If anything, I am one of the people making “overconfident, novel claims based on ev. psych reasoning.” I’m not even sure I could disagree with that description of my ev psych posts to date, though I’d probably include a caveat about the degree of my apparent overconfidence.
I really never got the impression of overconfidence from your Sex at Dawn series. I think you did a good job of including the necessary caveats and cautions.
That’s a massive over-simplification, and ev psych was never implicitly or explicitly called out as part of the danger.
I’m sorry that I misunderstood your intention. However, I do think that if one takes your line of argument seriously, it wouldn’t lead to ignoring ev. psych—which more than any other area of research addresses sex differences.
I would expect to get much more credible evidence on modern sex differences from psychology or biology, but I guess that the topic is taboo enough that most researchers steer clear of it. Which might explain part of ev psych’s poor reputation—more willingness to pursue taboo areas of research.
I really never got the impression of overconfidence from your Sex at Dawn series. I think you did a good job of including the necessary caveats and cautions.
I’m sorry that I misunderstood your intention. However, I do think that if one takes your line of argument seriously, it wouldn’t lead to ignoring ev. psych—which more than any other area of research addresses sex differences.
I would expect to get much more credible evidence on modern sex differences from psychology or biology, but I guess that the topic is taboo enough that most researchers steer clear of it. Which might explain part of ev psych’s poor reputation—more willingness to pursue taboo areas of research.