evolution for thee, but not for me!

heh.

WHO LIKES EVOLUTION? DISSOCIATION OF HUMAN EVOLUTION VERSUS EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY

“Recent media accounts have highlighted opposition to evolutionary theory among certain groups and individuals in the United States. At the same time, evolutionary psychology, which relies on evolutionary theory to explain and predict human behavior, remains a controversial academic discipline. In the following two studies, we investigated the relation between willingness to support evolutionary theory in general and willingness to support key tenets of evolutionary psychology. Our results revealed a double dissociation, whereby endorsers of human evolution displayed relatively weak support for claims derived from evolutionary psychology, whereas non-endorsers of human evolution displayed relatively strong support for such claims. This latter support remained strong, though diminished, when the relation between evolutionary theory and evolutionary psychology was made explicit to respondents. The results suggest that strong support or opposition regarding human evolution does not carry over into corresponding attitudes toward evolutionary psychology.

us folks of the altright|hbd-o-sphere have been aware of this … inconsistency … for some time. people have all sorts of cognitive dissonances, but this one is one of the most amusing — but infuriating as h*ll! — ones to me.

(note: comments do not require an email.)

5 Comments

  1. Ironically enough those who promote evolution solely as a way of attacking religion may be conforming to their own evolutionary psychology.

    Reply

  2. Studies on who does or doesn’t believe in “evolution” are strongly confounded by the great variety of meanings people attach to the word. For example, virtually every one on a modern university faculty will express a belief in “evolution,” but no one in the humanities or social sciences will accept natural selection. Most of humanists and social scientists appear to be spencerians or lamarckians. None of them believe that any kind of biological evolution has anything whatever to do with people: there are NO races (Cavalli-sforza).

    Many people in the natural sciences, engineering, mathematics and philosophy are in the same camp as the humanists and social scientists. Deniers of natural selection include Popper and Russell, hardly light-weights, and even some famous modern biologists like Lynn (“natural selection is a cult”) Margulis . Gould spent his entire career minimizing natural selection, and his punctuated equilibrium model can be (and often is) interpreted as stating that natural selection prevents evolution.

    So, I would say that when people do stats on the GSS do their own surveys, the results are largely unintelligible because the questions are phrased in undefined, and possibly undefinable terms, like “evolution.”

    By the way, this semantic problem extends to “species” as well. Gene Expression Discover has a very nice paper on canids that explores the differences between various populations of wolves, coyotes and dogs and how to define species among canids. However, if one believes in the Dobzhansky-Mayer biological definition of species, one might conclude that canids comprise a single species.

    The definitions and theories of species and the mechanism of evolution taught in all textbooks don’t describe or account for the reality of belief.

    Reply

  3. @bob sykes – “[V]irtually every one on a modern university faculty will express a belief in ‘evolution,’ but no one in the humanities or social sciences will accept natural selection.”

    well, that’s bizarre! what is evolution if not (driven by) natural selection?

    @bob sykes – “Deniers of natural selection include Popper….”

    didn’t know that about popper. also very bizarre. i know all about gould, of course — but he was an idiot (oh, shouldn’t speak ill of the dead!) with an agenda (don’t we all have one?).

    @bob sykes – “So, I would say that when people do stats on the GSS do their own surveys, the results are largely unintelligible because the questions are phrased in undefined, and possibly undefinable terms, like ‘evolution.'”

    very good point. i’m gonna remember that. (committing to memory commencing … now ….)

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s