This whole situation is so layered and complicated. The knee-jerk reactions seem to, mostly, be in line with:

Wow. What an asshole take. “Why should I support this guy who makes credible and supported accusations of treatment that shouldn’t be tolerated?”

Can Cynthia Rothrock still do martial arts these days? She’s one female action actor who deserved to be a WAY bigger star than she ended up being. Plus she was a legitimate badass. Just look at her bio on her IMDB page:

100% completionists can unlock ordering an iced tea with extra ice at the club house. Refreshing!

I know I’m going to take some heat for this, but I don’t think he ever was.

Was he ever?

Actual ignorant and apparently very proud to not understand, let alone know anything about philosophy. As if dismissing a huge and very old field in its entirety would make you interesting.

That was always the problem with many evo-psych theories - they were like “just-so” stories where you take what exists today and make up a story to fit how that came to be.

Extra points for correct use of question begging. That is most rare.

My guess is that you’re kinda upset because someone is critiquing a field that is known for its open sexism and racism.

I think that’s that crux of it - we cannot psychologically evaluate ancient humans directly, and without that, where is the data? At best you can draw inferences from what is a very thin archeological record, but that falls far short of anything conclusive. It’s certainly nothing as robust as the data we could collect…

Right. She’s essentially stating that, in terms of falsification, that a lot of evolutionary psychology claims are not scientific. It’s a totally valid conclusion and I look forward to seeing people discuss her paper in reasonable ways.

That’s how I read it. It sounds like she’s proposing that Evolutionary Psychologists would need the psychological equivalent of transitional fossils to prove that a current behavior evolved from a prehistoric one. Which, you know, would be pretty hard if not impossible to obtain or test for, I assume.

This bit from her blog post explains the issue pretty well, I think.

So obviously you’re implying that we should throw out everything Karl Popper ever said

I think taht what she was getting at is that there’s a lot of question-begging in evolutionary psychology - people tend to assume their conclusions and work backwards from them. Not all of it, of course, but she’s perfectly correct in saying that there’s a great deal of justifying of bad behaviour based upon…

Not a lawyer, but the U.S. has had a lax attitude toward monopolies since the 1970s when the focus shifted away from how a corporate merger would affect competition to “consumer welfare.” Over the years, it’s been rather easy to convince a bunch of neoliberal bureaucrats that their mega-corporation would be a net…

I NEED THIS SHOW. My 12 year old self is screaming and running in circles right now.

no booze is fine, you are right. What is not fine is making people wear heels and then pay for booze. That is rude

Really dropped the ball on leaving this one out.