It’s related to critical race theory and it’s broad but specific. White-as-unspoken-default (this crosses political lines and shows up in different ways depending on politics but it has the same root) with the paradox of the unspoken whiteness being preferred. It’s similar to “Why don’t you just be normal?” Break down the components of “normal” and it starts to show up.

It’s related to critical race theory and it’s broad but specific. White-as-unspoken-default (this crosses political lines and shows up in different ways depending on politics but it has the same root) with the paradox of the unspoken whiteness being preferred.

It’s similar to “Why don’t you just be normal?”

Break down the components of “normal” and it starts to show up.

Whiteness is distinct from eurocentrism and distinct from white pride but they can get mixed up.

It’s real. I use it. Example: The other day, some Boy Scouts were looking for donations outside of a supermarket I go to.

I said “No thank you”, looking busy and continued into the store.

Because I’m 6′ tall, middle aged, male, white and carry myself a certain way, I can get away with the farce of “I’m a busy and important man and have no time for your petty donation stuff” but in reality, I had no excuse. Just a social farce I use to avoid a situation.

====

It’s not exclusively whiteness but a combination of factors, as I mentioned. It gives me presumptive authority in a situation. It’s useful but I don’t abuse it.

—-

If you don’t recognize your own authority in a situation and see yourself as victim then you’re missing 1/2 the fun in life.

I mock 4chan /pol because they come across as a clan of victims, like hecklers in the back of a theater, making weak community efforts to modify public opinion. They cheer when they show up in a newspaper or get an account shut down or some minor victory, but they come at things from a stance of weakness, a stance of victims against the big oppressive media or whoever they feel is more powerful than they. [sometimes The Liberals, sometimes the Jews, sometimes Multiculturalism… whatever. Always some bigger force than they, with them as the Davids against these Goliaths.

Can I separate whiteness from the interaction? I can try but I’m coming *at it* from a whiteness perspective intermingled with other perspectives.

Can I separate whitness from maleness? I could separate middle agedness from other agedness because I was once younger and I remember the power differences then, but I’ve never been raised as a woman. I’ve never been anything but white. So, how can I separate from the combination I’m coming from without it influencing?

It’s a hypothesis based upon observation and tracing a path from there. It’s no worse (and likely a hair better) than evolutionary psychology for example but they’re probably on about the same level.

—-

Evolutionary psychology is just-so stories that can never be proven. Also, the goals are different. Critical race theory is not only attempting to dissect to give a fixed set of reasons for what it’s studying but it also has activist goals simultaneously.

Evolutionary psychology often has activist goals as well but it’s usually less overt. Critical race theory doesn’t hide it.

 

Evolutionary theory is biology. Evolutionary psychology is not biology. I did make a typo the first time and autoatically typed ‘theory’ when I meant “psychology”. I edited it.

—-

Evopsych starts with the observed patterns of today and attempts to explain the behavior of today by possible needs/uses in prehistoric culture (pre history – nothing written)

The known is what’s observed today. The unknown is what’s speculated about pre-historic culture.

It’s Adam & Eve and the Garden of Eden with a little scientific method in the middle. It’s fine if you like it but it’s modern mythology.

—-

Critical race theory has a *slightly stronger* leg to stand on because they can draw from recorded history and interpret. Evopsych cannot.

They’re both social sciences. I suspect one of my ‘beefs’ with evo psych is that it depends so heavily upon computational theory of mind.
” Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, provide the following list of the field’s theoretical tenets (2005):

The brain is a computer designed by natural selection to extract information from the environment.
Individual human behavior is generated by this evolved computer in response to information it extracts from the environment. Understanding behavior requires articulating the cognitive programs that generate the behavior.
The cognitive programs of the human brain are adaptations. They exist because they produced behavior in our ancestors that enabled them to survive and reproduce.
The cognitive programs of the human brain may not be adaptive now; they were adaptive in ancestral environments.
Natural selection ensures that the brain is composed of many different special purpose programs and not a domain general architecture.
Describing the evolved computational architecture of our brains “allows a systematic understanding of cultural and social phenomena” (18).

