a wife to move into her husband’s natal household) explains most of this discrepancy…

I think you are getting closer to understanding EP though. It is an interesting question to address how our evolved behavior patterns fit into a world with greater than ever longevity. It’s a challenging task to undertake. It’s even more challenging since (1) Human beings are capable of great flexibility in behavior, and (2) this flexibility is only observable under diverse environmental conditions. Scientists only have the vaguest clue under which environment our ancestors evolved in, and there is no computational device that can account for all the variation in environment human beings find themselves in today. We know next to nothing about the development of most human behaviors and when you are discussing EP you are in part discussing development because you are eventually discussing genes. So it becomes a great challenge to discuss certain patterns of human behavior, like reporductive strategies, because there is no hope in accounting for, and thus developing a rational model, that explains everything from consensual sex, to rape, to homosexual behavior, to child sexual abuse, to yanking it to Lara Croft (about 6min in). Theories of everything are not even worked out for easy things like physics.

Even mice show incredible flexibility in their gender roles at times. I’ve even seen female mice mount and attempt to copulate with other female mice using perfectly formed patterns of masculine mating behavior. Of course, it’s strongly dependent upon the environment.

[even_sven]

@you_with_the_face

Can you provide some cites for this? Because it’s not resonating truth to me. Most of the married women I know still remain as involved with their blood family, if not more involved, than they are with their husband’s families. Also, consider that when a woman’s parents become sickly and elderly, she and her sisters are more often the ones talking care of them. Their brothers (and sisters-in-law) are further down on the list of caretakers. This observation is difficult to reconcile with the idea that married females “emigrate” from their families.

The evidence described in this paper also seems to conflict with your assertion. One of the things the authors described is that married women are more likely to live within 25 miles of their parents than they are in-laws. They also found that maternal and paternal grandparents are just as likely to assist with childcare.

And this is what bugs me about the whole thing. It looks to me like evidence from human society “counts” when it supports the pre-supposed idea (i.e. “traditional” gender roles are “natural”), as shown in the argument that “almost all” societies practice this pattern. But when the evidence from human society doesn’t support them pre-supposed idea, then they are hand-waved away with “Oh, well, there are exceptions” or “Well, we didn’t mean to explain everything!” or “Well, that’s economic factors” (and there weren’t economic factors at play on the farm?..).

EP seems exceptionally poorly suited for explaining modern society. How does EP explain that I’m a 30 year old woman, and 0% of my age cohort has kids, and maybe 20% have shown any interest in “settling down” with a man? Most of my friends are still having fun with one night stands and FWBs. Are we the product of some terribly unfit gene line that finally all of a sudden hit its brick wall? I doubt it.

[you_with_the_face]

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

No problem. I am honestly surprised that I would be asked to provide a cite for the extremely common practice of wives adopting the last name of the family they marry into.

You asserted that women leave behind or emigrate from their families, and offered the “behaviors of families, newly weds, and in-laws” as proof of this claim. That led me to assume you were talking about something bigger than simply swapping out one’s last name for their husbands.

I don’t need a cite to show that women commonly take on their husbands last name. You’re right, that’s inarguable.

I read your first cite and it said daughters-in-law are third in line as caregivers. Daughters-in-law.

Yeah, daughters-in-law come after daughters in the line of caregivers to parents. What does this mean to you? To me it suggests that intergenerational ties are stronger between daughters and their parents than it is between sons. It is inconsistent with the claim that daughters “leave” the roost to join the man’s family, while the man stay in the clan. This only seems to be the case in name only.

Here is an article presenting genetic evidence for female emigration. You only need read the first 17 lines.

