Steven Pinker: Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things
youtu.be
Subscribe to The Free Press: https://thefp.pub/43SoejBSteven Pinker is a world-renowned cognitive psychologist, and is widely regarded as one of the most imp...

Steven Pinker explains the cognitive biases we all suffer from and how they can short-circuit rational thinking and lead us into believing stupid things. Skip to 12:15 to bypass the preamble.

  • streetlights@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    32·
    15 days ago

    Evolutionary psychology at its core twists the concept of genetic inheritence into justifications for racism and sexism, like phrenology before it.

    That is not evopysch “at its core”.

    Again, you may as well describe darwinism as racist at its core.

    These two examples are people taking existing science and misapplying them to things they don’t have anything to do with.

    Misapplying science doesn’t make the science wrong.

    • a lil bee 🐝@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      15 days ago

      As someone without skin in this game, I have a clarifying question and you seem willing to discuss. Why is phrenology junk science and evopsych not? What separates the two, for you?

      • streetlights@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        3·
        15 days ago

        The premises that underpin any science is what separates it from a pseudoscience. Phrenology posits that random bumps on your skull predict mental abilities and behaviours, why? What mechanism could possibly be responsible for such a correlation. It was based on a theory that the brain was a group of muscles and like all muscles if you worked it it got bigger. Easily shown that this wasn’t the case.

        A bit like chiropractry positing that all diseases are due to the bones/spine being out of alignment.

        What’s the premise behind evopsych? Evolution. Where does animal behavior originate from? Is it entirely spontaneous? The brain, like every other organ, is subject to evolutionary pressures. Natural selection will produce behaviour that increases survivability, and that’s it.

          • streetlights@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
            2·
            15 days ago

            I couldn’t possibly speculate. Is this hypothetical phrenologist the sort of scientist who adjusts their position based on new evidence?

            • a lil bee 🐝@lemmy.worldEnglish
              3·
              15 days ago

              I guess what I’m getting at is: Is there a way you can explain why evopsych is a valid science where phrenology is not, without relying on an argument that a phrenologist would also make? That’s a tough set of criteria, but I think it’s required.

                • a lil bee 🐝@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  2·
                  15 days ago

                  Right! So accepted “science” can become pseudoscience once further discoveries are made. I think we all agree on that. The question being debated in this thread, I think, is whether evopsych will also eventually be found to be a pseudoscience. To be clear, I am not proposing we try and guess the future, but to look at the state of the science now and extrapolate that as best we can into the future.

                  I am a complete lay(wo)man here, so I’m not casting aspersions either way. I would need to do a lot more research for that. I see the other arguments devolving into semantics and rhetoric though instead of focusing on that core conceit.

                  So you feel any confidence in evopsych as a science? Why or why not? And if those same arguments could be applied to phrenology prior to its official debunking, how valid is that confidence?

                  • streetlights@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
                    2·
                    15 days ago

                    The question being debated in this thread, I think, is whether evopsych will also eventually be found to be a pseudoscience.

                    Respectfully, the point of contention appears to be between the several users who have already concluded it is a pseudoscience and myself who has not.

                    The fundamental premise on which it lies is evolution by natural selection. Yes, the possibility exists that may one day be falsified but…its pragmatic to continue as if that is unlikely.

                    I am a complete lay(wo)man here, so I’m not casting aspersions either way. I would need to do a lot more research for that. I see the other arguments devolving into semantics and rhetoric though instead of focusing on that core conceit.

                    That is most welcome.

                    So you feel any confidence in evopsych as a science? Why or why not? And if those same arguments could be applied to phrenology prior to its official debunking, how valid is that confidence?

                    The premises are fairly robust, and I’ve not seen a convincing argument against them. Nothing is certain so I wouldn’t describe myself as ideologically married to it.