Quote note (#274)

‘Evolution is Not Relevant to Sex Differences in Humans Because I Want it That Way! Evidence for the Politicization of Human Evolutionary Psychology’, Abstract:

This research explored political motivations underlying resistance to evolutionary psychology. Data were collected from 268 adults who varied in terms of academic employment and parental status. Dependent variables represented whether participants believed that several attributes are primarily the result of biological evolution versus socialization. Variables addressed attitudes about: (a) sex differences in adults, (b) sex differences in children, (c) sex differences in chickens, (d) human universals, and (e) differences between dogs and cats. Using a Likert-scale, participants were asked to rate the degree to which they believed items were due to “nature” versus “nurture.” For instance, one of the items from the cat/dog subscale was “Dogs are more pack-oriented than cats.” Independent variables included political orientation, parental status, and academic employment status. Political liberalism corresponded to endorsing “nurture” as influential – but primarily for the two human sex-difference variables. Academic employment status was independently predictive of the belief that sex differences are the result of “nurture.” This effect was exacerbated for academics who came from sociology or women’s studies backgrounds. The effect of academic employment status also corresponded to seeing behavioral differences between roosters and hens as caused by “nurture.” Further, parents were more likely than non-parents to endorse “nature” for the sex-difference variables. Beliefs about differences between cats and dogs and beliefs about causes of human universals (that are not tied to sex differences) were not related to these independent variables, suggesting that the political resistance to evolutionary psychology is specifically targeted at work on sex differences.

(XS emphasis, in submission to the Dark Rites of Kek.)

August 16, 2016admin 18 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Lunatics

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

18 Responses to this entry

  • Mark Says:

    ” parents were more likely than non-parents to endorse
    “nature” for the sex-difference variables.” Every cloud…

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Yes, I was tempted to high-light that. Anyone who can continue with radical social-constructivist lunacy after seeing kids growing up really is beyond all hope.

    [Reply]

    Mark Warburton Reply:

    You’ll be happy to know I’ve re-educated every student I share with our resident progressive psychologist/biologist tutor who parrots that IQ is 15% inheritable… Although they never believe it. They just nod their head in approval. Smart.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 16th, 2016 at 6:52 am Reply | Quote
  • Etiq Says:

    The Norwegian TV series ‘Hjernevask’ (‘Brainwash’) is quite fun (also informative, though perhaps not for the people on this site) if you want to laugh/facepalm at lunatics in academia.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E577jhf25t4&list=PLd9_g7lAICxtlGbxh4_z8ik178o8CDPnv

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 16th, 2016 at 9:28 am Reply | Quote
  • Untrue Neutral Says:

    Someone try to steelman “Behavioural differences in hens and roosters are due to nurture”, it’d make my day

    [Reply]

    Tentative Joiner Reply:

    The differences start not with the actual behavior of hens and roosters but with our perception of it. From early childhood we are taught to pay attention to sex-based differences in animal behavior and to attribute behavioral differences between individual animals to their sex. We reward (or avoid punishing) various behaviors of domesticated animals based on our expectations, which are sex-dependent, conditioning chickens into their gender roles.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 16th, 2016 at 12:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    parents know kids come out of the womb with personalities that continue into adulthood, they also are born with physical ticks or tells we use to know when they are say tired my daughter would twist and pull her ear she still does it more subtly she doesnt know what it signifies but i was shocked to finally notice my dad does it. The next child will come out exhibiting an entirely different personality.

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    +1

    [Reply]

    pyrrhus Reply:

    I have been telling friends and students forever that our two sons had defined and very different personalities at birth that haven’t changed at all, though they are now adults….

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    if people still had kids and raised them themselves this would not be controversial

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 16th, 2016 at 12:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Political liberalism corresponded to endorsing “nurture” as influential – but primarily for the two human sex-difference variables. Academic employment status was independently predictive of the belief that sex differences are the result of “nurture.”

    Academics are more accustomed to thinking in the abstract, namely how to establish precedents and then extend them to other areas of study. For this reason, their alarm bells go off when you start talking about hens and roosters in the same study that one talks about human beings. This is not to argue that they are not poisonous — they are — but it is because they are leftists, just leftists more competent at abstract thought than your average zombie leftist wandering the streets.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 16th, 2016 at 3:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Henk Says:

    The effect of academic employment status also corresponded to seeing behavioral differences between roosters and hens as caused by “nurture.”

    While this is fun, it is not exactly honest reporting.

    The academically employed in their sample didn’t see the “behavioral differences between roosters and hens” as “caused by nurture.” They rated it slightly (0.15 item scale ticks) less caused by nature, but overall everybody sided with “caused by nature.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 16th, 2016 at 4:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    how easy to lose hope in humanity nowadays, unless it is Hillary who is behind of this research project.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 16th, 2016 at 7:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • pyrrhus Says:

    @Brett Stevens I think there is often a crasser motive–tenure. At many schools, believing in genetic differences will serious hurt, even destroy, your chances of getting tenure.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 16th, 2016 at 9:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    we interrupt this broadcast to bring you the latest on the NSA hack speculation from Snowden

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-16/edward-snowden-explains-historic-nsa-hack-escalation-could-get-messy-fast

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 16th, 2016 at 10:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Outliers (#19) Says:

    […] science. Black pride. Normalizing mental illness. Moral tales. Vive le South. Snippets. Open-minded voters […]

    Posted on August 21st, 2016 at 5:02 am Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction (2016/08/21) - Social Matter Says:

    […] Land has a refreshing Quote Note on the state of Evolutionary Psychology—refreshing insofar as people are beginning to notice […]

    Posted on August 24th, 2016 at 6:58 am Reply | Quote
  • Rhetocrates Says:

    The funny thing here is that the sex difference between roosters and hens IS, in some sense, largely nurture.

    Chicken eggs undergo a period of temperature-dependent sexual determination. It’s quite possible to change a large percentage of genetically-male chicks into fully-functional female chicks by a carefully regulated cooling period early on in gestation.

    Of course, that’s not what they mean, and so the findings still stand. Just an amusing little coincidence of the sort that Gnon has shown again and again He likes to throw into the works.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 25th, 2016 at 7:49 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment