Thursday, December 15, 2016

Sex Difference Explained by Steve Moxon

I have been getting some stupid comments lately claiming that "Evo psych hasn't been taken seriously since around 2009." Well, that is nonsense, of course, and as luck would have it, now there is a brand new publication on the subject by Steve Moxon. An entire monograph, in fact, written from an MRA point of view and with an up-to-date bibliography:

Sex Difference Explained: From DNA to Society – Purging Gene Copy Errors
Abstract

This is a ‘layman’s guide’ – for, the interested rather than the merely general reader – to recent major scientific insights that together reveal a comprehensive, holistic understanding of the sexes: what actually distinguishes them and why. A much needed overview drawing together hitherto disparate topics outlining how several principles mutually relate; it’s a simplified distillation and update of the several topics that are the subject of other review papers, which provide more detailed and precise accounts and further sources.

No prior knowledge is assumed, so any other than common-knowledge scientific terms are either explained or replaced with less formal terms (where they are not too imprecise). Notably, instead of the formal, easily confused terms intra-sexual / inter-sexual, the terms within-sex / between-sex (or same-sex / cross-sex) are used. The word 'sociality', is also used despite its unfamiliarity; because it's useful shorthand for social system / dynamics. The term gender (sic) is specifically avoided - other than in 'scare' quotes since it is an ideological rather than scientific term.
And the blurb:
In SEX DIFFERENCE EXPLAINED: From DNA to Society – Purging Gene Copy Errors, Steve Moxon argues that all major aspects of male-female human sociality necessarily stem from biological principles; which all arise in solving the core problem faced by all life-forms: the relentless build-up of mistakes in the repeated copying of genes. The 'genetic filtering' to deal with this is the function of the male: why males came into being, and why men so fiercely compete with one another to form a hierarchy.

The female contribution is carefully to choose only the most dominant/prestigious males, cross-checking that indeed they do possess the best gene sets. This ensures genetic mutations and other errors that would seriously compromise reproduction are purged from the local gene pool.

Pair-bonding serves to exclude lower-ranked, whilst allowing access by still higher-ranked males; and to provide a serial father of children, thereby in effect projecting forward in time a woman's peak fertility, compensating for her deteriorating store of eggs, and consequent declining fertility and attractiveness.

With men tied to a hierarchy, women evolved to 'marry out' to avoid in-breeding. In preparation for this, girls have a very different social organisation, rehearsing for when later they have to make close bonds with non-kin, stranger-females for mutual child-care. This explains why female grouping is so tight and exclusionary, whereas males group all-inclusively.

Moxon sees the underlying sex dichotomy as being perfectly complementary, with the sexes of equal importance in what amounts to a symbiosis.

The book is not only available from Amazon in paperback and Kindle editions, but also open-access, with the full text downloadable at New Male Studies Publishing.

I will start reading it now and then post a review, and I encourage you all to do the same.

Norwegian readers should also check out this article by Terje Bongard:

Det menneskelige grunnfjell: Følelser som tilpasninger til et førhistorisk liv

And if anyone wants to argue that evolutionary psychology is wrong, please state some actual arguments, because it is plainly false that is not taken seriously by the scientific community.

51 comments:

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Ser spennende ut! Har ikke tenkt på at dette er grunnen til at jenteklikker er så ekskluderende. Samtidig er jo konkurransen mellom menn det grunnleggende problemet i alle de krisene verden nå står overfor. Var det ikke for kvinnene ville vi bare satt oss ned rundt bålet, hvor vi trives best. Egentlig er det ingen av oss som strever etter fine hus, biler og posisjoner for egen del, det er kun påfuglfjær.

Er litt skeptisk til formuleringen "perfectly complementary." Tenker på at Bongard er så nøye med å presisere at evolusjonen ikke er perfekt på noe vis, her gjelder kun godt nok, dvs. å ligge et hårstrå foran dine konkurrenter. Det er ikke noe som irriterer Bongard så mye som Attenboroughs frase "It's all perfectly adapted".

Bongard presiserer også at evolusjonen stort sett består av kompromisser. Så mennesket er et kompromiss, vi er ikke perfekte på noe vis.

Men komplementære, det er vi som menn og kvinner!

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Tom. virus aksepterer kjønnsforskjellene:

http://forskning.no/sykdommer-virus-evolusjon/2016/12/hvorfor-noen-sykdommer-rammer-menn-hardere

Øyvind Holmstad said...

