Comments on: Is It Only “Good” Science When It Confirms Your World View? http://popsych.org/is-it-only-good-science-when-it-confirms-your-world-view/ The Internet's Best Evolutionary Psycholo-guy Wed, 03 Jan 2018 01:05:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: D.J. Glass http://popsych.org/is-it-only-good-science-when-it-confirms-your-world-view/#comment-506 D.J. Glass Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:38:22 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1439#comment-506 And, of course, undergraduate samples are a problem for all of psychology, not just evolutionary psychology. And if anything, evolutionary psychologists are more likely than many other branches of psych to utilize cross-cultural samples in their populations, given the nature of our theory, so this is like the pot calling the toilet black. And, of course, undergraduate samples are a problem for all of psychology, not just evolutionary psychology. And if anything, evolutionary psychologists are more likely than many other branches of psych to utilize cross-cultural samples in their populations, given the nature of our theory, so this is like the pot calling the toilet black.

]]> By: Jesse Marczyk http://popsych.org/is-it-only-good-science-when-it-confirms-your-world-view/#comment-504 Jesse Marczyk Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:33:31 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1439#comment-504 That pattern of behavior - criticizing the field despite not understanding the core principles of it or reading much in the way of primary literature it has produced - is, unfortunately, not terribly uncommon. Yes, the comment section was just as disheartening to me as the article was, and there appears to be little evidence that the commenters were much more informed about the subject than Kate was, with many praising her for her "insights", despite her comments, when valid, not disagreeing with any tenant of the field or opinions of people within it. That pattern of behavior – criticizing the field despite not understanding the core principles of it or reading much in the way of primary literature it has produced – is, unfortunately, not terribly uncommon. Yes, the comment section was just as disheartening to me as the article was, and there appears to be little evidence that the commenters were much more informed about the subject than Kate was, with many praising her for her “insights”, despite her comments, when valid, not disagreeing with any tenant of the field or opinions of people within it.

]]> By: Keegan http://popsych.org/is-it-only-good-science-when-it-confirms-your-world-view/#comment-503 Keegan Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:14:44 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1439#comment-503 And another gem from Kate herself: <i>And rather than write a separate blog post about all of those different articles I’ve been sent over the last few years, I finally broke down and decided to write one monster explainer. I’m kind of tired of covering bad ev psych. And I know good stuff is out there. <b>I just see it so rarely because that’s not what people send me or what I read in the news</b>. <b>The lovely thing to come out of this whole conversation is that I have finally started getting people sending me good ev psych. And I’ve also gotten to engage with some evolutionary psychologists who used to just grumble about me</b>, and now we’re talking. And they’re talking to their colleagues too. And all of that makes me happy.</i> So, prior to writing an article that was marketed as a critique of an entire approach to the social sciences (her title implies that there hasn't been much, if any, progress), Kate did not look at much, if any, "good" research. It's also stated that her only sources were news articles, stuff people send her (and I'm pretty sure what her social circle looks like in this case) and colleagues that grumble at her. 'Cause f*ck published articles and all that fancy bullsh*t. I feel a bit bad for the University of Illinois... And another gem from Kate herself:

And rather than write a separate blog post about all of those different articles I’ve been sent over the last few years, I finally broke down and decided to write one monster explainer. I’m kind of tired of covering bad ev psych. And I know good stuff is out there. I just see it so rarely because that’s not what people send me or what I read in the news.

The lovely thing to come out of this whole conversation is that I have finally started getting people sending me good ev psych. And I’ve also gotten to engage with some evolutionary psychologists who used to just grumble about me, and now we’re talking. And they’re talking to their colleagues too. And all of that makes me happy.

So, prior to writing an article that was marketed as a critique of an entire approach to the social sciences (her title implies that there hasn’t been much, if any, progress), Kate did not look at much, if any, “good” research. It’s also stated that her only sources were news articles, stuff people send her (and I’m pretty sure what her social circle looks like in this case) and colleagues that grumble at her. ‘Cause f*ck published articles and all that fancy bullsh*t.

I feel a bit bad for the University of Illinois…

]]> By: Keegan http://popsych.org/is-it-only-good-science-when-it-confirms-your-world-view/#comment-502 Keegan Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:02:42 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1439#comment-502 The <b>comment section</b> of the article isn't much better. Here's a gem: <i>Kate, while I heartily agree with your very effective demonstration of how evo psych research can go wrong, what is not entirely clear to me is how it can both go right and actually offer truly useful insights. And by this I mean, even assuming that we can identify some research conducted by evolutionary psychologists as both meaningful and reliable couldn’t this same research be conducted by someone who just ignores the “evolutionary” aspects of the work? For example, I could simply talk about human biology, rather than getting into a discussion of why this biology might have been particularly adaptive at some point in time.</i> A research paradigm for the new age: the study of biology and biological systems without the "evolutionary" and "adaptive" aspect. /clap The comment section of the article isn’t much better. Here’s a gem:

Kate, while I heartily agree with your very effective demonstration of how evo psych research can go wrong, what is not entirely clear to me is how it can both go right and actually offer truly useful insights. And by this I mean, even assuming that we can identify some research conducted by evolutionary psychologists as both meaningful and reliable couldn’t this same research be conducted by someone who just ignores the “evolutionary” aspects of the work? For example, I could simply talk about human biology, rather than getting into a discussion of why this biology might have been particularly adaptive at some point in time.

A research paradigm for the new age: the study of biology and biological systems without the “evolutionary” and “adaptive” aspect.

/clap

]]> By: Jesse Marczyk http://popsych.org/is-it-only-good-science-when-it-confirms-your-world-view/#comment-501 Jesse Marczyk Wed, 13 Feb 2013 03:30:05 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1439#comment-501 I assume the concerns on evolutionary psychology as a discipline are less based on the purely intellectual realm and more on the moral-political end of the spectrum. While that's not much of an assumption, it is a dramatic misplacement of her concern. I assume the concerns on evolutionary psychology as a discipline are less based on the purely intellectual realm and more on the moral-political end of the spectrum. While that’s not much of an assumption, it is a dramatic misplacement of her concern.

]]> By: Keegan http://popsych.org/is-it-only-good-science-when-it-confirms-your-world-view/#comment-500 Keegan Wed, 13 Feb 2013 02:11:33 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1439#comment-500 When I was the article in SA, I just <i>knew</i> that you were going to write about it. I too had the same general reaction; all of her "suggestions" have been pointed about before (some two decades ago) and the whole "GLBT folk" angle seemed to come out of nowhere. When I was the article in SA, I just knew that you were going to write about it. I too had the same general reaction; all of her “suggestions” have been pointed about before (some two decades ago) and the whole “GLBT folk” angle seemed to come out of nowhere.

]]>