Post-election special: the evolutionary psychologist knows why you vote — and shop, and tip at restaurants

_{News
November 5, 2014

Culture, Darwinism

1}_{Categories
Culture
Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Science writer Hank Campbell offers a suggestion as to why the nonsense, both high and popular, goes largely unchallenged: “Scientists are inclined to give it a break because they cleverly use the word ‘evolutionary’ in the name.” If it sounds plausible, that is evidence that it is true. But if it doesn’t sound plausible, that just shows how counterintuitive real science can be.

A number of voices of reason have been heard over the years. The best-known dissent is not religious, incidentally. More.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Yes, keith s, the effect gets more leniency than the cause.Joe_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

KF:
Joe, it strikes me, that you can fall off the wagon one time too many. At least, you have shown a pattern of getting back up, but there are obviously limits to all things. KF
In other words, we will be hundreds of times more lenient with an ID supporter than with a critic, but if we get called on it, we will suddenly start talking about "limits". Not very convincing, KF.keith s_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

It's a sad society in which antagonists get a free lunch and the first responder(s) get the blame.Joe_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

I don't fall off of the wagon, I get get pulled off. Some people get to ban the weasels. Some people get to edit or deny the weasels. And some people get to play with them. And I am talking about real weasels, not the quasi-latching, ratcheting type.Joe_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

Geez Aleta, why don't you just look at the attacks I was responding to? Thank you for making my point for me.Joe_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

I note that kf chastised Joe while I was writing my post, so if I could edit I would retract the comment in 48 about Joe, but let stand the comment about kf himself.Aleta_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

At 44, kf writes, "I would take your point more seriously if (a) you were to actually admit that your side has a serious manners/civility problem and try to help clean up the act.", and then kf writes, "what you just wrote comes across as more talking points spewage." I hope kf sees the irony here. I think people who talk about civility/manners should display the same if they want to be taken seriously. And then of course, the icing on the cake is Joe: "What a jerk. My behavior is a direct reflection of the insipid attacks on myself, other IDists and ID. Grow up. The anti-IDists that get banned are belligerent and very small-minded. Why should anyone have to put up with the crap they spew?" Whose side has a problem?Aleta_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Joe, it strikes me, that you can fall off the wagon one time too many. At least, you have shown a pattern of getting back up, but there are obviously limits to all things. KFkairosfocus_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

News, It seems to me that the basic problem with a lot of Evolutionary Psychology is that it is very hard to not draw the conclusion that this is just another manifestation of evolutionary materialistic self referential incoherence. Much like, is B F Skinner any more than yet another puzzled rat in a maze, or is Karl Marx any better than his own socio-cultural conditioning, or is Sir Francis Crick any better than electrochemical noise in his Brain and CNS. Something like that, in the end cannot be either sound or serious. KFkairosfocus_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

keith s:
Presenting strong arguments against ID
Such a thing has never happened. The best argument against ID would be to demonstrate blind and undirected processes can produce Crick's biological information.
Had Joe G been an ID critic, instead of a supporter, he wouldn’t have lasted a day with his behavior.
What a jerk. My behavior is a direct reflection of the insipid attacks on myself, other IDists and ID. Grow up. The anti-IDists that get banned are belligerent and very small-minded. Why should anyone have to put up with the crap they spew?Joe_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

