tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post7595719863498198945..comments2024-03-15T15:56:38.460+01:00Comments on Eivind Berge's Blog: Sex Difference Explained by Steve MoxonEivind Bergehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-65820279740481248022018-01-28T18:36:12.399+01:002018-01-28T18:36:12.399+01:00Velkommen til 2018. Evolusjonspsykologien er død o...Velkommen til 2018. Evolusjonspsykologien er død og begravet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-30823362723137379612017-10-24T19:05:50.595+02:002017-10-24T19:05:50.595+02:00https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&am...https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjEoMvK3onXAhUqAZoKHT37AJYQFghbMAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Farticles%2Fhealth_and_science%2Fscience%2F2017%2F08%2Fevolutionary_psychology_is_the_most_obvious_example_of_how_science_is_flawed.html&usg=AOvVaw00yNaAG-1AE4TzXMNjwMHxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-57356046108864309022017-09-27T21:39:51.204+02:002017-09-27T21:39:51.204+02:00"You can find almost anything you look for&qu..."You can find almost anything you look for" -- yes, you can find individuals doing many strange things, but you can't find that sex differences don't exist and he didn't address that.Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-67474303447681972512017-09-27T18:47:02.893+02:002017-09-27T18:47:02.893+02:00https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg9s749vG5Mhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg9s749vG5MAtle Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-91444205967013239852017-07-24T21:49:19.558+02:002017-07-24T21:49:19.558+02:00https://chotigolpo0.blogspot.comhttps://chotigolpo0.blogspot.comrmtomalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13019927374483629606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-80250657491476327392017-05-24T16:17:45.994+02:002017-05-24T16:17:45.994+02:00And if anyone wants to argue that
freudian psycho...And if anyone wants to argue that <br />freudian psychology is wrong, please state some actual arguments, because it is plainly false that is not taken seriously by the scientific community. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-45181493552477869852017-05-24T16:16:05.236+02:002017-05-24T16:16:05.236+02:00freudian psychology proves that the minds of women...freudian psychology proves that the minds of women are inferior to those of men <br /><br />freudian psychology states that there are three major components of the human psyche, the id, the ego, and the superego. The id is the unorganized structure of the psyche which is in charge of reacting on emotion and instinct, the superego has the role of critical thinking, rationality, and moralism, the ego acts as a mediator to the two so one cannot overpower the other. I have come to the conclusion that since women are more likely to react to situations with blind emotion rather than rational thinking, they have an id that dominates the ego and superego or the ego and superego may not even be present, their personalities are just one giant id. because of this, freudian psychology disproves the "scientific" belief that women mature faster than men because how in the world can beings that function solely on emotion be considered more mature than beings who are naturally wired to be critical thinkers? different forms of maturity do not manifest themselves in unison, just because a woman has reached sexual maturity does not mean she has reached emotional maturity. if you look at how females act compared to men they tend to be more emotional and bubbly than men, this is due to the id being the dominant/only part of the psyche thus stunting emotional growth. so there you have it, the "scientific" notions of women maturing faster than men and having no differences in our brains can be disproven by simple freudian psychology. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-54998106270619524752017-05-15T16:31:07.768+02:002017-05-15T16:31:07.768+02:00Vi har dessverre ikke hatt tid til å utvikle oss n...Vi har dessverre ikke hatt tid til å utvikle oss noe særlig siden steinalderen; det er for få generasjoner.Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-73535983459976460352017-05-14T18:16:11.925+02:002017-05-14T18:16:11.925+02:00Ifølge evolusjonspsykologien er vi fremdeles stein...Ifølge evolusjonspsykologien er vi fremdeles steinaldermenneskerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-69855339245845357082017-05-11T12:34:24.661+02:002017-05-11T12:34:24.661+02:00Do you think there is a way to study the human min...Do you think there is a way to study the human mind in a scientific way? What would that science look like and how do you know it wouldn't be evolutionary?Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-75397161634290780862017-05-09T20:35:34.502+02:002017-05-09T20:35:34.502+02:00Psychology is in general a pseudoscience, and the ...Psychology is in general a pseudoscience, and the evolutionary brand is only<br />the latest fad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-2288012765756167522017-05-01T20:57:59.915+02:002017-05-01T20:57:59.915+02:00So what if an evolutionary psychology researcher i...So what if an evolutionary psychology researcher is guilty of academic misconduct? That happens in every field, and doesn't invalidate the entire field.Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-26574024602215845782017-05-01T20:44:33.759+02:002017-05-01T20:44:33.759+02:00https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&am...https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=21&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi0pYjUqc_TAhVjCpoKHVIWCEo4FBAWCCIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uncommondescent.com%2Fevolutionary-psychology%2Fevolutionary-psychology-pseudo-science%25E2%2580%2599s-biggest-academic-racket-takes-a-hit%2F&usg=AFQjCNHTirKRqtDChyiva_0cDZ354dbF3Q&sig2=s1S1-Asnm1zszBDQ41yiaQAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-66242262453344113292017-04-10T21:01:45.788+02:002017-04-10T21:01:45.788+02:00Psychologists love evo psych, while scientists lau...Psychologists love evo psych, while scientists laugh at itAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-11226295893150156612017-04-10T15:53:46.467+02:002017-04-10T15:53:46.467+02:00All it proves is that human nature is the way it i...All it proves is that human nature is the way it is for good reasons. If you can find exceptions on the scale of entire societies, then evolutionary psychology has failed to be explanatory, but that hasn't happened on the big issues such as female sexual selectivity and male love of promiscuity.Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-31168354891100883672017-04-10T15:45:08.910+02:002017-04-10T15:45:08.910+02:00Armchair theorists love evo-psych because they can...Armchair theorists love evo-psych because they can weave just-so stories to “prove” any dumbass solution into existence through the magic of bullshit. <br />:-DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-72237608299172054292017-04-09T20:58:05.475+02:002017-04-09T20:58:05.475+02:00That link claims that 75% of evolutionary psycholo...That link claims that 75% of evolutionary psychology research uses only Western samples, and therefore may only be applicable to Westerners and not humanity as a whole. But where is the proof that other cultures are different in ways relevant to this discussion? We have no reason to think so before we see the evidence. Such differences should have shown up in anthropology and other areas as well if they exist, so I don't think so.Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-18903011794516085802017-04-09T20:26:40.831+02:002017-04-09T20:26:40.831+02:00https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&am...https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj6tMqU_5fTAhVoApoKHQLZALYQFghKMAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.evoanth.net%2F2014%2F12%2F30%2F75-of-evolutionary-psychology-cant-be-trusted%2F&usg=AFQjCNGxaxkB0AFkFw0sox4zoKDXJM4Ntw"David Buss"noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-10688445662610434682017-02-18T16:33:47.230+01:002017-02-18T16:33:47.230+01:00To have a decent understanding of the world you ne...To have a decent understanding of the world you need both physics and evolutionary psychology. The problem with social sciences is that they tend to ignore the former and deny the latter. Physics explains <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-7177(94)90188-0" rel="nofollow">life as a manifestation of the second law</a> of thermodynamics, and to understand people's motivations you also need evolutionary psychology.<br /><br />Schopenhauer is a good example of the nonsense you get when you understand neither. His worldview has no arrow of time, since he didn't understand thermodynamics. He can't explain that anything happens. And since he didn't understand evolutionary psychology, he couldn't understand why people act. He only had a vague notion of the power of sex and thought "will" was fundamental. Nietzsche's notion of the will to power is similarly defective. Contemporary social scientists and philosophers who deny evolutionary psychology are no more advanced than Schopenhauer, if not less so, since they deny many of the truths that he nonetheless perceived. I do agree with him that the world is the final judgment on itself. Life is not a dress rehearsal. But his understanding of how everything works leaves much to be desired.Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-53200880592103728182017-02-18T15:35:21.550+01:002017-02-18T15:35:21.550+01:00I'll enjoy my physics books, you lot can have ...I'll enjoy my physics books, you lot can have fun with your fruity social sciences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-24853644049930951242017-02-02T16:10:24.882+01:002017-02-02T16:10:24.882+01:00I don't believe you. You are obviously making ...I don't believe you. You are obviously making up bullshit in order to attack evolutionary psychology. It is not credible that a boy would want to kill himself simply because he was touched by his mother. Women cannot commit sexual abuse per se, but they can of course commit emotional and physical abuse, which is at least as bad:<br /><br />https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141008131200.htm<br /><br />"<i>Children who are emotionally abused and neglected face similar and sometimes worse mental health problems as children who are physically or sexually abused, yet psychological abuse is rarely addressed in prevention programs or in treating victims, according to a new study published by the American Psychological Association.