PermaLiv er blank i dag. Kommer inn på innholdet gjennom å logge meg inn på en annen, inaktiv blogg, men hovedbloggen min er blank for leserne. Har du noen formening om hva dette er? Kan det være det nye Sannhetsministeriet som har rapportert meg?

http://steigan.no/2016/12/16/na-kommer-det-facebook-skal-bli-sannhetsministerium/

Eivind Berge said...

Permaliv er blank for meg også. Merkelig, men jeg tror mest på en bug. Kanskje noe relatert til dynamisk sidevisning? Du kan prøve å slå det av.

Anonymous said...

Pseudovitenskap

Øyvind Holmstad said...

...for de som er livredde for å få svertet de flotte meningspåfuglfjærene sine.

Anonymous said...

In what way is Moxon part of the scientific community?

Eivind Berge said...

What difference does that make as long as he is relying in published research? Check out the 20 pages of references at the end.

EvoPsych = said...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MyersBriggsTypes.png

https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrologi

https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaksineskepsis

Steve Moxon said...

A poster chooses anonymity to ask of my membership of 'the scientific community', probably because appeal to 'authority' is universally recognised across science as being to betray a fundamental failure to understand science. Evidence and argument are all that count.
A regularly occurring feature within science as in other areas of study is that those who come in from the outside provide a much-needed fresh pair of eyes and are heavily disproportionately responsible for novel insights.
I started out at university and was appalled at the absence of science in what purported to be a BSc science psychology degree course, and I came back to resume and develop a keen interest when the subject got a proper scientific -- evolutionary / biological -- basis.
I've researched across disciplines re the biological roots of human sociality for many years and had many papers published. If my submissions were not well-researched and demonstrably so, then hardly they be published.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Dear Steve Moxon, please note that Terje Bongard, who Berge referes to in his article, has searched for an English publisher for his book "The biological Human Being – individuals and societies in light of evolution" for several years.

His contact info:

http://www.nina.no/english/Contact/Employees/Employee-info?AnsattID=16117

Anonymous said...

Draconian sex laws backfires:

https://www.ba.no/nyheter/kriminalitet/bergen/advarer-mot-sexnoveller-politimann-siktet/s/5-8-484256

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, Norwegian child porn law literally goes so far as to criminalize the reading/downloading of fictional short stories. It is so batshit insane that it boggles the mind and fills my heart with seething hatred against the state too profound for words. And yet, there is virtually no resistance to it besides from myself. The propaganda about "protecting children" through criminal law has captured the minds of the entire population so successfully that the feminist police state can make the sex laws as draconian as it wants.

It doesn't really backfire. Notice that neither the journalist, lawyer, the accused man or anyone else has anything negative to say about the law in that news story, and there is no indication that the antisexual mission creep might ever get reversed. The law does exactly what it is supposed to do: put men in prison. Those of us who retain any sanity are so few that it doesn't even register, except in the limited way that my criminal case (and now compensation case) got attention.

Eivind Berge said...

What is so incredibly frustrating, beyond the oppression itself, is that the institutionalized hatred against sexuality and men is a one-way street. I have made it my mission to incite hatred back against the state, but I am failing. I no longer think there is anything the state could do against male sexuality that would make men as a group want to fight back.

If, for example, the state wants to abolish the reasonable doubt standard in rape cases, well, they already have "men" cheering for that idea!

https://aeon.co/ideas/why-rape-cases-should-not-be-subject-to-reasonable-doubt

Again, this is so astonishingly hateful against men that it boggles the mind, but it is par for the course today. That article is also another example of how those who call themselves "ethicists" tend to be most vile and unethical people, which is a pattern I have noticed.

Anonymous said...

Save the pixels! - "There is no question that the depictions that I have examined in court … are very disturbing":

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1315314-man-from-south-carolina-jailed-over-illicit-cartoons

Eivind Berge said...

The populace has been brainwashed to not see the difference between pixels and abuse, or text and abuse, or ones and zeros and abuse, or magnetic charge or electrons and abuse. Child porn by itself is always nothing more than information, the mere possession of which should never incriminate anyone, though it may or may not originate from real abuse. The more you copy it, the further removed it becomes from actual abuse, yet the more you thus dilute it, the more the criminality increases along with the insanity in our sick society. It is frightening that humans can be so irrational, but that sort of magical thinking is not really unique to child porn. Homeopaths similarly claim there is no difference between water molecules and active ingredients after they have done their dilution, and plenty of people buy it. Perhaps surprisingly, the Drug War has not yet seized on the idea and started imprisoning people for homeopathic doses of illegal drugs. Now, there is a missed opportunity for tyrants to exploit.

Anonymous said...

My buddy owes me $500 if evpsych is still taught in American universities in 2020.

