Is evolutionary psychology a pseudoscience? It seems to be almost all conjecture.
>>8599003
Do they make testable prediction?
>>8599003
Yeah pretty much, but ir is a relatively new field (the modern definition of it at least) and there isn't really much to do other than interdisciplinary conjecturing for the most part
It does make sense I think, but I feel like the scale of it's effect and the possibility of predicting upon it is lesser than we think
I don't get why evolutionary psychology is considered a pseudoscience/meme, while other subfields of psychology aren't.
What's different about it?
Honestly, it appears like people just don't like the conclusions, which render humans instinct determined animals.
>>8599003
I always held evolutionary psychology/sociology as the better aspect of these soft sciences.
>>8599003
You should take some actual Psychology courses, most of the field is conjecture.
Psychology is a baby; there is much to learn, but it truly amazes me how much feeling reign over it.
The problem is that it's still psychology. Even David Buss who is one of the most eminent advocates of ev psy only has a degree on psychology, he never had formal studies in neuroscience and yet his books talk about that kind of stuff.
So can a glorified hobbyist really be an authority on a topic? Maybe maybe not.
Also there's a deeper issue, since evolutionary psy talks so much about sex and emotions like lust and infidelity and so on and so forth, it is a very easy target for pop sci authors trying to market a book to the public. Not only does sex sells, but it gives normies a chance to spout pseudoscientific bullshit while appearing smart.
My opinion is that it could end up being a much better field than traditional psychology, assuming proper research is done, but that you should be double wary of any book on the subject due to its bullshit potential, and that any normie talking about it should be immediately disregarded.