46:00 "Evolutionary psychology has staunchly been against , from its outset, any discussion of differences in psychology between populations. They talk about the psychic unity of mankind."
I was a participant-observer of evolutionary psychology "at the outset." This was in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when I attended HBES meetings and subscribed to Evolution and Human Behavior (previously Ethology and Sociobiology). There was much "discussion of differences in psychology between populations," and not just by Phil Rushton. My impression was that a quarter of evolutionary psychologists at that time believed that significant differences exist between human populations in aspects of mind and behavior. They would have probably added that such differences are "statistical," but even a weak statistical difference can have an impact on the development of human societies.
Yes, the dominant view was "the psychic unity of mankind." But nobody tried to impose that view on anyone. There were no dogmas or articles of faith, and discussions were normally polite. I might also add that some professors paid lip service to that view because they were not tenured and feared losing their job.
The past is another country. Academia was still a place in the late 1980s where many scholars could openly hold divergent views, at least if they had tenure. Today, things are different, and tenure is no longer the protection it once was.
Behaviourism has got little to do with what it is like to be human. It has everything to do with the effect of one human on another and of society on the individual.
Dr Robin has an excellent article that explains what it is like to be human:
Already interviewing the interviewer? I’ll take it. Love you guys
I mentioned an essay on behaviorism and evolutionary psychology a few times in the episode- I just published https://dissentient.substack.com/p/behaviorist-evolutionary-psychology?sd=pf
46:00 "Evolutionary psychology has staunchly been against , from its outset, any discussion of differences in psychology between populations. They talk about the psychic unity of mankind."
I was a participant-observer of evolutionary psychology "at the outset." This was in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when I attended HBES meetings and subscribed to Evolution and Human Behavior (previously Ethology and Sociobiology). There was much "discussion of differences in psychology between populations," and not just by Phil Rushton. My impression was that a quarter of evolutionary psychologists at that time believed that significant differences exist between human populations in aspects of mind and behavior. They would have probably added that such differences are "statistical," but even a weak statistical difference can have an impact on the development of human societies.
Yes, the dominant view was "the psychic unity of mankind." But nobody tried to impose that view on anyone. There were no dogmas or articles of faith, and discussions were normally polite. I might also add that some professors paid lip service to that view because they were not tenured and feared losing their job.
The past is another country. Academia was still a place in the late 1980s where many scholars could openly hold divergent views, at least if they had tenure. Today, things are different, and tenure is no longer the protection it once was.
“You might look for a crispy vegetable, but you don’t want a crispy mate.”
Wise words.
She makes for a great addition
Behaviourism has got little to do with what it is like to be human. It has everything to do with the effect of one human on another and of society on the individual.
Dr Robin has an excellent article that explains what it is like to be human:
https://therenwhere.substack.com/p/our-reality
It is behaviour free.