New research in the journal Evolutionary Human Sciences, from University of Kent researchers Louis Bachaud and Sarah Johns, explores how members of various manosphere communities (think Andrew Tate and his ilk) misuse research and concepts from evolutionary psychology to bolster their own misogynistic views.
The disturbing thing to me isn’t that idiots misunderstand and misquote research, it’s that people gobble their shit up. It’s stunning how popular some of this shit is
The disturbing thing to me isn’t that idiots misunderstand and misquote research, it’s that people gobble their shit up. It’s stunning how popular some of this shit is
It confirms their bias.
I tend to think the permission structure part is more important. Not everyone who is swayed into this nonsense already thinks that women are less than them, but they can see what believes that allows them to do.
Not new. Biotruth bros have been an idiotic scourge on the internet since Usenet I’m sure. They were widespread when I was on somethingawful I know.
Most definitely. The difference is the massive uptick in connectivity for nearly everyone around the globe. These monsters can reach farther and faster than ever before relatively speaking
Found the Omicron Male! /s
deleted by creator
lol and I’m here trying to imagine how there could ever be a valid context for that.
This is only one example, but a lot of people are interested in studying top performers like Olympians etc. and what things are different about them. In studies like those, genes are relevant, as are performance results.
I see what you mean and I’m not trying to stir shit, but that’s not superior genes those are specialized genetic traits. Superior is such a loaded word, why even use it in an academic sense when there are plenty of near synonyms that don’t have that eugenics baggage?
Because they are likely talking in context of that one activity, and it is indeed accurate to describe certain people as genetically superior in that context. Not everyone thinks about every implication of every word choice and which effect that would have on the larger society.
I’d bet most people can probably think of three words for superior. If you’re in the same field that shares some unfortunate history with eugenics then it’s definitely better to be a little more intentional with specifically words like that. I’m just surprised that’s still vernacular in genetics research still is all I’m saying.
At first I wasn’t convinced but your right. They should be more sensitive to the history of it than anyone else being it’s their field.
Right? Not to mention more out spoken white supremacy these days and all the misquoting and misinformation that emboldens it.
Exactly, michael Phelps is genetically superior by dolphin standards, but for the standards of calorie limited pursuit predators with high plant consumption relying on high intelligence and social skills on land, meh he’s not impressing me.
I don’t understand your point.
Certain things that may be considered “genetically superior” in contexts of extreme outliers, especially of athletics are more optimization for certain tasks and can contain drawbacks for other tasks that our species actually evolved for.
I see, thanks for clarifying. Yeah it’s all subjective so neutral labeling is important to specify that. Superlatives don’t make much sense in science.
I’m not surprised. There are few ideas more nebulous and malleable than “evolutionary psychology”. You can derive any justification for any behavior by saying that it aids your survival…
Help me justify why I spend 8 hours a day in excel. Please I need it.
Removed by mod
If you want to do it right, the conclusions in evolutionary psychology are: -hard to get to (because just making up shit is not proper evidence, Santa Barbara church of evolutionary psychology…) -not as news sexy as that shit
Like, you can do stuff where you use phylogenetic history to make predictions about the prepotency of phobic stimuli, and that’ll be solid enough, but just screaming how your sexism is science is so much easier!
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I was expecting to read how it was being misused by Andrew Tate et al, but they don’t actually discuss it. The headline does not match the content as far as I’m concerned. (There’s links to more, but geez.)
I hate how common this form of outrage peddling has become in the so-called news but I guess it sells clicks.
