this one goes out to all the STEM lord redditors
EvoPsych 101: Rats and people are the same, but men and women are different.
CW, but Astrology doesn't jump straight to justifying rape as an evolutionary adaptation every time it opens it's mouth. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Astrology, but Evo Psych is fucking vile.
you can rotate a cow in your mind its free and the cops cant stop you
Here's some real evolutionary psychology for ya: we evolved to like carbs and sugar and shit because that stuff keeps you going for a long time in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but our switch to sedentary agrarian lifestyles was so recent that our tastes haven't changed (and indeed might not be able to change) to reflect the food most readily available to us and that's why it's so easy to overload yourself on spaghetti.
ROFL! I can guaranfuckingtee you that as a highly selection sensitive pathway metabolism would show rapid evolution within only a few generations. Honestly we probably have seen significant dietary evolution since the development of CAPITALISM, let alone civilization itself. And this doesn't even get into the fact that most biological pathways are very flexible and adaptive outside of an evolutionary context, especially when it comes to omnivores like humans. Like evolution of things that are not heavily selected for by evolution, for example body hair in humans, takes a long time to change in the gene pool, and usually then just by random drift, but if something is a life or death thing you better believe that you will see changes in a few generations.
But that's the thing. Wanting to overeat is life threatening, but not necessarily reproduction threatening. Tons of people manage to have kids even while saddling themselves for life with dangerous cholesterol, which is why our taste preferences post capitalism haven't shifted to account for the excessive availability of sugar and carbs.
Wanting to overeat is life threatening, but not necessarily reproduction threatening.
I mean I would very much disagree. For any given person it may not be re productively significant, but for a population it very much is. Also these conditions only apply to westerners, plenty of people dont have these dietary problems they have other exciting ones like recurring famine. There is also the issue that much of the new research is showing that obesity is not necessarily the sole outcome of poor diet, it is a much more complicated phenomenon.
In any event it is yet to be seen what specific evolutionary changes will result from capitalism specifically. More important for the question of availability of refined simple sugars is the development of agriculture and bread consumption. Once you enter a world where up to 70% of your populations diet is processed grains you are entering a new world compared to hunting and gathering. This also doesnt consider the development of food technologies like fruits and vegetables as well, you would never have hunter gatherers munching on the kind of apples agricultural societies were producing 2000 years ago. Basically what I am saying is that these pathways are super sensitive and you will definitely see rapid changes only accelerated by repeated population fluctuations which we have seen throughout human history.
The types who believe this stuff, think they're gonna "make it big" one day, and believe they will have personal benefit from such a "philosophy". When that ( inevitably) doesn't happen, they'll start playing the blame game, which usually is directed towards left-leaning ideas.
writing a 10000 word essay titled "how SJWs hid phythoestrogens in my school lunch to genocide white people"
If phytoestrogens genocide white people exclusively, doesn't that disprove their whole master race thing? Why is it that white men exclusively are the least resilient to hormones from plants. It's like:
"Wait, the so-called 'master race's' weakness is a fucking BEAN!?"
And the really sick part is they're hoovering up funding that should go to the social sciences.
Tag yourself I'm breast-fetishism :hyperflush:
The thing about berries in a forest sounds neat, but I suspect it's like bacon insofar as some marketing campaign probably did that.
Pink used to be the boy colour, so yeah it's definitely not an evo-psych thing
Thanks. But to clarify to anyone, I like Scott Pilgrim because I understand the satire, I don't unironically like Scott Pilgrim: The Character.
Wtf I studied biology and no one spoke like that. Your teacher must have been bad.
I dunno man, those things aren't compatible with a lot of biology.
Somone should have sent him Kropotkin
So the view of humanity as inherently empathic and egalitarian creatures who only develops this sociopathic social structure after the rise of large civilization (Marx's primitive communism, David Graeber's Dawn of Everything, healed bone theory, generally all leftist approach to history) is basically the opposite of this right? What's the catch-all term for it anyway?
Love when people say 'survival of the fittest', and picture a fit as hell gym bro, instead of my boi horseshoe crab, perfectly fit for his evolutionary niche.
Weren't there a bunch of studies showing that men tended to talk more than women in conversations and if a woman spoke the same amount as a man, then the man tended to perceive the woman as "dominating the conversation?" lmao
CHUDs: "Fuck Science, God said men are good and women are icky. Now praise men or die!"
Anyone with a functioning braing and/or a Science degree: "Lol no."
Now CHUDs: "Uhhhh....Science secretly conforms to everything in the Christian Bible, we evolved to have an entire seperate sex be totally useless save for reproduction and being a punching bag for the genetically perfect male. Now praise men or die!"
