tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post6170939901547075256..comments2023-07-15T04:20:16.543-05:00Comments on Almost Diamonds: Skepticism and Rape AdaptationsStephanie Zvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-559673281934782882011-04-12T20:39:43.580-05:002011-04-12T20:39:43.580-05:00And a follow-up post regarding CFI's responses...And a follow-up post regarding CFI's responses to this post. http://almostdiamonds.blogspot.com/2011/04/skepticism-is-how-not-who.htmlStephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-13585996299863728192011-04-08T19:37:59.642-05:002011-04-08T19:37:59.642-05:00This was quite a nice discussion. Sorry there was ...This was quite a nice discussion. Sorry there was so much ad hominem in there. (and ad organizationem, if you will). However, that adds a little zing. I am not previously familiar with the full scientific literature on this subject, so much of the analysis was very interesting. This topic obviously attracts a lot of interest. And it is important to the quality of our society that we find a way to learn more. Even this erudite discussion has not even begun to scratch the surface of prevention. I suggest that CFI look into sponsoring more speakers on this subject, particularly those with divergent views so that we can begin to assimilate a more detailed picture of the literature and current understanding, limited though it clearly is.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00686790697411451610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-50580184963012250692011-04-08T18:23:36.572-05:002011-04-08T18:23:36.572-05:00Another post, but this one a follow-up on some com...Another post, but this one a follow-up on some comments addressing the science: http://almostdiamonds.blogspot.com/2011/04/more-on-science-of-rape-adaptations.htmlStephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-7330320893808391462011-04-08T07:35:42.440-05:002011-04-08T07:35:42.440-05:00I think part of the issue some CFI folks have with...I think part of the issue some CFI folks have with this post is a confusion on their part between criticism and condemnation, both as applied to them and to Shackelford. There may also be some issue in my thinking of them as an outreach group, where they may think of themselves as more of a club. Might be worth another post.Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-33008758046127420672011-04-08T07:30:18.886-05:002011-04-08T07:30:18.886-05:00Marina, a lot of work on cooperation is being done...Marina, a lot of work on cooperation is being done in other fields, particularly primatology. If you enjoy reading about it, you might want to (if you haven't already) check out The Primate Diaries: http://primatediariesinexile.blogspot.com/Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-35671718181708574382011-04-08T07:17:32.731-05:002011-04-08T07:17:32.731-05:00I've been following the developments in popula...I've been following the developments in popular (rather than academic) evo-psych and its representations in the media for a good decade now; and what astonishes me is how rarely we hear reports of evolutionary explanations for majority adaptive behaviours - and how often about minority ones.<br /><br />To clarify, what I mean is that most men, for example, don't rape; rape is a minority - maybe "cheating"? - behaviour against a background of a majority strategy of peaceful cooperation, paternal investment in childrearing and so on. <br /><br />It's tempting to say that explanations for cooperative, collectivist behaviour are simply obvious and commonsensical, and don't really need to be explained in detail. Still, one of these days I'd love to read some big splash in a weekend magazine, or a book by some high-profile science writer, about the precise prehistoric evolutionary pressures that have lead humanity to be able to cooperate enough to e.g. build the Pyramids.<br /><br />But no: from outside the scientific community at least, it looks like all evolutionary psychologists are interested in is providing adaptationist explanations to minority behaviours, some rare enough to potentially be dismissed as maladaptive aberrations. It's weird to me that we're so obsessed with proving that rape is "natural", rather than revelling in how natural care for the elderly is, or love of art, or communal singing.Marina Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14449789093721258516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-76033600219502522322011-04-07T22:11:43.383-05:002011-04-07T22:11:43.383-05:00One of the things not mentioned is that during pre...One of the things not mentioned is that during pregnancy violence against women by their intimate partner (the father of the fetus she is carrying) <i>increases</i>. <br /><br />Here is a pretty good paper, that shows that violence against women by the father of her fetus increases during pregnancy. <br /><br />http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/93/7/1110<br /><br />That is of the women who experienced violence during pregnancy, not all of them experienced violence before pregnancy. Look at table 1. Physical violence, sexual violence, emotional violence all increase during pregnancy (for those who experienced violence during pregnancy) and the severity of emotional violence increased. <br /><br />This directly contradicts the hypothesis that it is “sperm competition” that is driving the violence. If the partner is already pregnant, sperm competition can't happen. <br /><br />There is also violence against women by their male relatives, either their father or brothers. That can't be due to sperm competition either. That violence also tends to increase during pregnancy, many “honor killings” occur when the woman is pregnant. <br /><br />When I was thinking about this, I looked for examples in non-human mammals where a male was violent toward his mate while she was pregnant with his fetus and couldn't find any. <br /><br />My hypothesis is that the violence against women while she is pregnant is to epigenetically program the fetus into a more violent phenotype, starting the cycle of violence, and/or to induce miscarriage to prevent cephalopelvic disproportion. <br /><br />Typically the male relatives of a woman are more abusive toward her during pregnancy than