You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘politics’ category.
They use it to explain practically everything about human psychology. And when an old idea is disproved, no problem, they explain the new theory in terms of evolution. The notion of free will with an evolutionary psychologist is a non-starter. So, their research tends to follow from that.
The assumption is determinism, that “… every event, including human cognition and behaviour, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.” (1)
The next assumption is that all human behavior serves an evolutionary purpose. Now, let us stop and consider for a moment the societal implications of such a view.
1). Law and its consequences are largely based on the notion of free will.
2). The notion of marriage is a religious institution..or at least that’s how it started.
3). In the US at least, we believe that all people are created equally and have sought to right wrongs against folks who were not treated as if they were created equally.
So, quite simply, one could view the motivation of evolutionary psychology as having the intent (consciously or unconsciously) of undermining the most important elements for the stability of society. Even though these elements would likely be viewed as ‘adaptive’ in allowing the species to survive. As an aside, I wonder what an evolutionary explanation would be for the study of evolutionary psychology (in other words, how is DNA preserved through this pursuit). But I digress….
So from an evolutionary psychology perspective, which has an underlying liberal political perspective in the US, people are not responsible for their behavior (“My genes made me do it!”), marriage is whatever you want it to be, and people with different characteristics could be considered less evolved or at least posing a threat to the survival of the most fit DNA.
Now all of this despite the fact that no simple aspect of human behavior has found to be genetically determined. There’s some evidence for general dispositions (emotional reactivity or sensation seeking), but as for specific behaviors, there is no evidence for any specific behavior that is tied to our genes.
So, I will present some evidence that evolutionary psychology undermines the basis for civilization, if accepted.
Evidence for the undermining of point 1.
Why Men Rape — It helps propagate the gene pool!! It’s not about power, domination, and control. What were you thinking?
Muslims Resort to Suicide Bombing with Hopes of Breeding — See point 4. It asserts that since Muslims are polygymist, that there are less females available. So the the offer of 72 virgins in the after life offers them a chance to finally propogate their genes! So, I suppose the problem of Muslim suicide bombers would be solved by allowing them to rape someone or otherwise propagate their genes. That motivation would completely disappear….right?? If you want to actually learn something about the Arab mind, I recommend ShrinkWrapped’s currently 15 part series.
Crime is the result of men’s competitive desires — See point 7. Those who act violently towards other men, may have been more likely to reproduce! So, next time you feel angry, go ahead and punch the sucker. You’re more likely to have some fun in bed if so, and if you’re lucky, keep the DNA of humans going! Or, play that midnight basketball, that will give you an outlet for you competitive strivings based on our evolutionary history….but I’m not sure how it will help you spread your genes. Worth a try though…who knows, right??
Evidence for undermining point 2.
Humans are by nature polygamist– See point 7. That’s right…and we should pass laws allowing polygamy then! It asserts that men benefit from monogamy…hmmph….and women benefit from polygamy…what?? That doesn’t seem right to me, but what the hey, I’m a man… Now, I really don’t think the government should have anything to do with marriage as it is a religious institution, but that is beside the point. But we’d be fine as far as suicide bombers coming from the US go, because Christianity has no promise of virgins in the afterlife.
Homosexuality and the consolation prize — That’s right…for you homosexual males…your problem is that you can’t find a woman. And ditto (opposite obviously) for lesbians. But, again, I think marriage should be between folk and God. But the government’s involvement has sociological ramifications when they allow gay marriage…. The government should have no part in marriage.
Evidence for point 3.
Asians rock, whites are so-so, and blacks…well… Okay, so it’s just fine to be a racist. Let’s go ahead and kill off those two inferior sub-types…so that we end up with a superior gene pool. I think everyone knows where this type of thinking has led in the past.
So you think evolutionary psychology is cool??? I don’t… I think if it were accepted on large scale, it would undermine the basis of civilization. Not only that, but I think it is blatantly false in almost all of its assertions.
I find the notion of “plausible deniability” very applicable to psychological defense mechanisms. (1) Originally, this term was used to describe aspects of political maneuvering pertaining to the Bay of Pigs invasion.
“In the case that assassinations, false flag or black ops or any other illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any connection to or awareness of such act, or the agents used to carry out such act.” (2)
This means that the high command gives some kind of implicit permission to carry out certain kinds of acts, and the people performing the acts don’t inform their superiors of what they are doing.
So, with defense mechanisms, they operate within the realm of ‘plausible deniability.’ Based on the severity of the psychological problems that an individual has, the range of ‘plausible deniability’ varies. For the schizophrenic, the range of plausible deniability is far ranging….they are able to believe things that most people aren’t able to believe. With other difficulties, the range of plausible deniability is more constricted.
As an example, a patient might state, “I suppose you think this has something to do with my mother!! Well, it has nothing to do with her. Don’t try to get me to talk about her, because I won’t do it!!” And, I respond, “I wasn’t thinking that….if you want to talk about your mother, I suppose you will if you want to…” And the patient goes on to talk about their mother for the remainder of the session. On a conscious level, they think that whatever they are talking about has nothing to do with their mother, but on an unconscious level, they are stating clearly that it does. For them, whatever the difficulty is, it is plausible on a conscious level that it has nothing to do with their mother…at least to some extent. The emotion that is expressed, indicates something different on an unconscious level….I’ll just be patient and see what emerges as they explore their feelings further. Just like investigations into government activities, our investigations often lead to the the truth….and just like government investigations, the truth can be very hard to find. In treatment…we follow the evidence where it leads….
So, what determines how a defense mechanism will operate is its plausibility and deniability.
“I love him to death. But I really can’t understand why he treats me the way he does.”
You’ve probably heard an expression like that. Death and love used in the same sentence. What makes it plausibly deniable is that fact that, “it’s just an expression…a lot of people use that expression.”
“I hate you…I wish you were dead.”
Some teens like to use this one. It’s usually followed up with, “I really didn’t mean it. I’m sorry.” And the person believes they really didn’t mean it. We don’t like to think we have murderous impulses. We explain this away by saying, “Oh, I was just kidding about that.” Or, “I really didn’t mean it. It’s just an expression.”
But as I’ve written before, we’re all murders, liars, thieves, adulterers, covetors, and so forth in our hearts if not in action. This is taught in the Bible, and I see it as true-to-life in my practice and within myself. It’s hard to admit–we want to see ourselves as “good people,” but the Bible teaches, “There is none good but God.” So, I dispense with the whole notion to begin with. As my wife, The Christian Scribbler, opines, You’re a Sinner, I’m a Sinner and explains this better than I do.
So, we start out with the basic nature of the human being, which is consistent with the teachings of the Bible, and then see the various ways that human beings try to mask this basic nature with defense mechanisms. Again, it’s a very individual thing as to how plausible these defensive operations need to be to the individual. Sometimes, it’s extremely obvious to others, and other times it is extremely subtle and refined.
I differ with Freud in that (1) I believe in God, and (2) I believe that the unconscious mind has very powerful positive abilities that can be utilized to help and individual resolve their difficulties. With #2, this is in the vein of Milton H. Erickson, who revolutionized the study and utilization of hypnosis. Freud viewed the unconscious in altogether negative terms, “a seething cauldron of expectations,” and “repressed instinctual drives,” but I think he missed the whole positive side of the unconscious. And, this is the trouble with an atheistic perspective on psychology.
(1). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_mechanism
(2). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
Books that may be of interest:
My Voice Will Go With You: The Teaching Tales of Milton H. Erickson, M.D.
Uncommon Therapy: The Psychiatric Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D.
Recent Comments