Solarpunk BreadTube

551 readers

1 users here now

A place to post Solarpunk, Leftist, and Anarchist Videos!

Content that glorifies or apologizes for authoritarianism is not allowed.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net

Five@slrpnk.net

I Debunked Evolutionary Psychology - münecat (www.youtube.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Prunebutt@slrpnk.net to c/breadtube@slrpnk.net

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Edit - Addendum: The video title is quite clickbait-y. The video doesn't want to debunk any "serious" science, but rather investigates how badly done research with no reproducability or horrible statistical significance is used to influence the discourse in favour of regressive politics.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] rah@feddit.uk -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Got to about 3 minutes and couldn't watch any more. She's not arguing against evolutionary psychology, she's arguing against idiots on the Internet who hold up evolutionary psychology to justify their views.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Doesn't she mention published evopsych papers right from the very beginning?

Edit: 3 minutes is literally the end of the intro. You didn't watch any actual content of the video if that's a correct statement.

[–] rah@feddit.uk -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Doesn't she mention published evopsych papers right from the very beginning?

She shows some titles, I'm not sure if they're headlines from newspaper articles or titles of peer-reviewed papers. Regardless, she doesn't discuss evolutionary psychology at all in what I watched, she just talks about idiots on the Internet.

Edit: 3 minutes is literally the end of the intro. You didn't watch any actual content of the video if that's a correct statement.

Edit: right. Because given what I did watch, there's no reason for me to watch any more.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You're claiming a lot about a video you admitted you didn't even watch. She discusses several professors of evopsych with published papers, like Geoffrey Miller and David Buss.

You could have skimmed the chapters in the description, at least.

Edit: The titles are obviously real, puplished evopsych papers with a bunch of citations. Examples:

[–] rah@feddit.uk -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

She discusses several professors of evopsych with published papers, like Geoffrey Miller and David Buss.

Discussing evolutionary psychology professors instead of discussing evolutionary psychology? Another reason not to bother.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You can admit that you don't like her style without claiming bullshit about a video you didn't watch, homie.

[–] rah@feddit.uk -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can admit that you don't like her style

WTF are you talking about?

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why else would you judge the video after you've only watched the intro?

[–] rah@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I judged the video based on the introduction. Which is part of the purpose of having an introduction: to decide whether it's worth investing one's time and attention in what's being introduced.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

The introduction mostly showed the style of the creator. And it also showed published evopsych papers which the video was about to debunk. It didn't even mention any "idiot on the internet".