Regarding the empathy thing: Imagine gate keeping people's emotions.
"im scared of this guy with a knife coming to kill me"
"oh yeah? Are you more worried about getting stabbed in the neck or in the chest? You obviously aren't even 'scared' enough to do basic research on the lethality of different stab wounds, nice virtue signal dude"
Fun fact, that is what the nazi weev used to prove that black programmers were incompetent, the coder failed a gotcha question like that at a cocktail event.
Because of that one person failing, now all black coders are incompetent diversity hires. Weird overlap between neonazi and rationalist smartassery. (The ' hex grids causes the fall of civilisation' is another one)
E:
[I can't wait to hear about how this question goes over on dates.](https://twitter.com/sentientist/status/1257093890877698048). Good sneer, but wow imagine being thus mean towards your primary partner in public. No suprise tbh, as i think they both have some toxic views on being poly due to the 'everything is the sexual marketplace' hammer.
Scientist: We're not sure why these birds have flashy mouths.
Polyman: Ah, you see, it's evolution.
S: But why don't other birds have it?
P: Ah, you see, it's evolution.
How do evolutionary psychologists not understand that just because
their work involves widely-accepted scientific tools, that
doesn’t mean that those tools support their conclusions directly? If I
predict that a more ornamented baby bird will get more food, and I am
right, in what world must it follow that this is the cause -in whole or
in part- of the ornamentation? Why is that a better explanation than
literally any other that I could think of, and what would be the exact
method of assigning some probability to a hypothetical cause of
evolution? It seems like, without that, there can be no objective
arbiter of truth in their field. Even assuming Darwinian evolution as
incontrovertible fact, their work rests entirely on noob-level fallacy
and the fact that people can work in a field like this for 40+ years and
still accept the poor epistemic premise of their work makes me seriously
question this, um, “intelligence” that they all adamantly claim to
possess.
i thought the “O illiterate sneerlord” part of your title was kinda pandery but turns out it’s literally a direct quote. hm
@evopsychgoogle almost makes Twitter worth it, just for the snarling rage they inspire in these people.
TL;DR but TL is any length because I’m illiterate :(
Lol indeed. Another intellectual destroyed by the us military.
E: Empathy for cheap-talk virtue-signaling is how civilization fails.
Everythinf is overdetermined therefore you must respect whatever explanation I pull out of my ass!
How do evolutionary psychologists not understand that just because their work involves widely-accepted scientific tools, that doesn’t mean that those tools support their conclusions directly? If I predict that a more ornamented baby bird will get more food, and I am right, in what world must it follow that this is the cause -in whole or in part- of the ornamentation? Why is that a better explanation than literally any other that I could think of, and what would be the exact method of assigning some probability to a hypothetical cause of evolution? It seems like, without that, there can be no objective arbiter of truth in their field. Even assuming Darwinian evolution as incontrovertible fact, their work rests entirely on noob-level fallacy and the fact that people can work in a field like this for 40+ years and still accept the poor epistemic premise of their work makes me seriously question this, um, “intelligence” that they all adamantly claim to possess.