I’m talking about practices today. I’ll grant you that women were more likely to migrate out in the past, but in this country that doesn’t appear to be the case. You’ll need cites to support your assertion that we’ve continued this practice even in post-industrial modernity. It does not square with my observations.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@even_sven

And this is what bugs me about the whole thing. It looks to me like evidence from human society “counts” when it supports the pre-supposed idea (i.e. “traditional” gender roles are “natural”), as shown in the argument that “almost all” societies practice this pattern. But when the evidence from human society doesn’t support them pre-supposed idea, then they are hand-waved away with “Oh, well, there are exceptions” or “Well, we didn’t mean to explain everything!” or “Well, that’s economic factors” (and there weren’t economic factors at play on the farm?..).

Not that I am an evolutionary psychologist or anything but I do recognize the information that does not support my ideas. You do the same thing you criticize actually. You essentially said that you recognize the behavior occurs but only in the past or pre-industrial societies. Something along those lines. I recognize that behavior can change quite dramatically as environments change. I think EPs do as well.That’s why I brought up the changing economy as a possible explanation for why we do not see obvious female emigration from their natal families.

I see that we’ve entered absurdity-land because there is almost no chance for agreement because even the things we agree on are a source of disagreement.

@even_sven

EP seems exceptionally poorly suited for explaining modern society. How does EP explain that I’m a 30 year old woman, and 0% of my age cohort has kids, and maybe 20% have shown any interest in “settling down” with a man? Most of my friends are still having fun with one night stands and FWBs. Are we the product of some terribly unfit gene line that finally all of a sudden hit its brick wall? I doubt it.

What makes you think we are evolved to have kids?

@you_with_the_face

You asserted that women leave behind or emigrate from their families, and offered the “behaviors of families, newly weds, and in-laws” as proof of this claim. That led me to assume you were talking about something bigger than simply swapping out one’s last name for their husbands.

I don’t need a cite to show that women commonly take on their husbands last name. You’re right, that’s inarguable.

Well, what I was thinking of in terms of in-laws was the anecdotal and empirical observation that husbands’ in-laws, particularly mothers-in-law are often more interfering in the life of the family than wives’ in-laws. I don’t know enough about it to put numbers to it or even to know where to look for the best information, but this article’s introduction, particularly the 3rd column, 1st full paragraph, gets at what I was thinking of.

@you_with_the_face

Yeah, daughters-in-law come after daughters in the line of caregivers to parents. What does this mean to you? To me it suggests that intergenerational ties are stronger between daughters and their parents than it is between sons. It is inconsistent with the claim that daughters “leave” the roost to join the man’s family, while the man stay in the clan. This only seems to be the case in name only.

The fact that they are third on the list means to me that daughters, no matter their origin, are more involved in taking care of their families than sons. Son-in-laws do not make the list.

@you_with_the_face

I’m talking about practices today. I’ll grant you that women were more likely to migrate out in the past, but in this country that doesn’t appear to be the case. You’ll need cites to support your assertion that we’ve continued this practice even in post-industrial modernity. It does not square with my observations.

Can you please find the quote where I said that females, in modern America, emigrate from their natal families into the families of their husbands? What I think I said is that the idea is still with us and indicated that it still effects social relationships in families. And it does.

Sorry it doesn’t do something dramatic like explain every occurrence of every behavior that ever existed between women and their families. I don’t even know if EP researchers have even addressed it. Remember, this started because even sven can’t help herself from coming up with terrible explanations for specific behaviors and then saying they are better than the ones offered by the researchers. So why don’t we get back on track or has this thread devolved into “Why can’t EP explain every single behavior I can think up?”.

I strongly recommend watching that video in full if that’s what you want to do. It gives you a sense of the mindset EP researchers use when approaching the questions they are interested in - human behavior in the modern environment. In evolution, anything modern is today.

