I haven’t made fun of the adepts of evolutionary psychology for a while. Now seems like a good time to do so. Look at this cool bingo made by somebody who definitely knows what evo psych is all about:
Evo psych is beloved by men who are extremely unattractive and can’t get laid. So they need to convince themselves that paying for sex is not buying a prostitute but, rather, encountering legitimate desire according to the formulations of evolutionary psychology.
Evo psych is equally beloved by women who are completely frigid and want to sell sex but who cringe at the idea that this turns them into prostitutes. So they need to convince themselves that selling sex is not prostitution but, rather, an evolutionary adaptation.
This bingo card is great at showing men’s pay-out from evo psych. Now it would be great to have an equivalent card showing the benefits women get from it. I’ve had a misfortune of hanging out with a group of female adepts of evolutionary psychology for a while, so I picked up a lot of their lingo. On its basis, I created this
Evolutionary Psychology
BINGO
For Women
I’ve heard a version of each of these statements from my female evo psych buddies. They had a lending library of evo psych books and articles to justify every single one of these scary beliefs.
Feel free to use but don’t forget to link back!
Clarissa's Blog 
Wow! I can’t even imagine thinking like that. I almost want to go out and pick up a book on the subject because I am so curious.
LikeLike
Hey Clarissa
Did you check out that link I sent ya?
LikeLike
It was very funny. 🙂 I especially loved the part where the male creator of the film is talking to a female scientist. She explains things to him off of her computer screen and he writes down in his notebook with a pen, “So, the more modern a society is, the less women are interested in technical stuff.”
And then people say that there is no sense of humor in Scandinavian countries.
On a serious side, look at the guy who made the film. Isn’t it immediately obvious why he needs to believe in gender differences? The guy us butt-ugly.
LikeLike
“And then people say that there is no sense of humor in Scandinavian countries.”
Supposedly, when Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” came out, it was banned in Norway for being blasphemous. Sweden had no such problems and marketed the film as “So funny they banned it in Norway.” Supposedly.
These charts are hilarious. Is it gauche to admit I lol’d? I lol’d.
LikeLike
They are supposed to be funny. I hope we have no people who believe such things seriously hanging around the blog.
LikeLike
Didn’t you post the first half of this before, maybe 18 months ago?
LikeLike
My creation would be incomprehensible without the original one. And the original makes less sense without the one I made.
LikeLike
Euro-Centrism?
LikeLike
“Working destroys female beauty” is my favorite, especially since Russian-Jewish women in my family worked like plow horses.
LikeLike
Haha. Woooow.
LikeLike
Wha-a-a-a-a-at?? “I can rotate three-dimensional objects in my mind and you can’t” ???? I challenge you to insert a three-dimensional object into your mind, let alone rotate it. Yeah, I’d love to see that.
Evolutionary psychology is just Social Darwinism rebranded. Everyone knows that.
LikeLike
Oh, and surely everyone knows the “girls like pink” thing is socially constructed.
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=61149
LikeLike
When I was growing up, we never had anything pink (or just simply colorful) around. So I had no idea I was supposed to be interested in pink.
LikeLike
“Evolutionary psychology is just Social Darwinism rebranded. Everyone knows that.”
This is not true. Social Darwinism is a thoroughly discredited 19-th century misinterpretation of Darwinism, closely related to eugenics. It is very nearly the exact opposite of actual Darwinism, since the essence of natural selection is that it cannot be forced, except in very superficial ways, such a crop breeding. It certainly cannot be forced by the species involved, since the time frame is too long. There is simply no way for humans to create, and faithfully follow, a fifty thousand year human breeding plan, for example.
Evolutionary Psychology is simply the attempt to understand human (and other animal) behaviour in light of evolutionary forces. By its very nature it cannot be used as a method of actually changing, biologically, the human species, although it could be used to point out why some needed changes in social structure and behaviour are so difficult to implement. For example, I think it is arguable from an Evolutionary Psychology perspective that women should have multiple male lovers when they are planning to have children so that they have more help with raising children than one man can provide. This in fact happens in cultures where resources are extremely scarce.
LikeLike
“This in fact happens in cultures where resources are extremely scarce.”
– In my experience, when resources are scarce, rich men get to have many lovers who all procreate like bunnies to get the rich man to keep them by giving money to the kid. It’s like this in FSU countries and in Latin America. Evo psych theories are hugely popular in these countries.
LikeLike
When resources are really scarce, as opposed to concentrated in the hands of a small number of people, there are no rich men. Tibet is the most obvious example, and polyandry is common there.
LikeLike
Is there a shortage of women in Tibet?
I’m very ignorant about that area of the world.
LikeLike
“I think it is arguable from an Evolutionary Psychology perspective that women should”
When it comes to evo-psych, you need to stop as soon as you get to the word “should”. Many of the problems with evolutionary psychology come about just as soon as someone (mis)uses post-Darwinian sociobiological concepts to make an assertion about how people “should” act.
[this is Helena btw]
LikeLike
Fair enough, Helena. I was using the word “should” as a shorthand for: “It is likely to be to a woman’s advantage, reproductively, to behave this way.” Should does indeed imply a mnon-existent moral imperative.
LikeLike
Cool but even accepting this explanation for Tibetan polyandrous familial relationships it is not about the woman’s advantage but about what is or seems advantageous to the human community in that particular environment. I feel the need to nit-pick here because how one discursively frames sociobiological concepts derived from anthropological data–particularly if one genders those concepts–can and does have serious, even if unintended, moral and political consequences. At the very least, it’s just frustrating to see any claim that “women [or men] should do this” or “a woman [or man] is at a dis/advantage if”.
LikeLike
Sorry. “non-existent”
LikeLike
// bingo ! bingo ! bingo! //
ohnoes, seriouzly – i cant believe this evo-shite is still around
(how many hands do i need for facepalming, mewonders)
anyway, Clarissa, *all of these* have been debunked. so there seems to be some kind of e.g. eternal-self-fulfilling-prophecies-bla connected to this.
// but who am i trying to reason with e.g. stereotypes and omega-people //
😉
LikeLike