Anonymous said...

Evo psych is where no sane person should start. In 2016 it’s pretty much dead.. Science laughs at it.

caamib said...

I just love this nutcase who constantly posts that evo psych is dead or whatever. I will bet you dollars to doughnuts this person believes that we live in some rape culture or that we patriarchy is still something that exists in the Western countries and most be destroyed. It's hilarious how insane these freaks can be. That's also obvious in how they tend to disregard Moxon because he is not an established member of some "scientific community". Um, no, that's not how science works. You either can use the scientific method or not. Your standings are irelevant.

Anonymous said...

The majority of EPs critics and skeptics are scientists.

Eivind Berge said...

Can you name any scientists who don't believe in evolutionary psychology and have a better theory? And I mean scientists, not women's studies researchers or the like.

Anonymous said...

https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjRw8i4-N3RAhUKiSwKHf58DqAQFgguMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogtalkradio.com%2Fpsychologyinseattle%2F2015%2F12%2F07%2Fevolutionary-psychology-is-crap&usg=AFQjCNH9yMWoRUjDDP_HqEu5f7mLWUfScQ

Eivind Berge said...

That podcast has a misleading title and doesn't support what you claim. Dr. Kirk Honda says evolutionary psychology's basic principles are sound and he doesn't reject it. He believes it is a valid science and only disagrees with some of the details. His critique of evolutionary psychology is that many studies within the field don't follow the main principles of evolutionary psychology. That may well be true, but it doesn't invalidate the field itself.

Here is his article "A Critique of Evolutionary Psychology":

http://psychologyinseattle.squarespace.com/a-critique-of-evolutionary-psychology/

There is crap published in every field, and I never said evolutionary psychology would be different. Of course we need to evaluate all research critically. Some of Dr. Honda's objections are probably valid, but he isn't even trying to discredit the entire field.

Eivind Berge said...

As I see it, the one absolutely robust finding of evolutionary psychology is that men are vastly more interested in promiscuity than women, which in effect makes sex a female resource, and this difference is instinctual and universal (in the sense that no society has ever seen a reversal on a group level). Everything else is up for debate. Does evolutionary psychology have the correct explanation for things like anorexia and violence? Not necessarily at the current level of understanding, and many of the claims made are overblown.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't have strong opinions about most of Dr. Honda's criticisms, but this statement of his is silly: "In my opinion, the frequent argument within mainstream evolutionary psychology that men are programed to impregnate as many women as possible is sexist."

Firstly, whether it feels "sexist" to him has no bearing on the truth. And how do we know that men are programed to impregnate as many women as possible? Not because of the inconsequential flirting studies that he cites, but because men are overwhelmingly most attracted women of reproductive age and tend to exploit every possible sexual opportunity with them, or wish they did. It is true that we don't have a good explanation for homosexuality, but homosexual men have the same desires apart from the impregnation bit. Youth and promiscuity reign supreme in untrammeled male sexuality in a way rarely matched by any woman. That is the cornerstone of evolutionary psychology, and everything which directly follows must also be true. For example that it is absurd to pretend women can be sex offenders and "rape" or sexually "abuse" boys.

Yes, men also care about romantic love and relationships probably as much as women, and there is no great difference in sexual desire within relationships, but women own the mating market outside of relationships because male desire for casual sex is so much greater. Men and women do have distinct mating mechanisms which consist of opportunistic polygamy and promiscuity in men, in addition to whatever women may have in common with them. It is dishonest to pretend this difference does not exist.

This claim by Pedersen, Putcha-Bhagavatula, and Miller (2011) is bullshit:

"…most men are not more apt to spend proportionately more of their mating effort in short-term mating. Nor are they more apt, compared to women, to lower their standards in short-term compared to long-term mating. Furthermore, in short-term mating, most men are not more apt to seek sex if pregnancy is likely…"

It is obviously true that it is easier to get a wife than a one-night-stand for men, and men have almost no standards for casual sex but considerable standards for marriage, while women can always have new casual partners on demand and tend to be very picky for casual sex, but need to lower their standards a bit to get commitment. And as to the claim that "most men are not more apt to seek sex if pregnancy is likely" -- well, why do you think men prefer young women? Duh.

Anonymous said...

Are you anti-psychiatry and pro-psychology at the same time?????

Anonymous said...

https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjVvKOBhejRAhVEDJoKHWalBb0QygQINDAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FStephen_Jay_Gould%23Opposition_to_sociobiology_and_evolutionary_psychology&usg=AFQjCNG1XklOlq2YRr_RD7UlRIOf-wCUyA

Eivind Berge said...