is her male partner. In an evolutionary sense, her brothers want to maximize her reproduction over her lifetime (more miscarriage to prevent her death via cephalopelvic disproportion), her male partner wants this particular pregnancy to be successful (less miscarriage at the expense of more cephalopelvic disproportion).daedalus2uhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10416564922288784455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-65740510988776399822011-04-07T21:03:43.335-05:002011-04-07T21:03:43.335-05:00I still don't understand, after reading Stepha...I still don't understand, after reading Stephanie's post and this comment thread, what she did that was remotely misleading or erroneous. I'd love for the CFI folks to be specific in their criticism -- Stephanie certainly was, and righteously so.KateClancyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10266484364483890008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-72005662099805284732011-04-07T20:59:24.392-05:002011-04-07T20:59:24.392-05:00Silence from the crowd at my request, but sneers f...Silence from the crowd at my request, but sneers from the sidelines here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/jeremy-beahan/when-skeptics-behave-like-thought-police/10150154389614586<br /><br />Lovely thought, that those of us who are upset that no opposing viewpoint is being presented are accused of trying to enforce a lockstep mentality. Not sure how you can get around the cognitive dissonance on that one.<br /><br />But what do I know? I am beneath contempt and have obviously never darkened the door of a lecture by a guy presenting hypotheses with no supporting evidence -- err, sorry, I meant "scientific conference".<br /><br />I appreciate that you CFI MI folks have to dig in your heels and defend yourselves against a number of ridiculous comments, and on other days I will defend you as a stalwart defender of skeptical thinking, but honestly, you communicated poorly on the first part, and the real point of this post was to show Shackelton's academia in the subject to be questionable at best. <br /><br />The fact, as Stephanie said, that you disagree with her on one point does not call the rest of the science into question, especially when you can't damn well present any evidence for your counterassertions.Jason Thibeaulthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01595673310069068735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-19235757660271030782011-04-07T19:02:26.749-05:002011-04-07T19:02:26.749-05:00Jason @CFI: What erroneous comments? Seriously, wh...Jason @CFI: What erroneous comments? Seriously, what comments has she made that are in any way demonstrably erroneous?<br /><br />Despite your assertion that merely presenting the speaker allows for criticism, you're defending CFI on the one point Stephanie made about the organization that she has you cold on -- this talk, which your organization promoted and yet claims it has nothing to do with, does not provide a forum for criticism. It provides a one-way communication dump by Shackelford. It does not even go so far as to call his works "controversial", because they haven't stirred any controversy until now, when CFI started promoting him and Stephanie rightly dissected his claims.<br /><br />Again I ask: What part of what Stephanie has posted is incorrect? Please be specific, and include some evidence.Jason Thibeaulthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01595673310069068735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-38494619883439320992011-04-07T18:58:30.834-05:002011-04-07T18:58:30.834-05:00And I'm unreasonable because (1) I thought the...And I'm unreasonable because (1) I thought there was a problem, which we've since discussed fixing? (2) I don't believe that a single sentence that accurately represents my views but with which you disagree is going to destroy a post packed full of science? or (3) I told you your strong-arm tactics were unwarranted and unwelcome? Jason, I don't really think the problem here originates with me.Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-14666289804651090652011-04-07T18:35:46.627-05:002011-04-07T18:35:46.627-05:00Stephanie, I'm sorry, I was under the impressi...Stephanie, I'm sorry, I was under the impression I was communicating with a reasonable person. It's clear I've been wasting my time. Cheers!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13413782991485040873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-63291949689521384712011-04-07T18:25:04.339-05:002011-04-07T18:25:04.339-05:00Jason, it's time to knock that shit off. Now.Jason, it's time to knock that shit off. Now.Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-80599338465423007752011-04-07T18:23:52.163-05:002011-04-07T18:23:52.163-05:00Stephanie, your note directing readers to this com...Stephanie, your note directing readers to this comments thread helps a little but you would be better off removing your erroneous statements about CFI altogether. They call the veracity of your entire blog post into question.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13413782991485040873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-35964688097811146272011-04-07T16:02:45.119-05:002011-04-07T16:02:45.119-05:00Jason, when I'm someplace where I can do it wi...Jason, when I'm someplace where I can do it without messing up the post format, I'll add a note referring people to the discussion in the comments.Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-13685906873545140562011-04-07T15:53:50.252-05:002011-04-07T15:53:50.252-05:00Stephanie, I have heard Jennifer read a similar (b...Stephanie, I have heard Jennifer read a similar (but less unwieldy) disclaimer before speakers address our regular lecture events. I don't see why such a statement would be necessary when we are promoting a non-CFI event but I will bring this up at our next CFI Michigan advisory board meeting. Would you be willing to make some sort of a statement modifying your criticism of CFI? I'm ok with criticism but not when it is inaccurate and misleading.