BoysToys

[SlowFJH]

We have two boys and a girl (all now teenagers). My daughter was never into dolls and never really liked pink. She was into arts and crafts and loves knitting and sowing. The boys were completely stereotypical (plastic and wooden swords, guns, cars, diggers and tractors, soldiers etc).

We have good feminist friends (with three boys) who banned violent toys for boys. They always gave us the cat's bum face when they visited ours because their boys used to absolutely love playing with my sons' swords and shields. When we went out it for a walk, every stick they found was a gun - despite their parents vocal disapproval.

My friend's boys (now all strapping teenage lads) joke about how their parents banned them from having the toys they always wanted.

We definitely saw differences in toy preferences very early on. My daughter had zero interest in wheeled toys (despite my efforts) but both boys were fascinated by them virtually from day one.

I know my experience is not scientific. But there were some studies several years ago using baby apes (who obviously had not been conditioned by human systems or been exposed to advertising etc). Baby male apes showed a clear preference for mechanical toys over plush toys.

www.newscientist.com/article/dn13596-male-monkeys-prefer-boys-toys/

I'd love to hear others views on this topic... social conditioning versus biological predispositions.

SlowFJH

Psychology is an academic discipline.

MyCrispBag
Let me rephrase the question...
Do you believe that that the psychological processes of humans (and their predecessors) have evolved over time?

At least one of them has already answered that from what I can see.

Perhaps you should read their replies more carefully?

MyCrispBag
Psychology is an academic discipline

Thanks that MyCrispBag. I was aware of that fact. For the purposes of this debate (and many other situations) the term can also be used in common parlance to reference to the structure and functioning of the mind, including things like reasoning, decision-making and behaviour).

Not with an unevoqual yes or no. I appreciate your concern about my ability to understand so it's only fair that I double check.

Why did you answer the same thing twice?

Perhaps that's because you obviously don't understand the complexity of your own question?

To avoid the risk of anyone else getting as angry and agitated as MyCrispBag - "Hahaha...As if there is such a thing as a psychology...Jesus fucking wept"

can I please clarify that several contributors (not only me), have been using the word "Psychology" as a convenient shorthand to include the broad range of psychological processes - including the physiological, biological, biochemical and electrochemical processes that occur in the mind - governing aspects such as:
Brain Function
Personality
Emotion
Perception
Cognition
Attention
Intelligence
Interpersonal Relationships
Psychological Resilience
and many, many more.

Rather than write out this lengthy description each time, we're using the broad term "psychology".

Hope that clarifies and that Jesus can now wipe the tears from his eyes

I was really angry and agitated. That's why I felt the need to reply to the same point in 3 separate posts.

No need to MyCrispBag. Lots of people say "Physiology" not only to refer to the academic study of the workings of the body but sometimes also to refer to all of the bodily workings of a particular body . As in "I am not familiar with physiology of this species". Most people reading that or hearing that would understand that they are not critiquing the university department s of that species but rather saying "I don't understand much about the physiological structure and processes of this species.

HTH (I picked that up from CrappyMummy). It means "Happy To Help"

"No need to MyCrispBag."

I know, I didn't. I was referring to your posts.

HTH

MyCrispBag
"Perhaps that's because you don't understand the complexity of your own question"

In that case, let me rephrase in order to simplify..
This question is aimed at
Muttaburrasaurus
CrappyMummy
SomeDyke
AskBasil and
MyCrispBag

If you accept that the psychological processes of Homo Sapiens (e.g. intelligence, cognition, brain function and perception) have evolved over time - compared with its early hominid ancestors, is it still fair say things like 'All evolutionary psychology is bollocks'?

The three posts happened because I am a slow typer and I believed you had reposted. I think this is called cross-posting. I apologise for any distress this may have caused.

Slow typing doesn't account for separate posting. Cross posting is where you reply before somebody posts additional information. Which I didn't.

What you did was keep replying with increasingly passive aggressive posts to the same post.

It's fine though, it was entertaining for a while but I am bored of it now. I wouldn't have bothered explaining this (as I am sure you were aware of what you were doing) but earlier you did ask for clarification regarding the criticism of your posting style and I am always HTH.

As for your question - In my experience Most of the 'science' that chooses to term itself Evolutionary Psychology does tend to seem like a load of bollocks (pink/blue, toys, women's walking, male penis size/female breast size) and I am not alone in thinking this. A lot of these studies and theories have been criticised by accredited scientists. Evolutionary biology in particular has a fractious relationship with evo-psych.

That said I don't think all psychology that looks to evolution for explanations regarding human behaviour is bollocks.

Psychology is a fragmented discipline. Look at some of the 'aspects' you listed in your post. Google some of those terms and you will see that their very definition/existence is contested. Some of the things you are asking are wandering into the realms of philosophy. There is no straight yes or no answer because we don't actually know what the question is.

It isn't about style guides. It's about considering and responding to people without condescending or trivialising what they say; inventing a straw monkey argument, claiming they said it and crowing about it.

This isn't debating class at school; no one is obliged to interact with you if they don't enjoy it.

Hope That Helps (HTH).

TTFN.

