Evolutionary Psych May Not Help Explain Our Behavior After All

WSJ online (science journal) ^ | April 29, 2005 | By SHARON BEGLEY

[flevit]

But as Prof. Buller, a professor of philosophy at Northern Illinois University, dug deeper, he concluded that the claims of evo psych are "wrong in almost every detail" because the data underlying them are deeply flawed. His book "Adapting Minds," from MIT Press, is the most persuasive critique of evo psych I have encountered.

[flevit]

duplicate?

[flevit]

you may be interested in this???

[sageb1]

While the subject itself is fascinating, the author has written her analysis poorly and in the PC manner we've "enjoyed" for much too long.

[AndrewC]

bookmark

[MacDorcha]

ID PING

[Dataman]

But as Prof. Buller, a professor of philosophy at Northern Illinois University, dug deeper, he concluded that the claims of evo psych are "wrong in almost every detail" because the data underlying them are deeply flawed. His book "Adapting Minds," from MIT Press, is the most persuasive critique of evo psych I have encountered.

Notice that the flawed assumptions are not mentioned. The DATA is flawed. We can all rest assured that the contrary data mean nothing to the evolutionists who will characteristically refuse to consider it.

[Age of Reason]

if you scrutinize the data, you find that 50-ish men prefer 40-something women, not 25-year-olds, undermining a core claim of evo psych.

Prefer for what--cooking?