[even_sven]

I’d like to clarify my position. I am saying:

[ol]
[li]Human instict provides basic drives. These drives are the filtered through successive lenses of culture, economics, and individual personailities, giving rise to our various socieities.[/li][li]But these filters are so strong, multi-faceted and complex that it’s rarely possible to trace some specific bhavior back to its genetic origin. It’s like trying to decipher a text that has been translated over and over again until it is garbled- you can figure out the rules on one end, but it’s not particlarly possible to trace them to their impetus on the other.[/li][li]When faced with the question “Why do we do XXX”, the immediate economic explaination is much more likely than the inderect “caveman” explaination. [/li][li]Most of the behavior we know, understand, and view as “common” stems from agricultural socities, which have some specific economics behind them. People theorizing on human behavior needs to make sure they account for the greater variety found in non-agricultural and post-agricultural societie. “Common sense”, in many cases, is just a matter that most of the socities we are familiar with an interested in happen to have similar economic foundations.[/li][li] Thus, for example, when examining gender roles it makes more sense to how gender works in agricultural societies such as the one we lived in two or three generations ago, rather than automatically seeking the EP explanation. [/li][/ol]

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

Remember, this started because even sven can’t help herself from coming up with terrible explanations for specific behaviors and then saying they are better than the ones offered by the researchers. So why don’t we get back on track or has this thread devolved into “Why can’t EP explain every single behavior I can think up?”.

Absolutely not. This tangent started because of this quote:

Are there any human cultures where the female isn’t the gender that is passed on to the next family, tribe, or culture? In humans and chimpanzees it’s usually the female.

You can’t decide this argument “counts” when it supports your side and doesn’t count when it doesn’t.

[you_with_the_face]

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

Well, what I was thinking of in terms of in-laws was the anecdotal and empirical observation that husbands’ in-laws, particularly mothers-in-law are often more interfering in the life of the family than wives’ in-laws.

The paternal mother-in-law will be more interfering because she’s used to controlling her son. His wife–by being the nurturer in the home- disrupts the mother-son dynamic that the mother-in-law takes for granted.

We shouldn’t expect maternal mother-in-laws to be as intering because their daughters’ husbands don’t disrupt the mother-daughter social order. The maternal father-in-law, on the other hand, might have stake in the matter. But because males tend to more hands off in household affair, you don’t hear of these kind of stories as often.

The fact that they are third on the list means to me that daughters, no matter their origin, are more involved in taking care of their families than sons. Son-in-laws do not make the list.

Right, but the point is not that women are more nurturing than males. The point is that daughters are closer to their origin family than either their brothers or sisters-in-law are. Even though daughters-in-law step up to the plate with regard to elderly care, daughters do so more often. If daughters do all of this supposed emigrating, then daughters-in-law should rank higher.

What I think I said is that the idea is still with us and indicated that it still effects social relationships in families. And it does.

But you really haven’t shown that. Yes women take their husband’s name. If this is all you meant, fine. That’s easy to demonstrate. But beyond that and a minor wedding ritual or two, I don’t see much basis for saying the idea of female emigration is really evident in our relationships today. That’s all. Name changing and father’s walking their daughter down the ailse are vestigial traditions that no longer accurately reflect how we live today.

[Mijin]

And to clarify my position:

1. We should never be dimissive of something because it does not fit our intuitions. All that is important is whether it can be used to make testable predictions, and the results of those tests.
2. Culture and instincts have both been demonstrated to play a significant role in our behaviour.
3. It’s possible to study instincts even with through the “filter” of culture.
   I’ve used fear of heights as an example, and nobody has disputed that this is instinctive, even though culture can almost completely override it.
4. Instincts which guide our sexuality, however, for some reason makes some people uncomfortable. I think it is because they think it necessarily means making a moral judgement about how people should behave, when in fact it is just about increasing our understanding of human psychology.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

[quote=“even_sven, post:193, topic:604873”]

I’d like to clarify my position. I am saying:
[LIST=1]
[li]Human instict provides basic drives. These drives are the filtered through successive lenses of culture, economics, and individual personailities, giving rise to our various socieities.[/li][/QUOTE]

Instinct? Drives? Are you going to talk about the Id next? Personality: typically has about a .50 for heritability (varies with dimension). I am not sure what you are getting at with all your lenses. Makes no sense to me. The subject of this thread is a branch of psychology.

