Conservatism Explained Via Evolutionary Psychology

Post Reply New Topic

I just thought of something.

The human species has existed for 300,000 years. Throughout most of our history, all change has been cyclical. There was the day and night cycle, the phases of the moon, the cycle of the seasons, the human reproductive cycle, ect.

For most of our history, we lived in a world in which the world was essentially reborn every single year. Prehistoric humans probably assumed that the world had always existed. They likely saw the world as an eternal clock.

Civilisation has only existed for 11,000 years, and our psychology hasn't changed much over the course of that time. We now live in a world of constant, linear change. Not all change is cyclical now ... even though humans instinctually prefer cyclical change.

Could this be why conservative politics exists? Could it be that technology has created a type of change which humans do not instinctively understand?

"Evolutionary psychology" is sh_t, soooo......nah.

About the shape of time:that is a thing. Primitive peoples conceived of time as cyclical. Traditional east Asian civilizations continued to see history and time as cyclic until recently.

In the West time gradually got flatten out from a circle to line over the centuries. Ironically both the Bible and Darwin contributed to that (the Bible with its promise of a future day of judgment, and Darwins theory of evolution). And in the Seventeen hundreds came the industrial revolution, and change began to speed up to the point where it could be experienced as change generation to generation within a lifetime. What that has to do with modern partisan politics I don't know.

The human brain evolved, so evolutionary psychology isn't sh_t.

Only the racist/PUA version of it is wrong.

Unscientific bullcrap is unscientific bullcrap, no matter what it's used for.

How can evolutionary psychology be inherently wrong if the human brain evolved? You literally aren't making any sense.

I think that I'm making a very good point. The world is socially changing at a very rapid rate. This change will likely accelerate as technological growth accelerates.

Of course, technological growth always leads to social change. History demonstrates this time and time again. Perhaps some people won't be able to handle the rapid social change as humanity approaches the technological singularity.

For most of earth's history, the world changed so slowly that it felt eternal.

This explains why there has been a rise in right-wing politics lately - even among young people. Some people simply can't handle this rapid social change.

I suspect that neo-Luddism will become quite popular in the near future. Right now, the people in the "new right" don't seem to realize that social change is driven by technological change. What happens when they figure out the link between technological growth and social change?

That brings me to the Unabomber. He was a right-leaning guy with a genius IQ. He realized that technological growth was the driver of social change, and so he mailed explosives to scientists and engineers.

The Unabomber failed because he was working alone. This limited that damage that he was capable of.

What will happen when the "new right" finally recognizes the link between technological growth and social change? History may remember Ted Kaczynski as the first of many.

Because "evo psych" is just a bunch of unfalsifiable assumptions and guesswork, hence, not "science."

It's right up there with chem trails, anti-vaxxers, and the flat-Earth cult.

That's an extreme exaggeration.. It's not even in the neighbourhood of those.
All of those can, and has been disproven 10 to a million times. You cannot disprove evo psych..
hence your best arguement is that it is crap.

You seem to react extremely emotionally everytime the topic of evo psych comes up, I wonder why?

Yeah, and you can't "prove it" either; therefore, not "science." Unfalsifiable statements are not, and never will be in the realm of science.

And it's interesting that some men here are so quick to accuse women who express opinions they don't like as being "emotional." I wonder why.

I cannot, just like no one can provide any evidence for social constructivism either.

Hence social constructivism is bullcrap.

Pretty much.

Both are fine providing that the people discussing them acknowledge that they're just speculating, and don't attempt to present their speculation as facts.

I don't think everything under the umbrella of evolutionary psychology is necessarily unfalsifiable. If it predicts anything about human behavior, it can be tested by studying what actually happens across environments and cultures.

^ True, but the results would still be murky and questionable, and, at best, we could really only identify general trends.

There is no solid connection that I can see...
I think DMK was into the schapps when he created this thread...

Because I have a growing respect for him, I decided not to comment...D'oh!

^ One of the things that turn me off from "evo psych" is how people like to cherry-pick the facts to conform to their personal socio-political biases.