Regarding the larger issue of evo psych: It’s true. There are a lot of just-so hypotheses out there, and it looks terrible. Comparing it to climate science isn’t at all reasonable, as someone above did – at least the latter produces models which can be tested. There are ways to test hypotheses in evo psych, but they’re very subtle – usually comparative studies that draw more from what’s called sociobiology than evo psych, because you’re dragging in a lot more than humans into your analysis. And without that background, you’re making a lot of assumptions about the environments in which humans arose, their past social structures, and the relative fitness levels of certain behaviors that are simply very hard to quantify without some other species to compare against. There are a few hypotheses that I do think have borne fruit in evo psych, but the vast majority of those came from zoologists and sociobiologists first.

Fursther, when I see Bering make a statement like this, “I can only assume that Myers has not had to face a university human-research ethics committee in the past several decades,” my immediate response is “Boo-effing-hoo.” Of course you’re facing IRB restraints. (Has Bering ever had to deal with an IACUC?) It’s still not an excuse for the fact that the experiment doesn’t serve much to support the hypothesis. It sounds a lot like “Well, we couldn’t do what we wanted, but we got this thing that’s kinda close, and it should be good enough, right?”… Except no. If you can’t get the evidence, you can’t get the evidence. You don’t get brownie points for trying harder and having to work around bureaucracy in science, sorry. And the WEIRD problem is a HUGE problem in the social sciences. I don’t think most researchers take it seriously enough. A lot of defenders are pulling out the Tu Quoque card on it, totally missing the point.

And, worst of all, evo psych is one of those fields in which Ioannidas’ work definitely applies – a ‘hot’ research topic, with little replication among different teams, in which one or two studies is generally ‘sufficient’ to demonstrate a hypothesis. Given that the production of hypotheses in evo psych is probably pretty easy, then that makes the prior probability of those hypotheses much lower than something like, oh, clinical trials which already have the basic science models worked out to a degree before they’re tested.

And maybe I’m reading into Yoffe differently, but she seems to be lamenting the shoddiness of it all moreso than the hard feminist line of “No differences, women are just men without a Y chromosome!” sort of thing. Could be a matter of interpretation, I suppose.

Of course, that’s pretty much all of what “evolutionary psychology” (which is usually neither much about evolution or psychology) amounts to. It’s a very similar dynamic to what one sees produced by creationists or other pseudoscientific scenes.

Oh well. It’ll all be accepted one day, and we’ll laugh at those who denied these things.

Why isn’t Nick G. grilling Joel Klein about “real” school choice (such as private schools)? Klein is one of the biggest statist in the country and he’s been in charge of NYC schools since 2002. Every proposal he has boils down to “MORE $$$”.

Klein is the enemy, not in any way a savior and Nick shouldn’t be doing a fluff video with him.

Wiki Joel Klein’s anti-business, pro-big government past. This asshat cost me too much money for me to forget his scams.

Just give ‘em time, man. They’ll knock those out, too.

I’ve come to realize that the main reason I tend not to refer to myself as a “libertarian” in casual conversation (even though it’s probably the most accurate political label) is that it is pronounced the same way as “Libertarian”.

So the LP picked a guy the Reps and Dems couldn’t stand anymore and voted out, and whose drug warrior rep (and habit of backstabbing libertarian candidates) completely alienated libertarians. A clean sweep. Yeah, let’s hear it for name recognition.

I’m reminded of an encounter with the area sales manager of a telecom for which I once worked. He came into my office one morning with a newspaper, all excited. The paper’s business section had a front page, above the fold expose on what a lousy company we were, how sales people would promise stuff the company wouldn’t (and couldn’t) deliver, had horrible customer service for those foolish enough to go with us anyway… et cetera, et cetera… Don’t ever do business with this company.

I pointed out the little problem that this was terrible publicity. He replied, “Sure. But people will know who we are.”

When that company went bankrupt and out of business, I wonder if that clown got a job advising the LP.

http://www.epjournal.net/blog/2011/01/myers-critique-of-ep-strong-language-but-weak-tea/

It’s written by a PhD at an Ivy League school, and the website links to and discusses peer-reviewed scientific articles…so, you know, it’s just a bunch of junk science and “just-so” stories.

Maybe Bering is reading too much into a series of small studies, so criticizing him isn’t unreasonable. But to claim the whole field is pseudoscience, no different from tarot cards? That’s absurd.

And quite frankly, people really tip their hands when they do that. It leads me to believe that liberals dismiss evolutionary psychology for the same reason conservatives dismiss climate science and evolutionary biology: the scientific results contradict their emotional and political worldview.

Thereafter, he regularly appeared as a guest political talking head on various cable TV networks.

I’d never even really heard of previous Libertarian Candidates.

Why? I mean, that’s like being disappointed that, as a Republican, Obama makes Republican look bad. Non sequitur. Granted, presenting him as a Prez candidate made the _Libertarian Party_ look like Republican Annex Assholes, but the LP hasn’t had a hell of a lot to do with libertarianism for a long time.

When Barr starts making restitution to his drug war victims (and stops funding Republican candidates facing Libertarians) I _might_ allow that he’s beginning to learn something about being a libertarian.

#30 Maria

If someone wants to snort bath salts, give them a room and let them snort bath salts.

I’m a heartless bitch, too. I’d make them pay for the room and probably a deposit to cover the cost of cleaning up any bodily remains.

Aside from that, I agree completely.

I’m against the drug war and see criminalizing addiction and consumption as the cause of a lot of our ills so I’m probably going to heartless bitch hell for the following, but I’ve reached the point in my life where I can honestly say this and mean it (and yeah, it is a horrid feeling):

If someone wants to snort bath salts, give them a room and let them snort bath salts.

“What if they die you emotionless bitch?” I’m sorry. That is sad. But, more elbow room for those of us who don’t eye random industrial/household chemicals and think, ‘Gee. Wonder what that shit would feel like up my nose/injected in a vein/smoked through a pop can?’ No, i don’t understand the mental state that would compel someone to do that. I can not empathize with that state. Maybe it makes me evil. Like meth?

The amount of cherry picking he had to do to reinforce his predetermined conclusion is astonishing. Ignoring the results you don’t like are not science, though it is common in evolutionary psychology. That’s what the feminist and science blogs attacked him for. Maybe we should ask some of these strawmen if they’re ovulating and test their grip strength. Then we can ignore the results we don’t like, write a book about it, and get butthurt when people call us out on it.

Anti drugs? Sure!
Pro drugs? Sure!
Just gimme’ the money….

I suppose that’s why Bering, who is gay, is so into it?