KS, I would take your point more seriously if (a) you were to actually admit that your side has a serious manners/civility problem and try to help clean up the act, and (b) you were more responsive to reasoned discussion on evidence. As it is, what you just wrote comes across as more talking points spewage. Please think again. KFkairosfocus_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Denyse:
So far as I know: Barry decided to unban a bunch of people who had previously been banned for offenses about which I know little or nothing.
You might want to educate yourself. Presenting strong arguments against ID is a bannable offense at UD. Making Barry look foolish really puts one in danger.
1. Picture UD as a family restaurant where you can order a beer. It isn’t the illegal booze can up the alley. There are places you can go where you can shout anything you want at anyone you like, and that’s fine; this isn’t one of them.
Unless you are an ID supporter. Then you are free to shout anything you want at anyone you like, with no possibility of being banned. Had Joe G been an ID critic, instead of a supporter, he wouldn't have lasted a day with his behavior. Everyone knows that UD moderation is hopelessly biased.
2. Some people who are sympathetic to us are just as guilty. I wrote a note to one of them yesterday, telling him to smarten up, but it came back – must have an outdated e-mail address.
You wrote a note to him. Powerful stuff.
(If you are reading this, you probably know who you are, so smarten up. If I have to, I will make your name public.)
But you won't be banned! That's for ID critics, not ID supporters.
3. Nobody does this for a living. If we were mooching off your tax dollar, we could operate a full-time grievance centre for the banninated. Chances are, you don’t want that either.
As blog owner, Barry is free to ban whomever he wants. We just think he should be honest about it, instead of pretending that UD welcomes critics and encourages open discussion.keith s_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Typo--should be anti-IDists, obviously.Learned Hand_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Jerry, why do you characterize essentially all IDists as dishonest? I'm sorry if I didn't parse your phrasing accurately enough, but perhaps you'd be willing to explain rather than waiting for just the right question. If you'd like to explain your thinking, I'd be grateful. If not, it's no big deal.Learned Hand_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Barry:
It never ceases to amaze me when I watch a bunch of dissenters comment about how dissenters are not allowed to comment.
In other words, "Sure, we've banned hundreds of people, but we haven't banned you yet (this time), so what are you complaining about?" Logic FAIL.keith s_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

2. Some people who are sympathetic to us are just as guilty.
I was banned twice and there is nobody more sympathetic than myself. The first was disagreeing with how Bill Dembski presented his material to a university audience. The second was because I persisted in disagreeing with DaveScot on some topic. Not for ad hominems though there are plenty of times where I have been sarcastic which I guess is an ad hominem.jerry_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

I agree. Very good commentary and summary by News. Thank you. The integrity and openness of a forum is not measured by the amount of tolerance moderators have for idiotic and abusive attitudes. This is a serious blog and the amnesty was a good chance for people (who I can see why they were banned originally) to try again. gpuccio
But then, I ask, why do they come here to discuss? Do they consider that as a sacred mission? To fight against a belief that nobody takes seriously?
Great questions and insights. I notice that with the most abusive opponents, they tend to believe that ridicule and mockery are the hallmarks of victory over ID. They'll look for a single knock-out blow against ID (a bomb) that will kill the entire project. At one time, that approach sort of worked. Creationists could simply be ridiculed and laughed-at. No further discussion was necessary. Those days are long gone. There are some very serious researchers who recognize the power of the ID argument now and that number is growing. Our opponents, the best of them, know this and will meet us (sort of) halfway. That's where we engage in solid discussions. When we see, however, the absolute blindness to what ID is saying and the intensity of emotion and the contradictory attraction to a supposed "dead cause", we should be very confident about our position. It's quite strong and it stands up to all sorts of criticism. That would be my only concern for our side -- to have more confidence in what ID proposes and not get dragged into mud-fights with people who (it seems) have some kind of hatred for the idea that there could be a designer. There are probably lots of anti-religious issues tied to that sort of hostility also, but those are irrelevant.Silver Asiatic_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

What is it that you think every anti-ID person (but one) is lying about?
Did I use the word "lying?" There are probably are some cases of that but I didn't use the term. Some can steal something from you and not lie about it. Dishonesty manifests itself in many ways. Is knowingly misrepresenting something, lying. Maybe, maybe not. But it is dishonest. Here is what I said,
That would be a first. I have never seen a strong alternative case. I would love to see one. I have been commenting here for over 9 years. I have seen anti-ID people who have something negative to say in almost every comment. I have never seen an honest one and the most interesting thing is to see how they dance around the obvious.
So let's begin with a strong alternative case.
Can you or anyone present one?
Once someone presents a coherent alternative case that holds up, then maybe they can make aspersions at those who don't have a good answer to their case. Why don't you be the first. I have been asking this here for almost 9 years. Why don't you try being the first to give one. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fred-flintstone-fossils/#comment-22284jerry_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

Nice summary News. It never ceases to amaze me when I watch a bunch of dissenters comment about how dissenters are not allowed to comment.Barry Arrington_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