Both Evopsych and Critical Race Theory suffer from an assumption of “innateness of behavior” and they both provide just-so stories.

But in evopsych, the only change asked is acceptance (“there’s nothing you can do about it”) yet in critical race theory they assert change is possible but difficult, although some things likely impossible. [entirely leaving your perspective may be close to impossible although not necessarily impossible]

—–

In short, do the behaviors primarily come from deep within and express outwardly, or are they primarily an artifact of society and culture given the historical social power structures that shape movements and behaviors of people?

Kalle, internal logical consistency is easy. Example: I write a program on a computer. It compiles. If it compiles, it’s logically internally consistent.

In that program, I assert that 2+2=5. The program accepts this, compiles, runs, everything is great. Internal logical consistency maintained. But it can still be wrong.

—-

You’re more married to evopsych than I am to critical race theory. I like the complications of overlapping systems influencing behavior over straight lines extending back into prehistory. I also grew up with Sociobiology as all the rage and there was a lot of really cruddy books on the market from “player culture” (now they’d say fuckboy culture (and the correlating “forever boy” culture – the “forever boy” being the ones that got suckered into buying the books and videos to “score chiks” and got nowhere because the books were wrong).

So I’m biased. I know there’s been progress in evopsych as a field but it remained controversial (as is critical race theory) in both cases due to the social effects of believers in each.

—-

But will you agree that they’re each looking to interpret the same things?

—-

Good enough. The difference is I see both as fairy tales, one more practical than the other. You see one as truth. Close enough for me.

—-

What’s the purpose of studying that specifically? Even still, pheromones are likely real because animals have them. It’s logical they’d be in humans too and there can be a number of ways to study them. None of the studying requires shooting back into pre-history for causation. They exist and influence behavior.

Smells are our oldest and strongest memories. A pizza place can get more visitors if they blow the smells of the pizzas cooking outside of the restaurant.

====

Behavioral sciences can study the question posed. If you are looking to use evolutionary terms and concepts to explain, which means shooting into pre-history (fitness, adaptation, etc), now you’re into evolutionary psychology.

I don’t know if or how critical race theory might study such a question. I could only speculate. But I know that can be studied effectively without a field of evolutionary psychology existing.

====

Is there an implicit political agenda in evolutionary psychology?

Whether yes or no, is evolutionary psychology used for political agendas?

—-

Is there an implicit political agenda in evolutionary psychology?

Whether yes or no, is evolutionary psychology used for political agendas?

====

No desperation on my part. The connection is clear to me.

I see critical race theory as a systems science, evopsych as a solution looking for a problem.

====

Systems sciences are strange. Even if you don’t like critical race theory, look into some systems sciences sometime. Any one of them. They work from a different angle than you might be used to.

The reason I see evopsych as a solution looking for a problem:

a) They have the solution. Observed behavior is always caused by something explainable by evolutionary psychology.

b) Find a problem and explain it in terms of evolutionary psychology.

Of course a similar argument could be made for a number of the sciences and is especially true in psychology.

But what makes systems sciences less restricted is they can provide possible solutions involving complex problems of active systems as they are in use.

It’s easy to study an engine when the parts are laid out in front of you but then you’re not studying an active system but a pile of parts.

But it’s harder to study a moving engine as a moving engine and the interplay of the parts simultaneously.

Not the best analogy but it’s what came to mind.

====

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_science They are verifiable to themselves but not always falsifiable. But falsification is not a requirement in all of the sciences.

Yes, systems sciences can suffer from the problem of being internally logically consistent and also wrong. But it is generally pragmatic and the glossaries they develop can be useful to explain phenomenon.

How does this differ from evolutionary psychology?

====

Sciences can explain and/or predict. They cannot always predict.

====

“Let us study what we see and critique it”.
You could argue that society does not exist or cannot be studied for some other reason. Is it the Marxist ties that make it distasteful for you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_critical_theory

===

If you believe in the power of memetics, at the very least you believe in some kind of cultural anthropology, which is within critical theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_anthropology

====

 

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ 1 = seven

Leave a Reply