But it’s always a straight-on portrait.Īnd the accompanying text always includes the word “beautiful.” They included a photo of one or more daughters, typically in a diffident and awkward pose, as if they were saying, with an eye roll, “Mom, Dad, do I have to?” Sometimes Mom or Dad are in the picture smiling (more often Mom than Dad), sometimes it’s more than one daughter. The posts I viewed shared a lot of common characteristics. Why is “beautiful” the first the word that comes to mind when we talk about our daughters? My social media feeds were filled with parents posting photos of their beautiful daughters. And twist the facts in an attempt to say that nature, Mother Nature, SAID it was ok if I act like a fucking sicko! She SAID! Wahhhh.Apparently, yesterday was International Daughters’ Day. The whole “big boobs feed babies!” dealio is retarded. What, dude? You wouldn’t spare your own wife a third pregnancy by doing it yourself if you could? Essentially, all men who wish to have DNA descendants also wish they were female. If anything, the male brain is simper, due to it doesn’t have to oversee the cooking of a fetus ever.
![i think love is bullshit i think love is bullshit](https://www.quotemaster.org/images/q/2816/281660/i3.png)
In this bullshit called evo psych is pretend scientists talking about how the female brain isn’t made for spatial reasoning. If humans were to grow another sensory organ, then the brain would reflect that in its structure.Ī brain changes over the course of a lifetime according, also, to the way it is treated. Our body adaptations map onto the brain adaptations. *Anonymous: Because I couldn’t think of a cool name.* It’s safe to say that every single person who has commented here, save perhaps one, does not even have one iota of knowledge about evolutionary psychology or its external validity as a field. It may explain a whole fucking lot though.
![i think love is bullshit i think love is bullshit](https://i.redd.it/oav12m7fidf21.jpg)
Just like when it explains why women sleep with a genetically-superior man, then fools a provider-man to raising it, it doesn’t justify the rampant cheating that happens in this country either. explains why men like to “spread their seed,” etc… it doesn’t justify polyamory. The field exists, period, even if you claim its much harder to verify its claims. not only did our hands, feet, and eyes come from adaptations spanning hundreds of years, but so did our brains and behavior. Or do you not believe in evolution? Listen… human beings evolved from apes and other moronic creatures…. The field may be limited, but evolutionary psychology is just as much “bullshit” as evolutionary biology. It just explains possible insights into the origins of how humans behave today – not to justify it. The field doesn’t support the “naturalistic fallacy” – that what is natural is what is right. YOU, offended reader, drew most of these very misogynistic conclusions yourself. I don’t understand why the author/ most others here are enraged at the field of evolutionary psychology and paint it as some misogynistic, anti-woman crockery.Įvolutionary psychology says nothing negative about women, or men for that matter, whatsoever. Yet, when it upholds a woman hating status quo plenty of morons are eager to swallow something this silly. I am trying to picture one insisting that *something* evolved without knowing what it is, but insisting it does something, and then claiming to know the selection pressures that lead to it, and not knowing what came beforehand for a meaningful comparison.
![i think love is bullshit i think love is bullshit](https://markmanson.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/what-love-is-cover-780x520.jpg)
I mean, try to picture a biologist saying something evolved without any of that information. An in depth look at the social structures that EP says caused the evolution are not available for study either. They don’t know the selection pressures of the alleged evolution or what it evolved from, a very close ancestor isn’t available for this kind of comparison. They cannot prove that that the behavior inducing process is nature rather than nurture because of that. They can’t explain *what* evolved in their stories, just that something did related to the behavior of people now (something in their brains, somewhere). They are trying to untangle the evolutionary origin of something that they do not know the mechanism of. The anons might have a point if psychologists could explain psychological processes the same way biologists explain biological processes, but they can’t.