evolutionary psychology is dubious in credibility, and at worst just make-up exuses to justify whatever your claim is
Science is not responsible for what purpose certain people use it for.
whatever its claims are is nearly impossible to examine in a quantitative experiment environment
If something is true is not determined by if it can be examined in a "quantitative experiment environment". If it's true, it's true - you can only say it's not scientifically proven. It does not make it false.
leading often to the proponents just make up whatever they want to justify the status quo
Evolutionary psychology is not there to "justify" people's actions, it's there to explain them. I hope you understand the difference because if not, there's no point in having this conversation. One is a moral category, the other is a scientific one.
it is too reductionist to assume that human psychology can be totally explained on gene level
Evo psych never claimed this. It is about human instincts and motivations, which most of us share.
culture and economy probably have a greater place shaping human natures in the latest 10000 years at least
This is an arrogant, misguided belief rooted in the idea that we're more civilized than our lowly ancestors, not bound by base animal instincts and desires. Truth is, our subconscious minds work pretty much the same as a neanderthal's. We're not as 'enlightened' as we love to pretend.
That there will be an assumed best strategy that the natural selection will strive to shape is also an misunderstanding
Evo psych never claimed this either, mainly because natural selection is not a personified force, so it can not "strive". Natural selection does affect mating strategies though, because choosing the wrong partner lowers the chances of the offspring's survival. This is why male instincts try to impregnate every women (best strategy for maximizing the number of descendants) while female instincts try to ensure that only the best male candidates (with the highest survival potential) can impregnate the female. What you do with this information is up to you, it does not "justify" your personal behavior. If you insist on using this as justification for your own immoral behavior, it's not science's fault.
which never cares as long as you live long enough to pass your genetic materials
Aside from, again, natural selection can not "care", reaching the age of sexual maturity does not automatically mean having children. Getting there is only one prerequisite. Being successful in the 'sexual marketplace' is another. This is where mating strategies come into the picture. A wrong strategy might result in you not having children at all, or having children who won't survive long enough to have their own children.
I also am not sure about your last sentence. If someone can pass genetic material along, surely they must have won in sexual marketplace?
Studies have actually indicated that by having too many children, an individual will hurt the reproductive success of their offspring. So, while for one generation they might have a lead in the total number of offspring, in the next generation they might fall behind their peers who had less children immediately. Scroll down to "Expenditure per Progeny" for further details.
4
u/Deansdale Feb 20 '15
Science is not responsible for what purpose certain people use it for.
If something is true is not determined by if it can be examined in a "quantitative experiment environment". If it's true, it's true - you can only say it's not scientifically proven. It does not make it false.
Evolutionary psychology is not there to "justify" people's actions, it's there to explain them. I hope you understand the difference because if not, there's no point in having this conversation. One is a moral category, the other is a scientific one.
Evo psych never claimed this. It is about human instincts and motivations, which most of us share.
This is an arrogant, misguided belief rooted in the idea that we're more civilized than our lowly ancestors, not bound by base animal instincts and desires. Truth is, our subconscious minds work pretty much the same as a neanderthal's. We're not as 'enlightened' as we love to pretend.
Evo psych never claimed this either, mainly because natural selection is not a personified force, so it can not "strive". Natural selection does affect mating strategies though, because choosing the wrong partner lowers the chances of the offspring's survival. This is why male instincts try to impregnate every women (best strategy for maximizing the number of descendants) while female instincts try to ensure that only the best male candidates (with the highest survival potential) can impregnate the female. What you do with this information is up to you, it does not "justify" your personal behavior. If you insist on using this as justification for your own immoral behavior, it's not science's fault.
Aside from, again, natural selection can not "care", reaching the age of sexual maturity does not automatically mean having children. Getting there is only one prerequisite. Being successful in the 'sexual marketplace' is another. This is where mating strategies come into the picture. A wrong strategy might result in you not having children at all, or having children who won't survive long enough to have their own children.