Psychologist and writer’s appearance on Aporia condemned for helping to normalise ‘dangerous, discredited ideas’
The Harvard psychologist and bestselling author Steven Pinker appeared on the podcast of Aporia, an outlet whose owners advocate for a revival of race science and have spoken of seeking “legitimation by association” by platforming more mainstream figures.
The appearance underlines past incidents in which Pinker has encountered criticism for his association with advocates of so-called “human biodiversity”, which other academics have called a “rebranding” of racial genetic essentialism and scientific racism.
Pinker’s appearance marks another milestone in the efforts of many in Silicon Valley and rightwing media and at the fringes of science to rehabilitate previously discredited models of a biologically determined racial hierarchy.
Hm, I generally had a decently positive opinion of Pinker. Is this a case of him not knowing what this was and getting ambushed? Or did he know what was up going in?
This is who he is. Check out evolutionary psychology. He’s a proponent of this theory that has strong tendency towards racial biases.
Er, evolutionary psychology is a whole field of study with its own journal with hundreds of published studies. If you’re going to claim that a whole branch of psychology is racist you’re going to need to provide some evidence to back those claims up, because that wikipedia article has nothing more damning in it than the following suggestion that there are critics who think there might be some ethical problems with how it’s sometimes used, but that’s not a condemnation of the value of the science itself.
But that’s like saying a wrench is a weapon because it can be thrown at someone’s head; that’s problem with the user, not a problem inherent in the tool.
You articulated my thoughts better than I did. Such a bizarre way to criticize Steven Pinker. Like criticizing Tom Cruise for being a part of a native plant gardening club.
well yeah if you cherrypick a two sentence synopsis you can make anything sound ridiculous.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology
those are all pretty significant criticisms.
regarding the racism specifically, you need to read between the lines. of course they’re not going to outright admit they are being racist. But when you are dealing with unfalsifiable/non-empiracle hypotheses, while over-emphasising biology (race/sex), that’s not science, that’s politics wrapped in a scientific facade.
Yeah, that information was not on the page you linked me. I didn’t realize it was reasonable to expect people to go spelunking in your links to find the actual information you’re trying to gesture vaguely at without laying it out explicitly in the first place for some reason.
Also, other than vague ‘political and ethical issues’ none of that has anything to do with racism, which was your initial claim.
Firstly, I am a different person adding to the discussion.
Secondly, you do have the ability to look into things beyond what you are directly given by others. you have the entire internet at your disposal. That criticism page was one click away from the original article, hardly “spelunking” if you were legitimately interested in criticism of the field. I figured I would help you out with a little more information, and you downvote. So something tells me you aren’t actually interested in learning anything here, just burying comments you don’t like.
Lastly, as i said, you need to do some reading between the lines. Obviously no one is going to present their field in an overtly racist manner. All the criticism above leads to politiziation in the field, including racism. When you are not bound by empirical science, personal biases fill the void.
My apologies, I didn’t notice the different name.
The ability, certainly. The time or inclination, not so much. Sorry, if people can’t be bothered to do the legwork to support their own arguments I’m certainly not going to do it for them; if you’re going to cite me a source to back up your argument the evidence you claim is on that page should actually be on that page, not buried in some link halfway down it.
Actually I didn’t downvote; I almost never downvote unless the comment is trolling or being a shitlord or whatever.
What I’m interested in learning is why the person who replied initially thinks evolutionary psychology as a field his racist, because that was the initial - rather extraordinary - claim, for which I have yet to see any evidence. I am not at all surprised to learn that a scientific field (especially one within the field of psychology) has critics, and while I’m sure those criticisms are valid and interesting, it’s kinda beside the point.
Idk, I mean I’m not a fan of Pinker (his whole book on why violence has declined seems to ignore structural violence all around us, especially lower classes, and heavily supports capitalism) but evolutionary psychology seems pretty legit to me?
Geographically isolated groups of a single species will show variations of behavior and psychology that is affected by their environment and genetic predispositions – that seems like a pretty reasonable take.
Yeah, when people take that to racist extremes, its problematic. You can’t assume a person’s quality because, when it comes to individuals in a particular, geographically originated group, you don’t know where they landed on the spectrum re: genetic predisposition, and then you don’t know their current environment either. It all comes out in the wash. I don’t really think that means evolutionary psychology is total bunk, though. Its useful to put humans along with other animals when we think about their how their behavior and psychology are affected by evolution.
call it reasonable or plausible or whatever you want, but for it to be science it needs empirical evidence and predictive value. Failing that you just have “reasonable” hypotheses, and one person’s “reasonable” is another person’s racist/sexist/transphobic/whatever, especially when the hypotheses emphasize nature over nurture. That’s the problem with evolutionary psychology.
Eh, I don’t necessarily disagree with your statement – and sure, I’d probably agree that evolutionary psychology has a problem in that it’s not super testable – then again, what does my word mean since I’m a lay person.
It does fit into our understanding of evolution though, and it fits into how we analyze behaviors of other animals. Its clear that some portion of our psychology is genetic, and therefore evolutionary, and it only follows that there’s is going to be variability in each individual’s initial psychological makeup, even within geographically adjacent groups of individuals. . When you plop nurture on top, that variability becomes even wider. Idk, it seems kinda nonsensical to claim that one person can’t be more genetically predisposed to feeling anxiety than another, right?
You can and should call out racists, but just because there are some racists who use evolutionary psychology to be racists, doesn’t mean it’s all bunk. Just like it doesn’t make Darwinism all bunk when it’s used by social darwinists to oppress others.
Edit: obviously anyone who says “this race is more likely to act like this because of this” is whack. I guess I’m thinking of evolutionary psychology on more of a macro scale, where it could be used to explain (colloquial “explain,” scientific “hypothesize”), for example, why humans experience social anxiety, where feelings of shame or embarrassment come from, how we deal with rejection, or acceptance, etc. in a real scientifically grounded way.
I mean, that sounds pretty off.
How do you mean? A person can be genetically predisposed to be tall, but grow up to be short due to environmental circumstances (eg lack of nutrition during childhood)
Edit: I figured this would go without saying, but maybe not: this idea, I think logically, extends to things like dopamine thresholds in the brain, and other, erhm, neurotransmittal (word?) aspects of the body. Really, all aspects of the body start with genetic predisposition and then do or do not undergo changes corresponding with the environment. To be completely clear, I am not a scientist. If the science doesnt support this, then Id happily stand corrected