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13413782991485040873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-62206294442481163772011-04-07T13:55:20.970-05:002011-04-07T13:55:20.970-05:00Jason, I'm glad CFI Michigan has decided to in...Jason, I'm glad CFI Michigan has decided to include my information as context. However, that still doesn't change the fact that there was nothing done with this announcement to encourage discussion on the topic. In fact, it's my understanding that Bug girl inquired about the announcement, and the response to her was simply that your organization wasn't responsible for the event. She wasn't encouraged to challenge the material, although she ultimately did.<br /><br />I understand that you don't appreciate my criticism. On the other hand, how hard would it be to put a note on any event that says something like, "CFI Michigan doesn't endorse any speaker or their views. In the spirit of open inquiry, we encourage anyone interested in the topic to participate in the event by asking questions. We particularly encourage those with knowledge of and different perspectives on the subject to participate."? How hard would it be to do explicitly what you hope you're doing now?Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-16777638473478591042011-04-07T12:33:07.893-05:002011-04-07T12:33:07.893-05:00Stephanie, the difference is that our members are ...Stephanie, the difference is that our members are very different from the general public. They do not "come and just listen". I realize that this isn't one of our events, but the more of our members who attend, the more like our events it will be. You should be happy about that! Also, it is entirely possible that more people will read your post on the CFI MI website than will attend the actual event to hear Dr. Shackelford. CFI MI has provided you a forum for your views by promoting the event. This is partly why I take issue with your criticism of CFI.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13413782991485040873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-54527812038676178902011-04-07T12:09:04.746-05:002011-04-07T12:09:04.746-05:00Jason, I understand that that's your goal, and...Jason, I understand that that's your goal, and I understand that it may happen sometimes. However, it's worth thinking about this: How would your promotion of the event look different if you wanted everyone to come and just listen without being prepared with enough background knowledge to effectively engage with the topic? <br /><br />If there aren't any differences, you're not actually doing what you think you're doing.Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-88964764498066691492011-04-07T11:56:34.786-05:002011-04-07T11:56:34.786-05:00Stephanie, we have encouraged and facilitated crit...Stephanie, we have encouraged and facilitated criticism of Dr. Shackelford simply by promoting the event. CFI has provided info about the event so that you and others can provide the criticism. Your post about Dr. Shackelford proves my point. We promoted the event. You have provided criticism. When we promote an event, we are encouraging critical thinkers to attend (sometimes to the detriment of the speaker at said event!) Skeptical criticism of ideas is what CFI is all about.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13413782991485040873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-81228287721200193772011-04-07T10:59:15.407-05:002011-04-07T10:59:15.407-05:00Jason, CFI Michigan is promoting the event at whic...Jason, CFI Michigan is promoting the event at which Dr. Shackelford is presenting his work. There is no criticism or facilitation of criticism or encouragement of criticism presented with that promotion. I asked in an earlier comment whether CFI Michigan is doing anything to facilitate critical inquiry on the topic at the talk itself. You haven't answered. <br /><br />I see the promotion. Where is the criticism?Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-60211351341438057882011-04-07T10:52:48.891-05:002011-04-07T10:52:48.891-05:00Stephanie, the final sentence in your post is: &qu...Stephanie, the final sentence in your post is: "That is what makes it disappointing that CFI Michigan has chosen to uncritically promote his work." This sentence is clearly incorrect and it is misleading to anyone who reads your post. I would appreciate it if you would address this point.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13413782991485040873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-19232296281879768732011-04-07T10:01:25.974-05:002011-04-07T10:01:25.974-05:00Jennifer, I didn't claim that CFI Michigan cho...Jennifer, I didn't claim that CFI Michigan chose or hosted the speaker, but it is a point worth reiterating, particularly as Jason's comment refers to "our events". <br /><br />As for the talk abstract, that is a description of the 2006 paper that I discuss in this post.Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-38672829952486051822011-04-07T09:49:51.000-05:002011-04-07T09:49:51.000-05:00I would like to clarify that Center for Inquiry Mi...I would like to clarify that Center for Inquiry Michigan is not hosting this event, nor did we have any say in the choice of the speaker or the topic. <br /><br />We were asked by the student group - Evolution for Everyone at Grand Valley State University - if we would inform our members of this presentation - which we have done. <br /><br />http://www.gvsu.edu/psychology/evolution-for-everyone-141.htm<br /><br />Our participation in promoting this event DOES NOT mean that we endorse or promote any of the views presented by the speaker. <br /><br />Also - I would encourage you to re-read the talk abstract of Dr. Shackelford - I think there might be some misunderstanding of what he will be presenting.<br /><br />Talk Abstract (scroll down to additional details): http://www.cfimichigan.org/events/event/w-e4e-040811/Jenniferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06872297817572636098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-44155812477937014252011-04-07T09:09:23.576-05:002011-04-07T09:09:23.576-05:00Emily, would you care to be more specific about my...Emily, would you care to be more specific about my poor understanding? And the fact that Shackelford is designing, conducting, and publishing experiments on the nature of rape without a thorough knowledge of the literature on the topic is exactly the problem here.Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.com