[ SECRET POST #2988 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2988 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 050 secrets from Secret Submission Post #427.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 2 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Evolutionary psychology

[herpymcderp]

In theory, a useful way of examining human behaviour from the perspective of biological imperatives. Animal behaviour gets that right, right?

In practice, just a load of sexist claims about biological imperatives and gender differences that don't actually exist with half-baked theories of "because evolution" behind them.

Seriously the worst discipline in psychology, though Neo-Freudianism gives it a run for its money.

Re: Evolutionary psychology

[flipthefrog.livejournal.com]

People using evopsych to back up their halfassed claims about gender norms usually need to be taught the difference between "does" and "should."

Re: Evolutionary psychology

[herpymcderp]

I'm admittedly being a tad unfair to the evopsych crowd. Some of my very good friends took that route, and don't spend their entire lives trying to prove black women are objectively less attractive than white or Asian women ~because evolution~.

There are some useful theories, as well. For example, the cost-benefit analysis of foraging is fairly solid and could explain why we tend to be drawn to fatty or sugary foods as a biochemical preference.

The problem with evopsych is that it's not a vocal minority ruining it for the rest of them, it's that the progressive/level-headed people are the minority.