Edit - Addendum: The video title is quite clickbait-y. The video doesn’t want to debunk any “serious” science, but rather investigates how badly done research with no reproducability or horrible statistical significance is used to influence the discourse in favour of regressive politics.

  • perestroika@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I’m aware of what eugenics is / was, along with some other curious things that preceded (e.g. phrenology). I would say: a branch of science is likely to deserve the prefix “pseudo” if it has a single-minded goal to improve before understanding. Eugenics was such a doctrine.

    Hypothetically, after gaining actual understanding of what genes are “good” or “bad” (quotation marks since “good” genes are only good in a given environment together with compatible other genes), eugenics might rise from the dead, but likely under another name and with a different character - since the original name has a ruined reputation and the original character was one of repression / discrimination. Indeed, maybe the resurrection has already happened, and the name is medical genetics - finding genetic patterns of risk and ways to avoid risk or fix results (apply gene therapy).

    I find it extremely unlikely that either evolutionary psychology, behavioural ecology or game theory would end up in the rubbish bin where eugenics went, because the premises of these studies seem quite strong.

    I could say “evolutionary psychology is useless” but then I’d have to prove that: a) humans haven’t participated in evolution or b) evolution cannot produce psychological traits or c) psychological traits cannot have evolutionary value or generally aren’t worth study. I cannot prove that, so the foundation seems solid. Applicability - well, that is another question. I find the greatest applicability in explaining animal psychology, because you cannot ask animals why they do things.

    I could say “behavioural ecology is useless”, but then I’d have to prove that either: a) behaviour has no part in ecological interactions or b) behaviour has no patterns worthy of study or c) ecological relations have no patterns worthy of study. I cannot.

    I could say “game theory is useless”, but then I would have to prove that rational agents don’t use strategic calculations, or there are no rational agents, or that strategy is not worthy of study. I can’t - instead I find it extremely useful.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think the video is very much for someone like you. It actually addresses why eugenics is always a bad idea, even if we know what genes are “bad” and “good”, since evolution follows the strategy of increasing the variance of inheritable traits in order to make life resilient to catastrophic events.

      No one criticizes behavioral ecology or game theory. You brought those up, but they don’t have anything to do with the video at hand.

      The issues of evolutionary psychology isn’t that humans supposedly didn’t “partake in evolution”, but rather that it has inherent problems with the scientific method. Most evopsych theses can’t be tested and are prone to just-so justification. Seriously: watch the video. It’s all it there.

      • perestroika@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Seriously: watch the video. It’s all it there.

        The video is 3 hours, 21 minutes and some seconds long. I watched the beginning, end and some samples from the center. The video is too long, she accuses others of communication failures and bad-faith communication (with good reason), but is also doing a communication failure.

        To be blunt, the title of the video is also a false or exaggerated statement, hinting of the author’s excessive ambition. I think I was generous enough to try catching the point without devoting 3.5 hours to it.

        I do not think you would welcome if I watched all the video, made notes about every problem, and posted them. I think you would consider that obsessive (well, at least I would).

        There are behaviour patterns in animals and humans which evolutionary psychology can help explain, and knowing how evolution (past societies, past models of competing and cooperating, past interactions with food, disease, parasites and predators) can shape the psychological profiles of creatures is useful. There will be poor research in almost every field. I’m aware that psychology has a widely known problem with experiment repeatability. That’s no reason to discontinue doing psychology (or discontinue doing experiments). It’s a reason to increase diligence and to slow down jumping to conclusions.

          • perestroika@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Edit: why are you on a breadtube community if you don’t like to watch hour long videos?

            Actually, I’m not in the Breadtube community, I’m just a user of the “slrpnk.net” Lemmy server. Thus, I noticed the video on my feed, and as I explained above, it caught my attention because the title claimed to have “debunked” something that I was familiar with and had found useful.

            Btw: Here’s the explanation why eugenics doesn’t work in the video

            Thank you, but you don’t need to explain me why eugenics was a bad idea. :) I understand that.

            Ever heard of hbomberguy, or Contrapoints?

            Nope, never heard about them.

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 month ago

              You still critizised a video without watching it. That’s as close to judging a book by its’ cover as you can get.

              • perestroika@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                As stated before, I watched the beginning, end, and various samples from the center.

                You can not invalidate criticism by publishing a N-hour video and complaining that the critics didn’t watch every second.

                Let’s switch perspective for a moment: if I publish a 24-hour video titled “I debunked classical mechanics” and talked about journalism during 23 hours of it, I should not be able to deflect criticism with the claim that “you didn’t watch all of it”.

                Part of my criticism is inability to come up with short and falsifiable points. Public communication about science pretty much requires doing that. Already in my first post, I mentioned that I thought the video was needlessly long.

                And yes, I’m not a fan of misleading people. When I see someone doing that, yes, I will criticize.

                • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  As stated before, I watched the beginning, end, and various samples from the center.

                  I’d claim that your samples aren’t enough to make anything about the contents of the video. You could claim that the title is misleading, but you clearly don’t have enough context to judge the video.

                  It’s a video essay, you act like you watched scenes from the Lord of the Rings trilogy and concurred that the firms are too long to convey the story.

                  You’re constantly ignoring that a field has a societal context. Evopsych books didn’t fall from the sky. The field has active members and the cultural impact is what’s being judged here.

                  You could have just stayed silent, if you don’t have anything valid to add, instead of mansplaining us to death.

                  • perestroika@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 month ago

                    You could have just stayed silent,

                    Yes, my mistake was to think that people might benefit from pointing out problems with the information sources they consume. In reality, people get defensive, especially if an outsider comes to criticize (also a pattern which evolutionary psychology helps understand).

    • solo@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I could say “evolutionary psychology is useless” but …

      I don’t think this is a conversation about how useful or useless the specific field is. Hitting a child can be useful in order to make them do what you want, we don’t do that anymore tho. And we don’t approve of this approach.

      I think we could have a more productive conversation on the topic after we both watch münecat’s video (admittedly I haven’t watched it all yet)

      Should we continue this conversation after doing that?