But your point *did* come through. Peterson's (and many people's) conception of the "alpha male" (or "alpha female" for Frank), has become second nature. It's everywhere in our culture. And it is ripe for a debunking that is complete enough to GRIP the populace. Dave's debunking is right, I think. The Adam Ruins Everything video is good, but too fluffy.
Since Peterson depends on (some bastardization of) evol. psych., then it would be healthy to have an evol. psych. debunking. *That's* what I'm actually looking for. Perhaps your "Oh no" paper contains that debunking. I'll look. On 02/15/2018 11:58 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > I apologize for the length of MY DESCENT and for the poor quality of the > Xerox. It doesn't surprise me that the main point didn't come through. I > think Evolutionary Psychology does provide testable hypotheses, but I also > think testability is not /sufficient /to make a hypothesis heuristic. The > hypothesis also has to be interesting. To be interesting, a hypothesis has > to challenge some way of thinking that has become second nature, and good EP > thought sometimes produces such surprising challenges. Such interesting > challenges do not arise from studies designed to bolster social stereotypes > with biological bafflegab. Here is another paper > <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247372033_Oh_no_Not_social_Darwinism_again> > much shorter (only 600 wds) and better Xeroxed, which exemplifies my > contempt for this latter sort of evolutionary psychology. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