</i>"<br /><br />It is even indubitable that some of the emotional and physical abuse that women commit is sexual in nature, but that does not mean the category of sexual abuse committed by women deserves to be taken seriously, because that would presuppose harm due to the sexual aspect itself, independent of the emotional and physical aspects, which is what evolutionary psychology denies. There are no such adaptations -- no theoretical reason for them and none observed empirically. Indeed, the evidence suggests that even with regard to prepubescent girls, "sexual abuse" is largely a projection created by adults, with no basis in factual harm above and beyond emotional and physical abuse.<br /><br />The sex-abuse adaptations that do exist are women's rape-avoidance adaptations, and they kick in at puberty. Females of reproductive age can indeed be traumatized by the sexual aspect of rape far beyond what the violence involved would otherwise suggest. Ironically, feminists deny that these adaptations exist, and instead confabulate about this specious concept of gender-neutrally applicable "sexual abuse" that in your twisted imagination is more harmful to children than adult women even though the evidence suggests exactly the opposite and excludes female perpetrators.Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-53449319882655144302017-02-02T11:43:53.162+01:002017-02-02T11:43:53.162+01:00My mother abuse me when I was a child, she touched...My mother abuse me when I was a child, she touched my intimate parts and I not know what I was doing, I wanted to kill myself several times for it, I hate my life memories do not go away women can sexually abuse boysAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-62692934295465406572017-02-02T01:22:27.739+01:002017-02-02T01:22:27.739+01:00Dr. Honda thinks evolutionary psychology is sexist...Dr. Honda thinks evolutionary psychology is sexist because he is a feminist and so the true nature male sexuality offends him. He is horrified by the notion that a male sexuality which differs from female sexuality can be anything other than culture gone wrong. But do you know what is really sexist? To assume that men have the female sexual mentality instead of one which is optimal for us, adapted to our biology, which is the truth. Do you think nature would give you a dick and a constant supply of sperm without letting you know what to do with them? Do you really think men have no innate clue as to how to maximize their reproductive fitness? Nature only took women into consideration, eh? One size sexual mentality fits all? Why would the sexual mentality which maximizes female reproductive fitness, while completely disregarding men's different genitalia, be instinctive to both sexes? Do you really think nature only equipped women with the sexual mentality needed get the most out of their eggs and then neglected to do the same for men's sperm? Do you really think that's how evolution works? Nature just doesn't bother to give the human male a psychology that lets him live up to his potential, eh? So we have all these sperm able to impregnate hundreds of women, but we have the same sexual mentality as women who can only have one pregnancy at a time? Nature simply copied female sexuality onto men, lol, even though it resulted in suboptimal use of his genitals unless he got indoctrinated with "sexist" culture which only coincidentally happens in all societies? Yeah, right. Men's and women's strategies and interests overlap in relationships, and that is why there is not much difference in sexual desires within relationships. But outside of them, the difference is huge and this is due to nature rather than nurture.<br /><br />Evolution plainly produce millions of redundant sperm for each man, every day. It would be strange if it didn't also produce the desire to use them to impregnate as many women as possible. Just think about how foolish that would be. Yet this is what liberals literally believe.<br /><br />Deniers of evolutionary psychology believe in a harmony which does not exist. There is no balance between supply and demand on the mating market. Instead, both the supply of semen and the desire to deliver it to women is much greater than demand. This is the linchpin of evolutionary psychology, the denial of which is the basic tenet of feminism and leftism.Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-71638243877258163542017-01-29T20:22:41.753+01:002017-01-29T20:22:41.753+01:00Stephen Jay Gould lost that debate and has been de...Stephen Jay Gould lost that debate and has been dead since 2002. His opposition to evolutionary psychology was influenced by politics rather than science.Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-14442454138138465732017-01-29T20:06:41.709+01:002017-01-29T20:06:41.709+01:00I am against psychiatric coercion. Psychologists d...I am against psychiatric coercion. Psychologists don't usually have the power to force people into treatments they don't want, so I don't really have a problem with them. Psychologists do tend to be rather clueless about biology, but at least Dr. Honda here shows a willingness to learn.Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.com