17 thoughts on “Bingo! The evolutionary psychology version”

  1. I’ve been trying to figure out which is my favorite; it varies with the time of day, but probably not meaningfully. Still, the one about men and talking has a special appeal, particularly since I’ve just gotten back from a conference.

  2. I can’t help it– A part of me just feels sorry for the evolutionary psychologists who don’t say these idiotic things. It must really suck to have the idiots in your field get all the press. But I also can’t help thinking some of the bingo is pretty damned funny.

  5. I’ve seen a few bingo cards like this, but the one I’m still missing is the one with italian soccer players and what they do. But maybe those are called Oscar-cards since most of what they fake almost deserves an Oscar-award… ;)

  7. This is kind of silly, I am a grad student who studies evo psy, and i am not sure I have ever heard any of these (besides for citing pinker). I admit it is funny, but this is not what evo psy sounds like. I hope this is not how feminist view the field, if so we evo psychologist have a lot of educational work to do. :)

  8. Hi 1upbagge,

    Where/how would you place David Buss’s work? He seems in line with the cliche we’ve presented here. Not so? Or not really mainstream?

    These are genuine (not trick) questions.

  9. The closet statement to that of Buss would be “Women ‘naturally desire’ men with high incomes.” Yes, Buss has studied a multitude of cultures and found that almost universally that women prefer men with higher income. This includes women who are quite successful.

    Though I would add a few things briefly. First, it is not about income per se, but rather the ability to control resources that is important (it could be money, gold, other shiny rocks…whatever people find of value). Secondly, new research from an evo perspective (see P.H. Hawley out of the University of Kansas) is coming to find that women can be very good at accesses resources on their own, so his view is not the universal view among evo psychologist.

    The last point I want to make is the most important. Lets say that Buss is right and that women naturally prefer men who have access to high amount of resources. So what? Such research does not justify sexism or unequal levels of income, nor is Buss or any other credible evo psychologist would suggest that. To suggest so would be committing the naturalistic fallacy (that you can get a “ought from an is”), just because something is “natural” does not make it ethical. This Bingo sets up a straw man out of evo psychology without bothering to have more that a newspaper headline understanding of the field.

    Also, if one wants to decrease the income gap between men and women (I certainly do!) then maybe it is best if we understand all the underlying mechanisms that cause such differences, instead of a hackneyed attempt at humor….

    …..”a male undergrad who can’t get laid”…..is that really the humor feminist want to use? Didn’t there use to be a old sexist joke that feminist were just lesbian who were to ugly to get laid (or something like that)? Is that supposed to be a parody of that? is so, kind of sad, and not funny or accurate (ask my girlfriend). :)

  10. I was thinking more of his alleged view that men ‘naturally ‘… well, naturally treat consent to sex as a side issue. AKA, rape is natural.

  11. “The closet statement to that of Buss would be “Women ‘naturally desire’ men with high incomes.” Yes, Buss has studied a multitude of cultures and found that almost universally that women prefer men with higher income. This includes women who are quite successful. ”

    A few points about that: 1. It might be the case that women almost universally prefer to have a higher income. That’s a different statement from the one you make, but the two become one when women cannot get a higher income on their own, and that has been the case in most cultures.

    2. Culture changes slowly. I’d be more impressed by the idea that successful women look for high income partners if we had had equal incomes of women and men for hundred years or so.

  12. Echidne of the snakes: thanks for the insightful comment. You make a distinction that is important and neglected.

  14. There are a few statements that are mocked here without justification. What is untrue about men desiring stereotypically attractive 17 year-olds? There is not one man I know who would not choose the busty 17 year-old over the A-cup 35 year-old.

    Other statements I see no problem with:

    – “Science isn’t PC.”

    – Statements related to fertility and peak attractiveness

  15. Since we are writing about Bingo! The evolutionary psychology version Feminist Philosophers, Psychosocial needs affect all other aspects of humanitarian work, such as shelter, food distribution and basic health care. Provision of traditional relief aid is, therefore, not enough. Neglecting emotional reactions may result in passive victims rather than active survivors.

Comments are closed.