You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘pseudoscience’ tag.
I don’t know if this is just bad reporting or bad science. But, if you believe it, you ought to have your man tested to make sure he is monogamous before you marry him. Although the title of the story states, “Possible Monogamy Gene Found in Humans,” it goes on to say that no such thing was studied.
In the prairie voles and marmosets, receptors for the two systems sit on adjacent cells, so social activity is highly rewarding, leading to monogamy.
It also says,
They found that variation in a section of the gene called RS3 334 was linked to how men bond with their partners. Men can have none, one or two copies of the RS3 334 section, and the higher the number of copies, the worse men scored on a measure of pair bonding.
Not only that, men with two copies of RS3 334 were more likely to be unmarried than men with one or none, and if they were married, they were twice as likely to have a marital crisis.
Okay, cute study. This is the problem with ethology, the study of animal behavior from a biological perspective, and then extending it to human behavior. This is often done in evolutionary psychology, and is junk science in my opinion.
“Sorry honey, I must have multiple copies of that RS3 334 gene.”
Yeah, that would fly. Good luck with that one.
Or how about this,
“Honey, I’d like to have you tested for the RS3 334 gene before we get married, because multiple copies make animals unfaithful.”
Good luck with that too.
It seems some psychologists are bored… They must be. Recently, a new movement towards treatment of worry about the future of the planet has emerged. Psychologists and therapists are having groups and treating individuals who are anxious about the future of the planet. There are plenty of legitimate difficulties out there for psychologists to treat, and I suppose this helps certain psychotherapists keep their practices simple, easy, and on the surface. In other words, “lets work with something that’s not too difficult and we’ll feel good about ourselves for addressing this major social concern.”
I suppose this appeals to the by-and-large liberal sentiment of psychologists in the field. Or it’s another fad for largely academic psychologists who magnify the importance of their personal interests. Although I must admit, there’s a certain appeal to adding “Simple Phobia, Ecological Type” to the DSM-V as a disorder that needs to be a focus of treatment. Then we’d have a label for people with ideology like Al Gore. Cogtive-behavioral psychologists could address the catastrophizing and psychoanalysts could examine the potty training conflicts of people worrying about “poluting the environment.”
For more on Ecopsychology and treatment, the New York Times, has an article.
Recent Comments