Bay 12 Games Forum

Well, you pull out Ev-Psych as a blanket dismissal of the science article I linked. In that case, there was a hypothesis, that hypothesis made actual testable predictions, and those tests were carried out in a controlled trial. That's a bit beyond the level of a "just-so" story, which wouldn't make any testable predictions. To reiterate this is the exact original quote i made mentioning Ev-Psych:

Nah... I said if that article was representative of what evo psych's doing, then it's still got the same problems it used to have. The study itself (Check it.) doesn't make nearly as sweeping or as unfounded claims. There's definitely some stuff in it I'd call on justification issues (the blazes do we know if the effect is caused by environmental adaptation? What part of the study supports that claim? Stuff like that.), but that definitely isn't primarily an evo-psych study. Tainted by it a bit, though, sure.

Quote

If there's one thing that can be clearly said to have an explanation in the realm of evolutionary psychology (regardless of how the specifics work out), it's sexual attraction

That's hardly a blanket acceptance of current Ev-Psych theories, now is it? Saying that "one thing" would have an evolutionary explanation. Which you turned into the straw man than I'm some ev-psych koolaid drinking junkie. Pulling a couple of words out of context to try and discredit what I'm saying without even addressing the specifics is bad form.

I didn't say you had a blanket acceptance of evo-psych as "always right", or that you were some kind of evo-psych koolaid drinking junkie. I said, in slightly less direct words, that evo-psych itself is bupkis (and again... at least the last time I ran into it. Maybe the actual studies have improved, but if that article is representative of the sort of claims the studies themselves are making... and the article wasn't, really.). You want science that supports coming at the issue from a biological imperative angle, you go to psychology that's actually worth the name (or maybe straight to biological studies), not something that's trying to pull stuff out of its arse about the ancestral condition or the effects of evolution on the psychological process (it's irrelevant and we can't measure it at this point, y'ken?).

Love a'Zeus man, I never said there wasn't a biological aspect. I didn't even say that the triggering aspect wasn't biologically programmed! I said jack shit about the validity of the claim you made, or the extent you do or do not cleave to evo psych. I said that the primary factors in determining what was attractive are environmental. Th'same bloody study you were linking in the vague direction of said more or less the same thing, that environmental factors have a notable effect on what's considered attractive. It also addressed only a single aspect of attractiveness, and you better believe most aspects of what's considered attractive are societally defined (clothing, many behavioral patterns, etc.). And then I went on a bit about evo-psych, because evo-psych is a field of psychology (or claims to be one, anyway) that has fundamental epistemological issues and yeah, I'm going to poke at it when it shows up.

You're going off on me for stuff I haven't said, Ree.

One, when was sociology mentioned? I mentioned neuro-psych, but nothing else (well, besides ragging on evo psych, but yeah.). The post you just made is actually the first time the word sociology is mentioned in this thread at all

Two. Plus the bits before it. Sociology has its issues, but it has a place. Evo psych, well...

I'd actually argue that almost all of evolution theory is "pretty stories, no science". We have an outcome, and we infer from evidence what happened. Ev Psy is not much different, except psychology doesn't leave fossils.

... most modern evolution science (especially re: the mechanisms behind it) is based a fair bit (primarily? I couldn't say by the numbers, hum.) on studies done with species that have very short lifetimes, observing what happens over many (dozens, sometimes hundreds, probably sometimes even more) generations. We have both starting point and ending point, and have observed what's happened in the interim. From that we project what should happen if the system we create based on those observations holds true for slower breeding species or data we've managed to pick up from preserved samples (and when it does or doesn't, adjust appropriately.). So, ah. No. Evo psych is quite different. From methodology on up.

And no, it's not a statement that something is non-biological, (though it may be making a statement that it's non-evolutionary. Some stuff operates on a time scale evolutionary forces or influences don't quite account for, iirc. There's some interesting stuff regarding that, I do believe.) it's a statement that we don't know what the bloody mechanism is yet. At which point science shuts the blazes up and gets to work figuring that out, generally. Evopsych jumps the gun by making up stuff in an attempt to fill a gap (which hey, if you want a God of the Gaps equivalent...), generally the largely-irrelevant historical record, and then attempting to project outwards from their bullshit (which, miracles of miracles, tends to not work out very well.). The most "societal" says is that environmental factors/learned behaviors seem to play more of factor into it than anything cross-cultural (i.e. what would normally be called biological. Yes, we're aware that we're chemical sacks.).

At least, unless evo psych's seriously cleaned up their act in the last few years. Which I'm wouldn't preclude as a possibility, ha.

... pretty sure O was talking about the ones from the book. And yeah, a full kit MI from the book would probably be able to wreck a Spartan. I'd give 'em pretty good odds, anyway. Nukes, nukes, everywhere.

Hell yeah! Class A CDL permit get! Soon, Sirus might be coming to a road near you!

And lo', Frumple's existential dread of driving increased... hrm. .02%.

Which seems like a small number until you actually think on it for a second.

... seriously though. Hotplate, minifridge, etc. You are now mandated to begin the construction of the Trucker's Traveling Cookbook. Good luck!

Angel of Berserk is easy, there's only two components to it:

1. Rip
2. Tear

No, no. That doesn't mean it's easy, that just means it's simple. Or at least not complex. S'not the same thing as easy! Many very simple things can be fairly hard, after all. Like Angband! Very straightforward and uncomplicated game. Only three steps. Kicks many many asses

... well shit. Any ETA on when you'll have word from the docs?