This seems to me a form of equivocation: “different” as used in the first sentence and “the same” as used in the second sentence are not opposites. The context is different; the intended meaning (insofar as any evo-psychologists actually make such claims) is something like this:
“Men and women are more different, on average, than men and other men, and certainly more different than (some? most?) people think. The difference is sufficiently large that we cannot indiscriminately apply psychological principles and results across genders.”
“Humans and chimps are closer than (some? most?) people think; in fact, sufficiently close that we can apply unexpectedly many psychological principles and results across these two species.”
I don’t know of anyone (even in “popular” evo-psych) who endorses the view implied in the quote, which I suppose would be something like:
“Humans are chimps are less different from each other than men and women.”
Popular evopsych, summed up: “Men and women are different. Humans and chimps are the same.”
Cliff Pervocracy
Flamboyant straw men do not belong in the Rationality Quotes thread. Cliff is clearly not accurately describing reality. Popular evopsych doesn’t say that. It doesn’t matter how irrational the opponents who are being criticised are, bullshit is still bullshit.
It’s worth noting that LWers may have more exposure to real evopsych relative to popular evopsych. I for one had despared of ever finding rational evopsych before discovering this site. Pop evopsych is incredibly bad.
Pop evopsych may very well be incredibly bad (I wouldn’t know myself, as I’ve been exposed to very little of it). But if a quote doesn’t have any instructive value beyond making fun of bad ideas—as opposed to more general biases, and even there I’m leery of the “making fun” bit—I’m not sure it belongs here. Particularly if they’re also politically sensitive ideas.
I wouldn’t, for example, consider clever attacks on religion to be shiningly rational.
I think there’s a distinction that could be made between defense of rational positions and attacks on particular irrational ones. Reversed stupidity, etc.
The quote is instructive to those of us trying to develop an integrated and rational view of evo psych. In my case, I DO see a lot of compelling material on how women are different from men, and I DO see a lot of compelling material on how humans are like other primates and even mammals. The quote brings me up short: do I have the sex differences within species properly “weighted” in my thinking compared to across-species similarities? Or do I switch between my microscope and my telescope paying attention only to what I am seeing, forgetting which instrument I am using to look?
Around these parts, there are a lot of arguments about the ancestral environment and its implications. Isn’t the argument that we are not cavemen engaging with those types of arguments?
If so, I’m not sure flamboyant strawman is the relevant reference class. Things actually argued by proponents are not strawmen.
But if your point is that 140 character tweets are not a good source of nuanced argument, I agree.
There is often a trade-off between wittiness and insight. Only the most amazing quotes contain both—and most Rationality Quotes are not at that level. We agree that the quote at issue falls far into the witty side of the scale.
Still, that does not mean that the quote (or most of the other things written by this author) are attacking a strawman.
IIRC, a few years ago I was watching the news on TV and they mentioned that a study had found that “females are more [something] than males”. But it turned out that the females in the study were a different species of great apes than the males (neither of which human).
(I hope I just dreamt of it, or am misremembering it, or something.)
Popular evopsych, summed up: “Men and women are different. Humans and chimps are the same.”
Cliff Pervocracy
This seems to me a form of equivocation: “different” as used in the first sentence and “the same” as used in the second sentence are not opposites. The context is different; the intended meaning (insofar as any evo-psychologists actually make such claims) is something like this:
“Men and women are more different, on average, than men and other men, and certainly more different than (some? most?) people think. The difference is sufficiently large that we cannot indiscriminately apply psychological principles and results across genders.”
“Humans and chimps are closer than (some? most?) people think; in fact, sufficiently close that we can apply unexpectedly many psychological principles and results across these two species.”
I don’t know of anyone (even in “popular” evo-psych) who endorses the view implied in the quote, which I suppose would be something like:
“Humans are chimps are less different from each other than men and women.”
In short, I think the quote mocks a strawman.
Here’s how I parsed it:
“You can better extrapolate from a chimp to a human, of the same gender, than from a human to another human of a different gender.”
To be fair, most pop evopsych is extrapolating from imaginary details of caveman behavior rather than actual chimp behavior.
Flamboyant straw men do not belong in the Rationality Quotes thread. Cliff is clearly not accurately describing reality. Popular evopsych doesn’t say that. It doesn’t matter how irrational the opponents who are being criticised are, bullshit is still bullshit.
It’s worth noting that LWers may have more exposure to real evopsych relative to popular evopsych. I for one had despared of ever finding rational evopsych before discovering this site. Pop evopsych is incredibly bad.
Pop evopsych may very well be incredibly bad (I wouldn’t know myself, as I’ve been exposed to very little of it). But if a quote doesn’t have any instructive value beyond making fun of bad ideas—as opposed to more general biases, and even there I’m leery of the “making fun” bit—I’m not sure it belongs here. Particularly if they’re also politically sensitive ideas.
I wouldn’t, for example, consider clever attacks on religion to be shiningly rational.
As a theist, I would have to agree with you there ;)
People like wit, though, so witty defense of rational positions garners upvotes regardless of intrinsic rationality.
I think there’s a distinction that could be made between defense of rational positions and attacks on particular irrational ones. Reversed stupidity, etc.
Arguments are soldiers, remember?
The quote is instructive to those of us trying to develop an integrated and rational view of evo psych. In my case, I DO see a lot of compelling material on how women are different from men, and I DO see a lot of compelling material on how humans are like other primates and even mammals. The quote brings me up short: do I have the sex differences within species properly “weighted” in my thinking compared to across-species similarities? Or do I switch between my microscope and my telescope paying attention only to what I am seeing, forgetting which instrument I am using to look?
Around these parts, there are a lot of arguments about the ancestral environment and its implications. Isn’t the argument that we are not cavemen engaging with those types of arguments?
If so, I’m not sure flamboyant strawman is the relevant reference class. Things actually argued by proponents are not strawmen.
But if your point is that 140 character tweets are not a good source of nuanced argument, I agree.
No. Many combinations of 140 characters are good. This one is bad*. So we disagree on two counts.
* Rather it is awesome as a witty rhetorical attack of the enemy and terrible as a Rationality Quote.
There is often a trade-off between wittiness and insight. Only the most amazing quotes contain both—and most Rationality Quotes are not at that level. We agree that the quote at issue falls far into the witty side of the scale.
Still, that does not mean that the quote (or most of the other things written by this author) are attacking a strawman.
Can you add a NSFW disclaimer?
Much more from the same author.
Why on earth was this downvoted? Upvoted back to neutral. It’s relevant and useful, to the extent the quote is useful.
I haven’t downvoted the grandparent, but I’m reading this as an argument that perhaps I ought to!
Ha! That’s my interpretation as well.
I must admit, I was rather banking on that quote being representative ;)
IIRC, a few years ago I was watching the news on TV and they mentioned that a study had found that “females are more [something] than males”. But it turned out that the females in the study were a different species of great apes than the males (neither of which human).
(I hope I just dreamt of it, or am misremembering it, or something.)