[quote=“even_sven, post:193, topic:604873”]

[li]But these filters are so strong, multi-faceted and complex that it’s rarely possible to trace some specific bhavior back to its genetic origin. It’s like trying to decipher a text that has been translated over and over again until it is garbled- you can figure out the rules on one end, but it’s not particlarly possible to trace them to their impetus on the other.[/li][/QUOTE]

Gene variants have been reliably associated with so many behaviors by this point that I simply cannot believe you are expressing this view. Go to google scholar and type in “gene association behavior”.

[quote=“even_sven, post:193, topic:604873”]

[li]When faced with the question “Why do we do XXX”, the immediate economic explaination is much more likely than the inderect “caveman” explaination.[/li][/QUOTE]

So people generally have sex with whatever is in front of them then. You should disconti nue the caricature and try to learn something.

[quote=“even_sven, post:193, topic:604873”]

[li]Most of the behavior we know, understand, and view as “common” stems from agricultural socities, which have some specific economics behind them. People theorizing on human behavior needs to make sure they account for the greater variety found in non-agricultural and post-agricultural societie. “Common sense”, in many cases, is just a matter that most of the socities we are familiar with an interested in happen to have similar economic foundations.[/li][/QUOTE]

Banging people we are attracted to stems from agricultural society. Got it. It doesn’t make a bit of sense but I am going to try and live in your world for a change and see how it fits.

@even_sven

Absolutely not. This tangent started because of this quote…You can’t decide this argument “counts” when it supports your side and doesn’t count when it doesn’t.

So in other words, you are going to ignore why I wrote that in the first place. I wrote that because you were all excited about one of your ideas concerning the data observed in the Norwegian study.

I was trying to show why your ideas were terrible and the idea mentioned in the Norwegian study is based in applicable theory and addresses all the results. Your behavior illustrates your caricature of EP, the paper shows what EP actually is, even if it is not the best example.

The paper, if you actually read it, shows that they obtained data that questions whether they would see this blue-eyed male to blue-eyed female preference outside the laboratory. They also tested a parent-model hypothesis. It’s not a bad little paper given the resources they probably had.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@you_with_the_face

The paternal mother-in-law will be more interfering because she’s used to controlling her son. His wife–by being the nurturer in the home- disrupts the mother-son dynamic that the mother-in-law takes for granted.

We shouldn’t expect maternal mother-in-laws to be as intering because their daughters’ husbands don’t disrupt the mother-daughter social order. The maternal father-in-law, on the other hand, might have stake in the matter. But because males tend to more hands off in household affair, you don’t hear of these kind of stories as often.

See how you added all these layers of explanation to say what is said more simply? Females are perceived as emigrating into a family and thus the males’ family feels more dominant?

Now to be clear, I do not know enough to disagree with what you are saying and a lot of it rings true. Yet, the explanation I offered and the one you offer are analysis at two different levels, there is no reason that what you describe is not the means by which a long ago established pattern of behavior continues to be expressed.

@you_with_the_face

Right, but the point is not that women are more nurturing than males. The point is that daughters are closer to their origin family than either their brothers or sisters-in-law are. Even though daughters-in-law step up to the plate with regard to elderly care, daughters do so more often. If daughters do all of this supposed emigrating, then daughters-in-law should rank higher.

The evidence most strongly points to women being more nurturing than males. It also shows that daughters keep linkages with their family of origin as well as integrate with their in-law families more than do sons-in-law, who are not on the list.

@you_with_the_face

But you really haven’t shown that. Yes women take their husband’s name. If this is all you meant, fine. That’s easy to demonstrate. But beyond that and a minor wedding ritual or two, I don’t see much basis for saying the idea of female emigration is really evident in our relationships today. That’s all. Name changing and father’s walking their daughter down the ailse are vestigial traditions that no longer accurately reflect how we live today.

