The Socialist Dream Crumbles in Venezuela

[exploited]

Yes, and all the reviews note that there is no evidence whatsoever that confirms massive modularity, which is the basis of EP.

In fact, all the evidence points the other way, at least according to people who do actual science.

[The Dharma Bum]

[exploited]

Evolutionary psychologists have postulated that the mind is composed of cognitive modules specialized to perform specific tasks. Evolutionary psychologists have theorized that these specialized modules enabled our ancestors to react quickly and effectively to environmental challenges. As a result, domain-specific modules would have been selected for whereas broad general-purpose cognitive mechanisms that worked more slowly would have been eliminated in the course of evolution.[14][15]

A number of cognitive scientists have criticized the modularity hypothesis, citing growing neurological evidence of brain plasticity and changes in neural networks in response to environmental stimuli and personal experiences.[14][15] Steven Quartz and Terry Sejnowski, for example, have argued that the view of the brain as a collection of specialized circuits, each chosen by natural selection and built according to a "genetic blueprint", is contradicted by evidence that cortical development is flexible and that areas of the brain can take on different functions.[16] Neurobiological research does not support the assumption by evolutionary psychologists that higher-level systems in the neocortex responsible for complex functions are massively modular.[17][18] Peters (2013) cites neurological research showing that higher-order neocortical areas can become functionally specialized by way of synaptic plasticity and the experience-dependent changes that take place at the synapse during learning and memory. As a result of experience and learning processes the developed brain can look modular although it is not necessarily innately modular as suggested by evolutionary psychologists.[17]

Another criticism is that there is little empirical support in favor of the domain-specific theory beyond performance on the Wason selection task.[19][20] Leading evolutionary psychologists Leda Cosmides and John Tooby have found that performance on the selection task is content-dependent: People find it easier to detect violations of "if-then” rules when the rules can be interpreted as cheating on a social contract. From this Cosmides and Tooby and other evolutionary psychologists concluded that the mind consisted of domain-specific, context-sensitive modules (including a cheater-detection module).[20] Critics have suggested that Cosmides and Tooby use untested evolutionary assumptions to eliminate rival reasoning theories and that their conclusions contain inferential errors.[20][21] Davies et al., for example, have argued that Cosmides and Tooby did not succeed in eliminating the general-purpose theory because the adapted Wason selection task they used tested only one specific aspect of deductive reasoning and failed to examine other general-purpose reasoning mechanisms (e.g., reasoning based on syllogistic logic, predicate logic, modal logic, and inductive logic etc.).[20] Furthermore, Cosmides and Tooby use rules that incorrectly represent genuine social exchange situations. Specifically, they posit that someone who received a benefit and does not pay the cost is cheating. However, in real-life social exchange situations people can benefit and not pay without cheating (as in the case of receiving gifts or benefiting from charity).[20]

[The Dharma Bum]

[The Dharma Bum]

Look I can paste criticisms of SSSM and behaviorism all day long. The thing I won't do is claim they prove something they don't and then claim a scientific issue to be closed because I mistakenly think it will benefit an ideological position I hold.

That's all you.

Yes there is controversy in the field, but it is clear the opposition is ideologically motivated to protect what it sees as sacred cows.

If evolution has no influence on human psychology, how is it that human psychology was able to develop in the first place? It's pretty clear that all biological processes exist due to evolution and human psychology is definitely a biological process. That being the case there is no reason to suppose the human mind developed by a mechanism other than evolution and every reason to suppose it has.

If there is another mechanism available by which an biological organism or one of it's functions can come into existence simply name it.

[exploited]

But it is true.

The experiment that supposedly confirmed massive modularity tested only one of at least five general reasoning mechanisms, was full of inferential errors, relied upon rules that have no relation to the real world (if you don't pay for something that is cheating - this doesn't account for charity or gift-giving), and directly disputes empirically confirmed concepts like brain elasticity, concepts we know to be true.

You can continue to make a fool of yourself if you want, but the science just isn't there. End of story.

[The Dharma Bum]

Are you aware that respected psychologists such as Steven Pinker are also foolishly advocating evolutionary psychology?

[exploited]

[The Dharma Bum]

Here's a list of the fools that unscientifically contributed to the advancement of evolutionary psychology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ev ... chologists

Richard D. Alexander
John Archer

Jerome Barkow
H. Clark Barrett
Pascal Boyer
David F. Bjorklund
Howard Bloom
David Buss

Anne Campbell
Leda Cosmides
Denise Cummins

Martin Daly
Richard Dawkins
Terrence Deacon
Daniel C. Dennett
Kristina Durante
Denis Dutton
Robin Dunbar

Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt

W. Tecumseh Fitch
Daniel Fessler

Steven W. Gangestad
David C. Geary
Vladas Griskevicius

Edward Hagen
William D. Hamilton
Martie G. Haselton
Marc Hauser
Nicholas Humphrey
Sarah Blaffer Hrdy

Benedict Jones
Victor Johnston

Douglas T. Kenrick
Ned Kock
Andrey Korotayev
Robert Kurzban

Elisabeth Lloyd

Kevin B. MacDonald
Richard Machalek
Geoffrey Miller
Desmond Morris

Steven Neuberg

David Perrett
Steven Pinker

Matt Ridley

Gad Saad
Mark Schaller
David P. Schmitt
Nancy Segal
Todd K. Shackelford
John Skoyles
Donald Symons

John Tooby
Robert Trivers

Mark van Vugt

George C. Williams
David Sloan Wilson
Glenn Wilson
Margo Wilson
Lance Workman
Robert Wright



Obviously all pseudoscientific hacks. lol

[exploited]

Yes, yes, nice appeal to authority.

Only one problem: massive modularity has no empirical evidence to support it. It is based upon one book that has been mauled to death by critics. It directly contradicts data we know to be true. It is based upon making up artificial rules and then testing them, and those tests only deal with one of at least five general reasoning mechanisms.

We've gone over this again and again.

If you can't prove massive modularity - which is exactly the case - it follows that EP is not valid. Period. No matter how many names you list doesn't change that simple fact.