27 June, 2009

Evolutionary Psychology: The Really Dangerous Idea Is That It’s Wrong

Posted by Socrates in Kevin MacDonald, science, Socrates at 1:04 am | Permanent Link

by Dr. Kevin MacDonald.

“Sharon Begley is at it again, flailing away at evolutionary psychology because it doesn’t fit well with her feminist, liberal agenda. This is ironic because evolutionary psychology owes its very existence to political correctness.”


  • 6 Responses to “Evolutionary Psychology: The Really Dangerous Idea Is That It’s Wrong”

    1. Parsifal Says:

      Whites are the only group that feel any sense of fairness, compassion or tolerance towards the inferior races. Those inferior races, especially the Jews, see that characteristic not as something to be admired but as a weakness that needs to be exploited and used against us.

    2. Lee Luttrell Says:

      What this article proves is that psychology is not a “science.” “Science” has no left or right…”Science” has no Race…..”Science” has no political agenda…….”Science” is not used for social engineering. Psychology is a “means to an end” in which manipulation of the facts is normal.

    3. Antagonistes Says:

      I don’t quite understand what the professor is saying here.

      Is here saying that the Jews took over sociobiology, corrupted it, called it evolutionary psychology, and now it is in disrepute?

      I thought the Newsweek article was pretty good, and in no way said that races were equal.

    4. Adam Says:

      Antagonistes Says:

      I don’t quite understand what the professor is saying here.

      Is here saying that the Jews took over sociobiology, corrupted it, called it evolutionary psychology, and now it is in disrepute?

      I thought the Newsweek article was pretty good, and in no way said that races were equal.

      I’m pretty sure that Begley would tell you that race is “only a social construct”. Leftists of that stripe are in deep denial about race existing at all in humans, since if race is conceded to exist, then that means that there are hard-coded differences between groups.

      What MacDonald is getting at is that in her demolition of evolutionary psychology, Begley is only making more problems for herself and her point of view. For example, if there are no psychological modules, as have been posited by evo psych, but only a general intelligence (since, as she says, “Evolution indeed sculpted the human brain. But it worked in malleable plastic, not stone, bequeathing us flexible minds that can take stock of the world and adapt to it.”), the race question re-emerges. How do we then account for race differences in IQ? The evidence of a century of IQ testing shows that they can’t be remedied by adjusting the environment or “culture”. And as MacDonald’s title indicates, the real dangerous idea (for Begley and her ilk) is that evo psych is wrong. What if, instead, as MacDonald’s work has tended to show, groups such as whites and Jews make war with each other via culture and ideologies? Then we have a situation where culture affects the underlying genetics, and vice versa, in a very complicated interplay. The Jewish “culture of critique”, instead of advancing valid objections to white culture, as Begley would no doubt like to believe, is stripped of truth value and is reduced to being only a weapon used by the Jews in the evolutionary struggle between the two groups. And again, Begley cites in her attack on evo psych an alleged failure by its adherents to take into account recent evidence of rapid evolution:

      And for a final nail in the coffin, geneticists have discovered that human genes evolve much more quickly than anyone imagined when evolutionary psychology was invented, when everyone assumed that “modern” humans had DNA almost identical to that of people 50,000 years ago. Some genes seem to be only 10,000 years old, and some may be even younger.

      That has caught the attention of even the most ardent proponents of evo psych, because when the environment is changing rapidly—as when agriculture was invented or city-states arose—is also when natural selection produces the most dramatic changes in a gene pool. Yet most of the field’s leaders, admits UNM’s Miller, “have not kept up with the last decade’s astounding progress in human evolutionary genetics.” The discovery of genes as young as agriculture and city-states, rather than as old as cavemen, means “we have to rethink to foundational assumptions” of evo psych, says Miller, starting with the claim that there are human universals and that they are the result of a Stone Age brain.

      Yet if that is true, it actually undermines Begley’s position that race doesn’t exist and supports a guy like MacDonald, whose theories fit very well with this. For example, he has argued that it was Jewish eugenic practices, based in their religious culture, which has led to the somewhat higher Jewish mean IQ. Obviously this was of relatively recent advent – much more recent than the Stone Age. It came about, he says, as part of the Darwinian struggle between groups over control of territory and resources. A group difference in IQ has thereby been produced – and a racial difference born – as a result of cultural factors and group competition. This consequence should give Begley nightmares, but she appears to be too dim to see it.

    5. Antagonistes Says:

      Thanks, and good points, Adam.

      Perhaps the White brain is like a lithe, graceful, gravity-defying ice skater, and the black brain is like a certain type of stiff, lumbering weight-lifter?

      Whatever theory is applied to account for this, I think it is the case, in general.

      I think the time is coming when the natural differences between the races will indeed be accelerated by a European desire for excellence, as per the Graeco-Roman philosophers.

      The blacks will not be able to keep up, nor will they be able drag us down. Appealing to the precepts of Christianity embodied in liberalism will be a no-go.

    6. Antagonistes Says:

      What I see in Begley’s article is this: In regards to rape (and other pernicious behaviors, portrayed as being evolutionarily advantageous), people are better than that, especially White people.

      I agree with this, and hope it is the case, because I am not a materialist.

      It is a double-edged sword, though.

      Whites can look at the nigras and say, We are better than that. We evolved with more of an ethical consciousness than the nigra.

      We are better than the Michael Vicks and Steve McNairs.

      We chose Christianity BECAUSE we are ethical and empathetic. Christianity did not make us that way.

      I hope I am not proved wrong.