147
Harvard author Steven Pinker appears on podcast linked to scientific racism (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/science@lemmy.world
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Psychologist and writer’s appearance on Aporia condemned for helping to normalise ‘dangerous, discredited ideas’

The Harvard psychologist and bestselling author Steven Pinker appeared on the podcast of Aporia, an outlet whose owners advocate for a revival of race science and have spoken of seeking “legitimation by association” by platforming more mainstream figures.

The appearance underlines past incidents in which Pinker has encountered criticism for his association with advocates of so-called “human biodiversity”, which other academics have called a “rebranding” of racial genetic essentialism and scientific racism.

Pinker’s appearance marks another milestone in the efforts of many in Silicon Valley and rightwing media and at the fringes of science to rehabilitate previously discredited models of a biologically determined racial hierarchy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

Idk, I mean I'm not a fan of Pinker (his whole book on why violence has declined seems to ignore structural violence all around us, especially lower classes, and heavily supports capitalism) but evolutionary psychology seems pretty legit to me?

Geographically isolated groups of a single species will show variations of behavior and psychology that is affected by their environment and genetic predispositions -- that seems like a pretty reasonable take.

Yeah, when people take that to racist extremes, its problematic. You can't assume a person's quality because, when it comes to individuals in a particular, geographically originated group, you don't know where they landed on the spectrum re: genetic predisposition, and then you don't know their current environment either. It all comes out in the wash. I don't really think that means evolutionary psychology is total bunk, though. Its useful to put humans along with other animals when we think about their how their behavior and psychology are affected by evolution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Geographically isolated groups of a single species will show variations of behavior and psychology that is affected by their environment and genetic predispositions – that seems like a pretty reasonable take.

    call it reasonable or plausible or whatever you want, but for it to be science it needs empirical evidence and predictive value. Failing that you just have "reasonable" hypotheses, and one person's "reasonable" is another person's racist/sexist/transphobic/whatever, especially when the hypotheses emphasize nature over nurture. That's the problem with evolutionary psychology.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Eh, I don't necessarily disagree with your statement -- and sure, I'd probably agree that evolutionary psychology has a problem in that it's not super testable -- then again, what does my word mean since I'm a lay person.

    It does fit into our understanding of evolution though, and it fits into how we analyze behaviors of other animals. Its clear that some portion of our psychology is genetic, and therefore evolutionary, and it only follows that there's is going to be variability in each individual's initial psychological makeup, even within geographically adjacent groups of individuals. . When you plop nurture on top, that variability becomes even wider. Idk, it seems kinda nonsensical to claim that one person can't be more genetically predisposed to feeling anxiety than another, right?

    You can and should call out racists, but just because there are some racists who use evolutionary psychology to be racists, doesn't mean it's all bunk. Just like it doesn't make Darwinism all bunk when it's used by social darwinists to oppress others.

    Edit: obviously anyone who says "this race is more likely to act like this because of this" is whack. I guess I'm thinking of evolutionary psychology on more of a macro scale, where it could be used to explain (colloquial "explain," scientific "hypothesize"), for example, why humans experience social anxiety, where feelings of shame or embarrassment come from, how we deal with rejection, or acceptance, etc. in a real scientifically grounded way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    genetic predispositions

    I mean, that sounds pretty off.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    How do you mean? A person can be genetically predisposed to be tall, but grow up to be short due to environmental circumstances (eg lack of nutrition during childhood)

    Edit: I figured this would go without saying, but maybe not: this idea, I think logically, extends to things like dopamine thresholds in the brain, and other, erhm, neurotransmittal (word?) aspects of the body. Really, all aspects of the body start with genetic predisposition and then do or do not undergo changes corresponding with the environment. To be completely clear, I am not a scientist. If the science doesnt support this, then Id happily stand corrected

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent