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.
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.