On 02/23/2018 07:12 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > I think one is an evolutionary psychologist if and only if one thinks that > knowledge of human evolutionary history has something to contribute to our > understanding of contemporary human behavior. So, yes, you may call me an > evolutionary psychologist. My guess is that, on that definition, so are you. >
Ha! No, I'm not. As I've argued lots on this list, I think thoughts are either purely epiphenomenal or, at least, rhetorical abstractions. (Yes. "This sentence is false.") To the extent that even an extreme behaviorist draws a (artificial) line between a behavior like sneezing and its underlying physiology, you can't include me in that group. There is no line. Psychology seems, to me, like a misguided stepchild of philosophy. Add to that my appreciation for postmodernism and context-determined behavior and you might wonder what strength evolutionary arguments hold at all, of anything other than trickery and artifice like Peterson's. Note that I'm qualifying "argument" with "evolutionary", not suggesting I don't believe evolution is, and is accurate. It is both. But the space of arguments invoking it is *swamped* with bullsh¡t (https://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html). Luckily, I see no bullsh¡t in the 3 or so papers of yours that I've read. > ... particularly if we take them as CAUSAL claims. And what other kind of > claims to increased understanding are there? Now *that's* another interesting topic, non-causal claims. But I suspect everyone's tired of me by now. So, I really should back off. 8^) -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ 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
