Letters to the Editor
melthough
Published Letters: 1336 Editor's Choice: 103
-
Why?
[Read the article: Pseudopsychology Today]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The problem with evolutionary psychology in general (and with this article in particular - http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml ) is that it tries to answer "why" things happen. You know, science has enough trouble trying to figure out WHAT happens. Sheesh. There are too many cultural, personal, historical and genetic factors that we simply do not understand for much of ev psych to make sense. And it is so easy to make pseudoscientific arguments on the grounds of 'evolution', which in this case is just another word for 'nature'. So we start with the premise that it's obviously 'natural' to love blue eyes best and then we come up with a 'why' to explain it. The 'why' doesn't explain why Africans are not desperate to marry blue-eyed people or why Indians get along just fine without being able to judge whether their partners' pupils dilate when they see a baby. But it makes people with blue eyes feel great! What's not to love? How stupid.
And that brings me to my main problem with much of ev pscyh: how stupid. Many of the questions that make it into the media - e.g., "Why do blondes have more fun?" "Why are suicide bombers all Muslim?" - are already looking through such a thick cultural lens that you have to be very suspicious about whatever conclusions they come up with.
That said, I have relied on some decent ev psych stuff for some interesting insights into parenting. This field asks questions that don't start with "why" but with "what," though. e.g., "What are babies born expecting from their parents?" Not a whole lot, I think, but enough to help me through the first six months of caring for infants and trying to meet their needs (and my own) in a world that is far removed from the world in which humans evolved. Another useful area, from my personal point of view, for study from an evolutionary perspective, is the diet of our first human ancestors. But gender and race are such complex cultural constructs that I have to think twice - or ten times - before I trust anyone who tries to validate them with some kind of evolutionary argument, because they are starting from their own cultural biases to begin with. We can tell our own stories that use 'nature' and our own anecdotes to validate our beliefs - and I do it myself - but that is folklore; that is not what we call science in the 21st century.
-
This 'bonding' can be competitive
[Read the article: Does "problem talk" depress girls?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There are certain subcultures (I grew up in one) in which misery is a goal. Among other things, it is a very effective manipulative tool for making people you would not normally have power over feel guilty - and unless you are a sociopath or have borderline personality disorder, this tool works best if you yourself are convinced of how miserable you are. So even when you hang out with peers, proof of intense misery can become competitive. No wonder everyone gets more depressed.
-
Did everyone see that Bush is claiming more power?
[Read the article: Shot across the bow]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902625.html
They are having their anonymous officials tell the press that the (remaining) attorneys in the DOJ will not be permitted to enforce contempt proceedings regarding the attorneys who got fired. Cute.
-
@AnaHadWolves
[Read the article: Shot across the bow]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"the light-weights they have for '08"
Have you ever wondered if that's part of the plan? Nobody likes those other guys, so we might as well stay in office and defend - well, not that old rag the Constitution, but the higher ideal: freedom. Ours, that is. To do whatever we want. At your expense.
I was a little skeptical of the idea that the administration was not planning to leave office, but this latest declaration that they won't let the DOJ help Congress bring contempt charges makes my blood run cold.
-
Y'all are missing the point
[Read the article: This is what a feminist looks like?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's not about whether the women are exploited or not, or how anyone "feels" when they sit in the restaurant. It's the fact that the restaurant thrives on gender stereotyping and calls itself "feminist." Regardless of how comfortable people are with the titty schtick or how well the table concierges are paid, if you're making money by exploiting traditional gender roles, you're NOT A FEMINIST. That doesn't mean what they're doing is evil, but calling it feminist is ... misleading, at best. I know even the president does this, but even the unitary executive doesn't change reality by calling things by the names of their opposites.
Frankly, I've been hoping we could come up with a new word - one that encompasses the entire philosophy of questioning gender restrictions - for a long time. Any ideas?
-
Tradition?
[Read the article: This is what a feminist looks like?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oh, come on, brightstar. Even most people who don't think we need feminism ANYMORE in this country believe that we did up until pretty recently. Which great 'traditions' do you see titty bars as preserving anyway? I don't really care one way or another about their existence, since I have no interest in going there and the staff are not slaves. But if they claim to be feminist institutions, there's a problem.
And I think circumcision is a "tradition" too. What's wrong with that? I've heard you say what's wrong with it before - and, moreover, I agree with you - so that's a rhetorical question.