Evolutionary psychology

Post Reply New Topic

We are devo.

My hypothesis is that if evolutionary psychology used a two-factor model, adding people on the spectrum into one of these models, this would disprove evolutionary psychology entirely. They would not be able to explain our behaviors (let alone our mating habits) through genetic hard-wiring.

We are the reason evolutionary psychology does not work.

Evolutionary psychology cannot exist among neurodiversity.

I think you are wrong here, but that remains to be seen. I have a pretty good idea of how the neurodiverse mating behaviors work, but finding enough evidence for this so it can be published is a major challenge.



The idea that neurodiverse people are not the product of evolution, or that we somehow has left this behind us is not very likely. We are an animal, and thus must follow the rules of other animals, and also needs to have a consistent mating behavior. Everything else is anti-evolutionary and religious in nature. That our social and mating behaviors are not similar to neurotypical people's doesn't need to mean we lack them.

Also, since all humans are on a spectrum with various neurotypical and neurodiverse behaviors in an unique mixture, means we will see most combinations of mating behaviors. This blurs the picture, but it doesn't go against the idea that there exists both a consistent neurotypical and neurodiverse mating behavior.

....which is just one of the many reasons I find "evo-psyche" is a load of crap.

The "mating process" is a lot more complicated among non-human primates than "alphas get all the chicks." Furthermore, being "alpha" doesn't have anything to do with being violent, abusive, or a jerk.

Actually, I really have no idea how you can even divide humans into "alpha" and "beta" groups.

That's a typical "just-so-story" created by neurotypical men. They like it to be like that since they work like that.



I've yet to see any female (or male) that doesn't rank potential partners, but instead selects somebody random. It simply doesn't happen. That's why the idea that biology has no influence on mate choice is just a load of crap.

In fact, not even for casual sex do we see random selection of partners. It doesn't matter that contraceptives makes it unlikely that sex will lead to pregnancy, the mating instincts still are at work.

I don't buy most of the "alpha/beta/omega" stuff, but some evolutionary psychology is interesting. Daniel Kahnemann has said that some of the heuristics we use probably developed because they were better than rationality in our evolutionary past, Robin Dunbar and Susanne Shultz found that more monogamous species have larger brains relative to body size, etc.

.........which still doesn't lend itself to the notion that humans can be effectively ranked into "alpha/beta/omega" groups.

It seems to me that NTs are concerned about social status, esp. in hierarchies. I wouldn't be surprised if greed and promiscuity are largely means to display higher status. NTs brag about exploits, most of which probably don't even happen. Values and beliefs are just rationalizations and not very important to begin with. Aren't chimps and NTs hypergamous?



As for sci NDs, I don't know what is going on, since I'd like to know why male NTs are getting the sci ND chicks, especially if Neanderthal females wouldn't have anything to do with them. Is it that in this culture most sci ND males become so isolated or pathetic they'd rather deal with jerks?

Umm. I got an idea as to why males NDs seems to have so much harder getting partners than females. It's probably related to Hn mating behavior. I'll start another thread on that.

Could it be that sci NDs generally don't know why they stim (or do certain ones) or enjoy them because they are depressed, perhaps the high rates of mental injury makes the analysis much more difficult since there may well be few functioning NDs? In another thread on globalization I guesstimated rates between around 30 and 100% -- quite a range, the point being there are a lot of unknowns that make an accurate calculation impossible.

As for genetic incompatibilities, why would that be such a problem now and not before? If it is that NTs and sci NDs are mating that wouldn't have before why are these mixed marriages and cohabitations happening now? (I assume even today one night stands between NTs and sci NDs hardly ever happen.) You need an explanation involving a change that is only a few decades old since the problem probably started in the '40s or 50s -- I'd say the '70s at the very latest when ADD became popular. My mother was diagnosed with something, back in the '50s if not '40s.

There is a very simple explanations. 50+ years ago the possible mating pool was small and people often married with nearby people. Also, ONS and similar were considered immoral, and sex before marriage was illegal. Both these things favor NDs.

Not claiming that we aren't the product of evolution or that we left it behind. Simply that evolutionary psychology is not applicable to us. I see no evidence to support that neurodiverse people have a consistent mating behavior. It is usually something that we overlook. Few of us even desire to have children. When we are selecting mates, we do not rank them like neurotypicals do. I'm not even sure that we "select mates." This is not religious, but I suppose anything that isn't hard neurotypical wiring could be considered such.

We do not have the same neurological wiring as people who are considered neurotypical. So, why would we have the same psychological wiring as them? This makes little sense. The way neurotypicals are into "game" is foreign to us. We should not be grouped by a psychology that does not describe us, simply because we are a product of evolution.

What about nations of immigrants such as the nations of the Americas and Singapore? Shouldn't that lead to problems, even in the case of America (USA) back when most of the immigrants were from Northwestern Europe (before the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965) let alone what happened afterwards?

They rationalize why people who don't fit into their models are statistical outliers and thus do not count. Or they rationalize how they really do fit into such models.

A lot of our behaviours can be exolained by evolutionary psychology. 'while it's a social construct that all boys are supposed to like blue and all girls are supposed to like pink, it's true that men are better at math than women, that women are better at language and social skills than men, that men prefer pretty women because of their genetics and that there are indeed alpha, beta and omega specimens of humans. The alpha male is a leader, though. Those cool guys you saw in high school who were invited to all the parties and got laid just because they were cool, were typically led by one alpha male and the rest of them were beta and omega males. There are also alpha, beta and omega females; genuine career women are the former--typical pushover girls are the latter.

f**k political correctness; we share 98.6% of our DNA with chimpanzees.

^^^^^

Some people will believe anything, so long as it confirms their biases.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 99,00.html

http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/hyde.pdf

Has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with the fact that you're spouting some bad science there, and that evo psychi is often execrable science because it is unfalsifiable.

Also:

http://schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/neurosexism/