Comments on: I’m (Not) Sexy And I (Don’t) Know It

By: James

James — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 06:50:11 +0000

“I feel these results can be better explained (by which I mean actually explained) by considering a persuasion framework.”

I don’t see this. It seems that at least for the 3 skills referenced (grammar, logic, humor) a person’s level of proficiency and level of self-assessment is depending on the general factor of intelligence.

By: Cody

Cody — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 03:15:58 +0000

Carmi, I believe almost the exact opposite of what you’re trying to say. When someone views themselves as a complete failure, they will most likely give up before they even try. For example, teachers and parents will not tell students their SAT scores because if the child has received a low test score, they are most likely going to believe that they will not get good grades. And the same goes for if a student has received a good test score. If they believe they are better then everyone else, they may slack on their work because they are too smart for it.

By: Erin Dalton

Erin Dalton — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 03:13:54 +0000

In my life I see a lot of people that don’t really know their abilities, and their strong and weak points. So many people that I have encountered are either so full of themselves and believe that they know everything, or they think pretty low of themselves and their abilities. The one’s who think very low of themselves usually don’t score too high on tests because they set their selves up for failure, by just thinking that they don’t know the material, or that they are not smart enough. Each person has a different cognitive perspective on themselves. I believe that most people with a high positive psychology are the ones that succeed the most.

By: Clinton Kauble

Clinton Kauble — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 23:39:59 +0000

You do make a good point about people who expect the worst. I believe that this isn’t true in all situations. You see if you always have a negative outlook that you will fail at everything you try, then you will not give your all toward achieving the goal. This will result in lack of effort and there for only put your negative beliefs into reality. This will just pull those types of people down into a deeper hole of uncertainty. Now on the other hand people who only expect the worst on only a certain things but know there good at other things still, (like what your post explained) tend to still do well because they set their mental state up for failure so that they are not let down with the outcome. Unlike the first group I explained the still push for a good outcome even though they braced themselves for a bad one. So each person has a different humanistic perspective on their lives. One group strives for the best even if they fail and one tries less because they come to except failure…!

By: Carmi

Carmi — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 22:57:55 +0000

In my personal life I have noted what seems to be a pattern of highly intelligent super-achievers who constantly believe themselves on the verge of complete failure. This drives them to work extremely hard and to be very self-critical. My wife is one of these types, and while she maintained the highest grades in her discipline she frequently asked if I would be mad if she got a failing grade on the paper she was working on at the moment. One such paper the professor suggested she submit to a journal, and had her present it at the student symposium.
So in terms of causation, it seems to me that at least in some cases when a person believes they are sure to do poorly, when they underestimate their abilities by an extreme amount, it is a big part of why they do well in the end because they do absurd things to try to avoid their imminent doom. Sarah, my wife, would even memorize entire essays and then “write” them pretty much exactly, including quotes and citations, for in-class essay exams.

By: Jesse Marczyk

Jesse Marczyk — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 17:11:53 +0000

Pointing out that someone is misinterpreting a finding is not a criticism of the theoretical assumptions made by the field of evolutionary psychology. Those who are typically criticizing evolutionary psychology – as a discipline – are often unable to accurately articulate the central assumptions of the field. They frequently do, however, inaccurately represent those assumptions with a degree of confidence. They are not experts in understanding the field, but they certainly feel they are – or at least expert enough to level the kinds of criticisms they do.

By: Jesse Marczyk

Jesse Marczyk — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 17:05:51 +0000

The most common criticisms of evolutionary psychology that I’ve come across – and this is anecdotal, by it’s very nature – fall into the following categories:

(1) Claiming evolutionary psychology implies genetic determinism/evolutionary psychologists need to understand that environment matters.

(2) Disputing a particular finding or interpretation of a finding by a specific evolutionary psychologist (normally, that refers to Kanazawa). The most common here is the debate over whether [X] is an adaptation or a byproduct, or the classic “just-so story” charge.

(3) Claims that evolutionary psychology is sexist, or racist, or whatever other -ist is currently under discussion, and is just a veiled attempt to justify some behavior. The classic is/ought problem.

Specific examples can be found here: http://www.epjournal.net/blog/2012/02/could-evolutionary-psychology’s-critics-pass-evolutionary-psychology’s-midterms/

Here: http://www.epjournal.net/blog/2011/12/pz-myers-clarifies-criteria-for-distinguishing-genuine-hypotheses-from-“just-so-stories”/

Here: http://www.epjournal.net/blog/2011/10/amanda-marcotte’s-ugly-prejudices/

Here: http://www.epjournal.net/blog/2011/01/coyne-“no-evolutionary-psychology-hypothesis-can-be-disconfirmed”/

And here: http://www.epjournal.net/blog/2011/05/the-pop-anti-evolutionary-psychology-game/

You can also look up the “pop evolutionary psychology game” [Edit: Also, evolutionary psychology BINGO] to get a sense for the quality of your typical criticism. None of the above criticisms, however, are actually criticisms of the theoretical assumptions made by the field of evolutionary psychology. Now, granted, not every criticism of evolutionary psychology falls into these categories. I just find that very, very few critics actually take issue with the core assumptions of the field, provided they can even articulate them accurately in the first place.

The argument for expertise is especially interesting, considering the second to last link I posted. Being an expert in certain respects apparently didn’t stop Jerry Coyne from holding diametrically opposing views about the field. It also didn’t stop him (or PZ Myers) from using entirely different standards of evidence to evaluate similar claims between (and within) disciplines.

It’s also an odd argument because being an expert in some other field of psychology or biology does not, by proxy, make one an expert on evolutionary psychology.

By: Kenneth Westervelt

Kenneth Westervelt — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:08:41 +0000

I, too, am at a loss of how to connect K-D with critics of EvoPsych. Mostly since the critics tend to concentrate their focus on people who interpret EvoPysch to reinforce certain essentialist ideas about humanity. Particularly human sexuality. Especially PUA culture.

While I appreciate a retelling of K-D and its Rumsfeldian don’t-know-what-we-don’t-know consequences, I’d rather hear a more concise stating of what the criticisms of EvoPsych actually are. Surely there’s more to the critics than complaining about the dating game.

By: Callum J Hackett

Callum J Hackett — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:35:32 +0000

Is it not a little convenient to suggest that critics of evolutionary psychology are victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect? Many of the outspoken critics are biologists and psychologists themselves, so they can hardly be accused of lacking the necessary expertise. Invoking the D-K effect also appears to be a thinly veiled ad hominem – it’s surely better to engage with the arguments.