Streetlights

(Although all those articles follow the same formula: find some garbage evopsych publications => conclude the whole premise is nonsense)

Wow, you read those articles that you labeled as "spam" very quickly.

I've read two of them before and skim reading doesnt take much time. I've been reading Pharyngula for 20 years.

Spamming as a verb != spam the noun. You can spam 20 perfectly good systematic review articles.

Or did you not read them and thus not know what they said? Seems dishonest either way.

This would be the "engaging in bad faith" flag. I'm interested to hear how you articulate the flaws in the premise behind evopysch.

But I am amused by your CFI is not the Skeptical Inquirer claim when that's literally the publication put out by CFI.

Granted that was semantic.

Edit:

And they aren’t notable

Now I know you're being dishonest. Not only does the article state their qualifications and link to where they wrote it, suggesting Stephen Jay Gould is not notable is ludicrous.

Genuine typo there should read "they aren't all notable", that's dyslexia for you.

That is rather unwarranted given its still an active field and is the only accepted explanation for the origin of animal behaviour.

You want to learn to learn about psychological concepts in 25 minutes by watching a video? Cool, it won't ever work but I respect your wishes.

It's an interview with an eminent scientist discussing some key ideas. No, you won't walk away with a comprehensive knowledge of the entire field, the format isn't designed for that.

But no smart person would believe just watching a quick video is actually learning anything more advanced then: there's a place for an Allen key under the disposal

So documentaries are garbage as well then? Anything using video as a medium? Do you attend lectures in person or do wait for the transcript?

Sorry... you don't think printing what notable critics of Pinker say about him is relevant?

It should not form 100% of an encyclopedia article about anyone. And they aren't notable, it seems as if tue one editor who's been running that page since last year added every possible article they found through Google.

It would be worth including his seminal work such as his 1990 paper on th evolution of language (worth a read)

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/natural-language-and-natural-selection/CDD84686D58AF70E3D2CB48486D7940B

Is his so-called science above criticism?

No one is above criticism but an encyclopedia is meant to be comprehensive.

Is the racism much of his so-called science is based upon also beyond criticism? And no, evo psych is garbage because it's garbage. Or at least mostly garbage.

Well now we're just being silly. You can't seriously believe that animal behaviour has no evolutionary component? You believe in souls instead?

Let's start with the Center for Inquiry. I hope, as someone posting in a skeptic community, you consider them a valid source: https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2006/03/22164612/p23.pdf

Well that's not CFI that's Skeptical Enquirer and it's an article from Massimo Pigliucci and the headline is subject to Betteridges law of headlines.

But in case you don't, here's spam

Please don't spam, I'd rather hear you articulate your reasons rather than resorting to other people to do the work for you.

(Although all those articles follow the same formula: find some garbage evopsych publications => conclude the whole premise is nonsense)

Not a bad guess. The moving picture medium has been around for a while though and complements the written word, rather than supplant it, as a tool for learning.

And when it does, how would you even know?

Oh my, what happened to rationalwiki? Reading that you wouldn't have the first clue about who Pinker is or what contributions he's made. It's just a list of quote articles from critics of varying levels of note.

His work on linguistics and cognition is seminal. I would heartily recommend "the language instinct" and "rationality".

On evo-pysch, lots of garbage gets published because the tabloids love "women enjoy shopping because science" stories, and the field itself suffers from charlatans that grift in it. The principle behind it, namely that animal behaviour is subject to evolutionary forces, however is of course true.

For now...

Roger Penrose was brilliant, but he got a lot of flack for his Orch-OR theorem which is being alluded to here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

I still don't understand what problem his hypothesis was trying to solve though.

That seems somewhat unrelated to this paper about foraging societies.

If I can quote the authors:

We caution against ethnographic revisionism that projects Westernized conceptions of labor and its value onto foraging societies.

What was the context?