News: Good points. I don't like banning in general, but I understand that blogs need some moderation, especially if they are about controversial issue. Something I have always wondered. Many "interlocutors" here repeat that ID is worthless, not taken in serious consideration by anybody, devoid of any arguments which may deserve discussion. OK. That's their opinion, and I am fine with that. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. But then, I ask, why do they come here to discuss? Do they consider that as a sacred mission? To fight against a belief that nobody takes seriously? Personally, I could very well go to a blog of someone who believes something different from what I believe, and I could well discuss the differences. Indeed, I have done that a few times, defending ID in foreign territory. But I suppose that the natural attitude in that case should be to consider oneself as a guest, and behave with a minimum of respect. But maybe I am a dreamer, as says the famous song :)gpuccio_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

It seems as though no one wanted to discuss evolutionary psychology, so we must do that another time. So far as I know: Barry decided to unban a bunch of people who had previously been banned for offenses about which I know little or nothing. Most of them just went on and did whatever they were going to do. Others got banned again. Some of them came back anyway. Some of those got rebanned. Life goes on. A couple of reflections: 1. Picture UD as a family restaurant where you can order a beer. It isn't the illegal booze can up the alley. There are places you can go where you can shout anything you want at anyone you like, and that's fine; this isn't one of them. 2. Some people who are sympathetic to us are just as guilty. I wrote a note to one of them yesterday, telling him to smarten up, but it came back - must have an outdated e-mail address. (If you are reading this, you probably know who you are, so smarten up. If I have to, I will make your name public.) 3. Nobody does this for a living. If we were mooching off your tax dollar, we could operate a full-time grievance centre for the banninated. Chances are, you don't want that either. 4. You are free to start your own blog (free at Blogger) and say whatever you want about anything you like, so far as we are concerned. We recommend you don't make the blog a group whine about what happened at UD. Ricochet blogs have done better when they developed their own identity.News_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

Who said anything about lying about their beliefs. I certainly didn’t. Fair enough--I assumed that you meant, as Barry Arrington has claimed in the past, that people who disagree with you only do so because they are dishonest. What is it that you think every anti-ID person (but one) is lying about?Learned Hand_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT}

I believe it’s extraordinarily uncharitable, and also unrealistic, to assume that people who disagree with you are dishonest. In my experience, most disagreement is heartfelt and honest. It may be mistaken or foolish, but people rarely lie about their own beliefs. Assuming the worst about people who disagree with you is a kind of psychological armor. It makes you more secure in your opinions, but at the cost of your own mental flexibility. It is, after all, much harder to seriously listen to and try to understand someone you assume is lying to you.
You are making a lot of judgments that you could not possibly know anything about. One has to wonder why someone would do so. Who said anything about lying about their beliefs. I certainly didn't. Good night.jerry_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT}

It was a bit of sarcasm, which I normally try to avoid. I should have tried harder. I believe it's extraordinarily uncharitable, and also unrealistic, to assume that people who disagree with you are dishonest. In my experience, most disagreement is heartfelt and honest. It may be mistaken or foolish, but people rarely lie about their own beliefs. Assuming the worst about people who disagree with you is a kind of psychological armor. It makes you more secure in your opinions, but at the cost of your own mental flexibility. It is, after all, much harder to seriously listen to and try to understand someone you assume is lying to you.Learned Hand_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

You must live in a bleak world, to be so beset by wicked liars.
Interesting comment. Why would someone make such a assessment. I actually considerable my immediate world as very interesting.jerry_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT}

You must live in a bleak world, to be so beset by wicked liars.Learned Hand_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT}

Do you mean that you have never seen an honest anti-ID person?
Only one.jerry_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

Jerry, I have seen anti-ID people who have something negative to say in almost every comment. I have never seen an honest one and the most interesting thing is to see how they dance around the obvious. Do you mean that you have never seen an honest anti-ID person?Learned Hand_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

22 Joe November 5, 2014 at 5:21 pm Insipidity would be a good reason for banning and they all proved to be insipid.
Why then are you still here?sparc_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

I'm not on either "side" in this banning matter, I'd just like to know the truth. Don't we deserve it?Adapa_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next