Yeah, weddings don’t matter at all…could you show less awareness of most people on the planet than that? I thought I lived in the country that is shitting itself state by state over gay marriage and yet I am supposed to just think weddings are some minor rituals. It’s like saying that religion doesn’t matter while 98% of the planet identifies with a religion.

The cite in my last post shows that of all the in-laws, the males’ parents are the most annoying and domineering. It supports what I said. It doesn’t mean that perception of emigration is the exact reason why such patterns of behavior exist, but it supports it.

[you_with_the_face]

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

See how you added all these layers of explanation to say what is said more simply? Females are perceived as emigrating into a family and thus the males’ family feels more dominant?

Males emigrate into families too, the only difference is that mother-in-laws don’t feel as threatened by their presence. The only reason for this is that husbands are not quasi-mothers; wives are. There is no “added layers of explanation” here. This is common sense.

Now to be clear, I do not know enough to disagree with what you are saying and a lot of it rings true. Yet, the explanation I offered and the one you offer are analysis at two different levels, there is no reason that what you describe is not the means by which a long ago established pattern of behavior continues to be expressed.

Just because mothers-in-law have territorial issues with their daughters-in-law (anecdotally) is not evidence that wives leave behind their families. The same dynamic could just as easily exist in a world in which men supposedly were the ones to leave their families. You haven’t shown otherwise.

The evidence most strongly points to women being more nurturing than males. It also shows that daughters keep linkages with their family of origin as well as integrate with their in-law families more than do sons-in-law, who are not on the list.

Neither sons or sons-in-law are on the list because men are not usually caretakers. That’s why you have to compare what daughters do with what daughters-in-law do. And when you do, you see nothing that supports the claim that daughters “leave behind” their parents.

Yeah, weddings don’t matter at all…could you show less awareness of most people on the planet than that? I thought I lived in the country that is shitting itself state by state over gay marriage and yet I am supposed to just think weddings are some minor rituals. It’s like saying that religion doesn’t matter while 98% of the planet identifies with a religion.

A father walking his daughter down the aisle doesn’t mean anything more than a ritual unless you can show that it does. Maybe if you could get around to doing that, then maybe you’d be on more solid ground.

The cite in my last post shows that of all the in-laws, the males’ parents are the most annoying and domineering. It supports what I said. It doesn’t mean that perception of emigration is the exact reason why such patterns of behavior exist, but it supports it.

No, it really doesn’t. Which means you’re grasping at straws if this all you can do.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@you_with_the_face

Males emigrate into families too, the only difference is that mother-in-laws don’t feel as threatened by their presence. The only reason for this is that husbands are not quasi-mothers; wives are…No, it really doesn’t. Which means you’re grasping at straws if this all you can do.

So, how does anything that you say in this entire thread say anything at all about EP as a pseudoscience?

[Evil_Captor]

@olivesmarch4th

Why use the term ‘‘justify’’ and not ‘‘explain’’? If men and women don’t want to adhere to traditional gender roles or act like bigoted assholes, despite whatever social order their ancestors practiced, then why should they? Why do we confuse a description of behavior with a prescription for behavior?

Well the problem IIRC was that people who were PREDISPOSED to use the theory to JUSTIFY their ideas took the sociobiology ball and ran with it. People like John Norman, who’s clearly powerfully influenced by it. (Of course, Norman wrote his first Gor novel in 1964, so it’s not like he sat around waiting for Wilson to publish HIS book, but can anybody serious doubt he would find sociobiology appealing, with his insistence that there are natural hierarchies in human society?) Kinda like Darwin never really intended to support anything like Nazism when he wrote The Evolution of Species but certain groups, including the fascists and Nazis, took his ideas about the survival of the fittest, ran them through their blender, and ran with them.

(Not intending to Godwinize the thread, my point is that liberals and others might reasonably be suspect of any scientific theory that gets grabbed by the far end of conservatism and run with so enthusiastically, if only because it provides the hard right fodder for their follies, without passing judgement on the underlying theory.)