I am against psychiatric coercion. Psychologists don't usually have the power to force people into treatments they don't want, so I don't really have a problem with them. Psychologists do tend to be rather clueless about biology, but at least Dr. Honda here shows a willingness to learn.

Eivind Berge said...

Stephen Jay Gould lost that debate and has been dead since 2002. His opposition to evolutionary psychology was influenced by politics rather than science.

Eivind Berge said...

Dr. Honda thinks evolutionary psychology is sexist because he is a feminist and so the true nature male sexuality offends him. He is horrified by the notion that a male sexuality which differs from female sexuality can be anything other than culture gone wrong. But do you know what is really sexist? To assume that men have the female sexual mentality instead of one which is optimal for us, adapted to our biology, which is the truth. Do you think nature would give you a dick and a constant supply of sperm without letting you know what to do with them? Do you really think men have no innate clue as to how to maximize their reproductive fitness? Nature only took women into consideration, eh? One size sexual mentality fits all? Why would the sexual mentality which maximizes female reproductive fitness, while completely disregarding men's different genitalia, be instinctive to both sexes? Do you really think nature only equipped women with the sexual mentality needed get the most out of their eggs and then neglected to do the same for men's sperm? Do you really think that's how evolution works? Nature just doesn't bother to give the human male a psychology that lets him live up to his potential, eh? So we have all these sperm able to impregnate hundreds of women, but we have the same sexual mentality as women who can only have one pregnancy at a time? Nature simply copied female sexuality onto men, lol, even though it resulted in suboptimal use of his genitals unless he got indoctrinated with "sexist" culture which only coincidentally happens in all societies? Yeah, right. Men's and women's strategies and interests overlap in relationships, and that is why there is not much difference in sexual desires within relationships. But outside of them, the difference is huge and this is due to nature rather than nurture.

Evolution plainly produce millions of redundant sperm for each man, every day. It would be strange if it didn't also produce the desire to use them to impregnate as many women as possible. Just think about how foolish that would be. Yet this is what liberals literally believe.

Deniers of evolutionary psychology believe in a harmony which does not exist. There is no balance between supply and demand on the mating market. Instead, both the supply of semen and the desire to deliver it to women is much greater than demand. This is the linchpin of evolutionary psychology, the denial of which is the basic tenet of feminism and leftism.

Anonymous said...

My mother abuse me when I was a child, she touched my intimate parts and I not know what I was doing, I wanted to kill myself several times for it, I hate my life memories do not go away women can sexually abuse boys

Eivind Berge said...

I don't believe you. You are obviously making up bullshit in order to attack evolutionary psychology. It is not credible that a boy would want to kill himself simply because he was touched by his mother. Women cannot commit sexual abuse per se, but they can of course commit emotional and physical abuse, which is at least as bad:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141008131200.htm

"Children who are emotionally abused and neglected face similar and sometimes worse mental health problems as children who are physically or sexually abused, yet psychological abuse is rarely addressed in prevention programs or in treating victims, according to a new study published by the American Psychological Association."

It is even indubitable that some of the emotional and physical abuse that women commit is sexual in nature, but that does not mean the category of sexual abuse committed by women deserves to be taken seriously, because that would presuppose harm due to the sexual aspect itself, independent of the emotional and physical aspects, which is what evolutionary psychology denies. There are no such adaptations -- no theoretical reason for them and none observed empirically. Indeed, the evidence suggests that even with regard to prepubescent girls, "sexual abuse" is largely a projection created by adults, with no basis in factual harm above and beyond emotional and physical abuse.

The sex-abuse adaptations that do exist are women's rape-avoidance adaptations, and they kick in at puberty. Females of reproductive age can indeed be traumatized by the sexual aspect of rape far beyond what the violence involved would otherwise suggest. Ironically, feminists deny that these adaptations exist, and instead confabulate about this specious concept of gender-neutrally applicable "sexual abuse" that in your twisted imagination is more harmful to children than adult women even though the evidence suggests exactly the opposite and excludes female perpetrators.

Anonymous said...

I'll enjoy my physics books, you lot can have fun with your fruity social sciences.

Eivind Berge said...

To have a decent understanding of the world you need both physics and evolutionary psychology. The problem with social sciences is that they tend to ignore the former and deny the latter. Physics explains life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics, and to understand people's motivations you also need evolutionary psychology.