To me, your question reads like this:

If you accept that there has been species divergence from homo erectus, how then can you reject the idea that it was sky pixies which caused it, for the purpose of making us better at tennis, and that's why people of today have longer forearms than their evolutionary ancestors of yore?!?

quite easily, as it turns out, since evidence that us has occurred does not equate to evidence of that particular mechanism.

there isn't a fossil record for cognitive capacity, or psychology, however you choose to define it. having a problem with 'studies' carried out by evolutionary psychologists is exactly the problem- falsifiable hypotheses, which are then supported with robust data, which can be checked, are at the heart of the scientific method. I am not convinced they are in this discipline.

Again, evolutionary psychology seems like a bias justification factory: women love red lipstick because women love red because they used to pick berries because female chimps do now- it makes sense! Never mind the many cultures where women never painted their lips red, or where men have/did/do as fashions changed, it fits the bias.

Let me put it this way.

Phrenology has been discounted as bunkum.

But people have lumpy heads. Kids born to people with long, thin heads, often have long thin heads. Heads evolved to be big and lumpy, people still have a 'phrenology' (to use the word the same way), and that phrenology is both nature, through random chance on an individual and evolved, and was nurtured (through the occasional bump on the head

Phrenology is still bunk.

Yes no answers don't work in this case - that's why people have it as an academic discipline and study it. If there was a yes/no answer there would be no point in study.

Crappymummy
Your words
There isn't a fossil record for cognitive capacity

Two species of early hominid A and B, the fossils found for A are much older than B. The skull size of A is much smaller than B. Do you think that a bigger skull might also contain a bigger brain?

Is that not a fossil record for the evolution of cognitive capacity?

No tools of any description were found from the era that species A existed. In fact Species A looked similar to some modern apes . With Species B, there are abundant examples of simple stone tools found near and around the fossilised bones. In particular, the making of these tools was clearly a skilled art that took much practice (as the fossils include many examples of rejected stone axes).

Is that not evidence of the evolution of cognitive capacity?

With a much later fossil (Species C - which is closely related to Species B), the fossil record and archeology reveals that C had a burial ritual for their dead, with bodies arranged in a particular position. Tools from this era are much more complex than simple hand axes and include stone arrow heads

Is that not evidence of the evolution of cognitive capacity?

The archeology digs where fossils of C were found reveal that simple dwellings were arranged with an overall plan in mind - indicating that Species C must have acquired a more complex language.

Is that not evidence of the evolution of cognitive capacity?

Species D goes from flint arrows to intercontinental ballistic missiles in (archeological terms what is) a blink of any eye.

Isn't that evidence for the evolution of cognitive capacity?

This will be me putting thoughts in writing.

The way we do evolutionary biology is to look at markers or traits along the evolutionary tree.
For example, comparing one protein sequence from a species of monkey with the human equivalent would tell us very little about how that protein evolved. We'd need to have the same protein along all branches of simians, and that included that species and humans.
Then, as I mentioned, there's the actual question and how it's tested. It's easy for the question to be biased or not valid at all. And to test you'll need appropriate controls.

Say you want to test if there are inate differences in toy preference between boys and girls and if so if those differences are something we inherited from our ancestors.

A) question. What is toy preference? A generic one won't cut it. We could instead ask if males prefer wheeled toys. Then you find a set of differently shaped and function toys and put on or take away wheels. So that the same toy is presented with and without wheels. Then you present each to males and females and note the choice. You try in different contexts and series and repeatedly.
B) evolution. You must do the same test in a large number of monkey species and in all apes.
That would be how you'd even begin to think of the experiment.

DrSeussRevived
"It's about considering and responding to people without condescending or trivialising what they say"

I'm sure that never happened on MN before.

Would you accept that classing an entire academic discipline as "bollocks, bunkum, utterly amazing bollocks" could be seen by some as condescending and trivialising?

Double standards.

GreenTomatoJam
"Phrenology has been discontinued as bunkum"

I know. My question was not about phrenology. Isn't that an example of false analogy or strawman argument or summat?

I am asking if you (personally) believe something based on the evidence you are aware of so a straight answer either way is perfectly acceptable.

Do you personally believe that the psychological processes of humans and their ancestors have evolved over time?

Discounted not discontinued (autocorrect)

It's an analogy

Evo psych is bunk

I still have lots of stuff going on in my head, some of which may have come about through evolution (urge to pee in a corner, fear of the dark), some by nature (food preferences, ability to sing in tune), and some by nurture (being able to remember ip addresses easily, look at a piece of knitting and figure out how it was done)

Evo psych is still bunkem.

Whether I believe aspects of my personality evolved at all, doesn't mean that an academic discipline is rigorous and scientific (much as phrenology wasn't)

Slow. We've given many examples of why we think evo psych is a load of nonsense.

Can you please give an example of why you think it isn't?

Lweji
Some studies have been poorly designed and therefore produced questionable data. The same could be said for any field of science. That in itself is not sufficient reason to classify the entire academic field as "utterly amazing bollocks".

For me, Evolutionary Psychology is a "way of thinking" about psychology IF and (only if) you accept evolution (the inheritance of "useful traits/features" through the process of natural selection). If you accept that human beings have evolved, isn't it fair to ask "I wonder how our psychological function and processes might have evolved?"

When you talk about our psychological function and processes do you mean the mind? The way the mind works?