Gender own group preference

Post Reply New Topic

And yet 204 college students are enough to base their theory on the behavior of all mankind? And do you know how reliable the Implicit Association Test really is? I would hope that when you read that article that you at least did some research on their methods. It hardly provides interesting or useful data if it is based on a faulty study.

Yes, the behavior you have described does still exist, but you should be careful about making those generalizations. From what it sounds like, you're saying that all men and all women act in the way you have described, which certainly isn't true. You're basically making very broad generalizations of both gender groups and providing unreliable 'proof' of your claim. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is against the WP rules, so I would suggest either rephrasing your statements, or find a more reliable source to back up your claims.

That is not the only thing I base my beliefs on. My 23 years of living on this planet has provided me with more than enough evidence, and of course there are lots of other sources of data on this aswell.
I don't buy that I should be careful about generalizing, at a core instinctual level, humans aren't really as individualistic as they would like to believe(ime).

I don't, and I never will care about "rules", especially not rules that are nonsensical.

Again, your own personal experience does not dictate that all men around the world act in that manner. Yes, it's obvious that those are men's base instincts, but that does not mean that every male on the planet acts on those instincts. That's a very distinct fact that you seem to be overlooking, simply because your experiences influence your little personal agenda. And since when are rules that protect groups against generalized claims nonsensical? Your claim is that men are automatically against their own gender group because they have those base instincts, which in my opinion sounds like a clear stereotype. You haven't really been doing much to help your argument.

My 56 years on this planet has informed me that men and women, usually, do not act upon their base instincts.

Rather, rational thought is used, which frequently informs us that basing actions upon base instincts will ensure a short life, and are otherwise not in our best interest.

That is true, and I will grant you that I haven't done much to support my arguement. The litterature I've read, and the arguements I've heard, based around evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology, has gotten me to place where this just seems like common sense to me. I guess I just can't be bothered to explain it properly, because it would be too time consuming and most people are naturally opposed to these ideas. I also have to admit that there are people much smarter than me who would be able to convey it much better anyways.

If you won't buy the premise, that's totally fine.


I have to say though, instincts shape behaviour subconsciously, so you can't just say "I don't act on my instincs". To a certain extent we all do, so to my knowledge, that is not a distinct "fact" at all.

Evolutionary psychology seemed like a swamp of confirmation bias with very little research to back up some of its many claims. I grilled my psych professors pretty hard about it, and they couldn't come back with much.

I've heard alot of criticism of it, and of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Personally I have yet to find a better alternative to explain human behavior, and I find it alot more reliable and sensical than other opposing ideas, such as the idea of social and cultural constructs.

and do you find psychiatry and regular psychology more reliable and scientific?

Social Psychology has an extensive basis in research. A scandal involving fake data about a decade ago, and a massive replication project about 4 years ago led to much higher standards. They faced up to problems with the research. The science reporting on this topic still needs work.

Just scan a few random recent articles on Evolutionary and Social Psychology. The former will have more speculation and fewer citations of experiments. Since you can't expect people to conduct randomized trials of evolution in humans, you can't expect a 1-1 comparison, but the measurement overturns a lot of common sense.

I second that. For evolutionary psychology to start being something more that a leisure activity , we first need a precise genetic tie to psychological traits,which we still lack, for better or for worse.

Where can I read more about that?

I still don't understand why Psychiatry is more valid than Evolutionary psychology.

ummm.....not very convinced, but ok

What about Psychiatry??

And Psychiatry is more valid and true? Answer me, Aspies.

Psychiatry doesn't put its best foot forward as far as therapy to patients is concerned. They frequently just medicate people, and ignore the rest.

Fellow patients and support staff are frequently the best "therapists in a mental hospital setting.

Kind of, it depends on what psychiatrists claim and what evidence they base their theories on.
Generally they do have a plethora of methods for measuring biochemical and physiological data. And then they can apply statistical tools to evaluate their findings. I am sadly biased against the field myself , especially when it comes to identifying disorders and therapies.

I don't know if my homework assignment will convince you, but it's a start.

Psychiatry has a lot of research support for the effectiveness of their drugs in a particular context. I think they need to consider context more deeply, in general, but many individual psychiatrists do so.