Is it fair to judge scientific theories by their offspring? For the greatest theory ever conceived, Darwinian evolution has begotten an idiot in evolutionary psychology. Here’s Fred Reed on the topic:
I find in Psychology Today a piece called Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ten Politically Incorrect Truths about Human Nature,Ã¢â‚¬Â explaining various aspects of behavior in Darwinian terms. The smugness of that Ã¢â‚¬Å“politically incorrectÃ¢â‚¬Â is characteristic of those who want a sense of adventure without risk. Nothing is more PC than an evolutionary explanation, unless it explains obvious racial differences that we arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t supposed to talk about.
OK, the authors are going to explain why we mate as we do.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Blue-eyed people,Ã¢â‚¬Â they write, Ã¢â‚¬Å“are considered attractive as potential mates because it is easiest to determine whether they are interested in us or not.Ã¢â‚¬Â
Or, as the authors explain, men like blue eyes because, since eyes dilate when the owner is interested in something, in this case getting laid, and since blue eyes better show a large pupil, then men will know when the woman is interested. This produces more children.
Ponder the solemn fatuity of this. Does any reader over the age of thirteen believe that women with any sort of eyes have trouble letting a man know when they are interested? The authors need to get out more.
Why is this sort of story-telling so widely engaged in when an alert porcupine would reject it? Because it is PC. As a fellow I see on the internet said in another context, Ã¢â‚¬Å“This is a stretch and illustrates how easy it is to believe what fits your world view.Ã¢â‚¬Â . . .