Schopenhauer is a good example of the nonsense you get when you understand neither. His worldview has no arrow of time, since he didn't understand thermodynamics. He can't explain that anything happens. And since he didn't understand evolutionary psychology, he couldn't understand why people act. He only had a vague notion of the power of sex and thought "will" was fundamental. Nietzsche's notion of the will to power is similarly defective. Contemporary social scientists and philosophers who deny evolutionary psychology are no more advanced than Schopenhauer, if not less so, since they deny many of the truths that he nonetheless perceived. I do agree with him that the world is the final judgment on itself. Life is not a dress rehearsal. But his understanding of how everything works leaves much to be desired.

"David Buss" said...

https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj6tMqU_5fTAhVoApoKHQLZALYQFghKMAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.evoanth.net%2F2014%2F12%2F30%2F75-of-evolutionary-psychology-cant-be-trusted%2F&usg=AFQjCNGxaxkB0AFkFw0sox4zoKDXJM4Ntw

Eivind Berge said...

That link claims that 75% of evolutionary psychology research uses only Western samples, and therefore may only be applicable to Westerners and not humanity as a whole. But where is the proof that other cultures are different in ways relevant to this discussion? We have no reason to think so before we see the evidence. Such differences should have shown up in anthropology and other areas as well if they exist, so I don't think so.

Anonymous said...

Armchair theorists love evo-psych because they can weave just-so stories to “prove” any dumbass solution into existence through the magic of bullshit.
:-D

Eivind Berge said...

All it proves is that human nature is the way it is for good reasons. If you can find exceptions on the scale of entire societies, then evolutionary psychology has failed to be explanatory, but that hasn't happened on the big issues such as female sexual selectivity and male love of promiscuity.

Anonymous said...

Psychologists love evo psych, while scientists laugh at it

Anonymous said...

https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=21&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi0pYjUqc_TAhVjCpoKHVIWCEo4FBAWCCIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uncommondescent.com%2Fevolutionary-psychology%2Fevolutionary-psychology-pseudo-science%25E2%2580%2599s-biggest-academic-racket-takes-a-hit%2F&usg=AFQjCNHTirKRqtDChyiva_0cDZ354dbF3Q&sig2=s1S1-Asnm1zszBDQ41yiaQ

Eivind Berge said...

So what if an evolutionary psychology researcher is guilty of academic misconduct? That happens in every field, and doesn't invalidate the entire field.

Anonymous said...

Psychology is in general a pseudoscience, and the evolutionary brand is only
the latest fad.

Eivind Berge said...

Do you think there is a way to study the human mind in a scientific way? What would that science look like and how do you know it wouldn't be evolutionary?

Anonymous said...

Ifølge evolusjonspsykologien er vi fremdeles steinaldermennesker

Eivind Berge said...

Vi har dessverre ikke hatt tid til å utvikle oss noe særlig siden steinalderen; det er for få generasjoner.

Anonymous said...

freudian psychology proves that the minds of women are inferior to those of men

freudian psychology states that there are three major components of the human psyche, the id, the ego, and the superego. The id is the unorganized structure of the psyche which is in charge of reacting on emotion and instinct, the superego has the role of critical thinking, rationality, and moralism, the ego acts as a mediator to the two so one cannot overpower the other. I have come to the conclusion that since women are more likely to react to situations with blind emotion rather than rational thinking, they have an id that dominates the ego and superego or the ego and superego may not even be present, their personalities are just one giant id. because of this, freudian psychology disproves the "scientific" belief that women mature faster than men because how in the world can beings that function solely on emotion be considered more mature than beings who are naturally wired to be critical thinkers? different forms of maturity do not manifest themselves in unison, just because a woman has reached sexual maturity does not mean she has reached emotional maturity. if you look at how females act compared to men they tend to be more emotional and bubbly than men, this is due to the id being the dominant/only part of the psyche thus stunting emotional growth. so there you have it, the "scientific" notions of women maturing faster than men and having no differences in our brains can be disproven by simple freudian psychology.

Anonymous said...

And if anyone wants to argue that
freudian psychology is wrong, please state some actual arguments, because it is plainly false that is not taken seriously by the scientific community.

Rm Romal said...

https://chotigolpo0.blogspot.com

Atle B said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg9s749vG5M

Eivind Berge said...

"You can find almost anything you look for" -- yes, you can find individuals doing many strange things, but you can't find that sex differences don't exist and he didn't address that.

Anonymous said...

https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjEoMvK3onXAhUqAZoKHT37AJYQFghbMAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Farticles%2Fhealth_and_science%2Fscience%2F2017%2F08%2Fevolutionary_psychology_is_the_most_obvious_example_of_how_science_is_flawed.html&usg=AOvVaw00yNaAG-1AE4TzXMNjwMHx