Reddit Reddit reviews Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature (A Bradford Book)

We found 5 Reddit comments about Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature (A Bradford Book). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Mental Health
Health, Fitness & Dieting
Books
Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature (A Bradford Book)
Check price on Amazon

5 Reddit comments about Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature (A Bradford Book):

u/BossLaidee · 5 pointsr/TheBluePill

Oh look, another post where a guy tries to rationalize being superficial at an age when it's no longer cool.



Education and Attractiveness in Marriage Choices:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2786870.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder? (hint: the answer is yes)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v396/n6709/abs/396321a0.html

Age preferences are more similar than we think, and TRP greatly over-estimates the "mate preferences" of men as they age. Most men prefer 2 - 3 years younger in their twenties, and as they age that gap widens to about 10 - 15 years younger in their 60s.
http://www.amazon.com/Adapting-Minds-Evolutionary-Psychology-Persistent/dp/0262524600

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/15/1/77.short




At age 60, I hope these guys want to protect younger women from creepy guys, rather than BEING the creepy guys.

u/alludem · 2 pointsr/neuroscience

For a good background and critique on evolutionary psychology I would suggest Adapting Minds by David Buller. He is very critical of evolutionary psychology but it is completely necessary and well done.
http://www.amazon.com/Adapting-Minds-Evolutionary-Psychology-Persistent/dp/0262524600

You should also look into Leah Krubitzer's research, primarily her research papers. She does great research on this topic.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/labs/krubitzer/publications.cfm

u/[deleted] · 2 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

Yes, and about evoluctionary psychology no less.

David Buller, a philosopher 10-20 years ago tried to tear down the idea of evo-psy with his book on the matter, Considering it not bad science and bad ethics by his... political leaning against harder sciences researchers like tooby and cosmides which were, as you guessed it, proving mr, bullers political leanings wrong.

With political help, mr Buller book became a instant hit, leading to many "softer" sciences academics to consider it some kind of academically peer-reviewed literature about the theme, and to spread the word that this subject is somehow bad science.

However the books fails miserably to make any good critique of evolutionary psychology, it was full of fallacies, bad understandings and even some lies about the researches on the matter. It was so bad that the American journal of psychology review of the book said:

>"If this is the best critique to date of evolutionary psychology (as many have mused), then evolutionary psychology is in pretty good shape."

However if you check around the internet, many people still consider Evolutionary Psychology as bad science when it isn't, and use books such as these to cut spending on research of the area as the politicaly inclined get power inside universities.

Also, we, academics have a compromise with the honesty, And face heavy punishments for such digressions, which can lead even to the lost of academic credentials like PhD and Master. But Mr buller only lost some face with the harder sciences areas... he still has a job in the softer areas and his titles.

Politics, as anyone can see, is integral part of the academia. And not rarely, it interferes with our capability to study the truth. But, in the end, empirical data always win.

u/emporsteigend · 0 pointsr/askscience

>I don't mind having friendly banter and discussing topics with others, giving an insight that might not be readily available, but I regretfully do not have the time to become a teacher on here and educate on the basic concepts of a field.

So you don't have enough time to share one testable hypothesis that you're investigating? That seems awfully convenient.

>Google is a valuable resource, just make sure people cite their sources.

I use library.nu frequently too.

That's where I found this:

http://www.amazon.com/Adapting-Minds-Evolutionary-Psychology-Persistent/dp/0262524600

>If you are a member of a university then the library research catalogs are a valuable resource as well.

University library is where I found this:

http://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Innateness-Connectionist-Perspective-Connectionism/dp/026255030X

Perhaps you should read it because unlike any EP research it proposes predictive quantitative models.

>And many more so are not.

Am I to believe that modularity is not at all a common (probably the more common) viewpoint given the massive amount of "research" I could find tying it with EP?