Many social psychologists have an ideological aversion to evolutionary psychology

Many social psychologists have an ideological aversion to evolutionary psychology, by Christian Jarrett.

Quizzing the social psychologists on their views of evolutionary theory, Buss and von Hippel found that they overwhelmingly accepted the principles of Darwinian evolution and also that it applied to humans, but when it came to whether evolutionary theory applies to human psychology and behaviour, the sample was split, with many social psychologists rejecting this notion.

Digging deeper into the survey results, there was no evidence that the social psychologists were averse to evolutionary psychology for religious reasons, but many did reject the idea that humans might be inherently violent (in certain situations) or that some people are widely considered more physically attractive than others due to universal evolved standards of attractiveness — perhaps, Buss and von Hippel suggested, this is because “they dislike the implications regarding the dark side of human nature.” …

Realities that puncture the PC fantasies are not allowed, by many of these leftist academics. They cannot even apply evolutionary theory to humans — because the obvious implications contradict their political beliefs. “Scientists”? Bah.

Buss and von Hippel think that, motivated by principles of social justice, many social psychologists are ideologically opposed to what they mistakenly think evolutionary psychology argues for — namely genetic determinism, environmental irrelevance, and the idea that attempts to change human behaviour are doomed to fail. In fact, these are erroneous caricatures and evolutionary psychology does not espouse any of these beliefs. It does though recognise that we are not blank slates and that our minds and behaviour have been shaped by evolution in important ways. …

On an optimistic note, Buss and von Hippel point out that their survey found that a substantial minority of social psychologists did endorse findings rooted in evolutionary biology.

The Culture War Neutron Bomb

The Culture War Neutron Bomb, by Rod Dreher.

We will see the coming of what James Poulos calls the “Pink Police State.” People will be happy to give up their political liberties in exchange for guarantees of sexual freedom. China’s “social credit system” will become an effective model for the Controllers, and the surveillance state (the mechanisms of which already exist in the West) will be deployed against dissenters. As the older liberals die off, the rising Jacobin generation will fight for this, calling it social justice.

Trump Threatens Another Shutdown If Congress Won’t Approve $5B For Border Wall

Trump Threatens Another Shutdown If Congress Won’t Approve $5B For Border Wall, by Tyler Durden.

President Trump and Congressional Republicans have already abandoned two previous attempts to secure funding for the president’s promised border wall after forcing two brief partial government shutdowns. But with Democrats preparing to take control of the House in January, the president is ready to give it one last shot.

At least that’s what he told Politico during an interview published Wednesday morning. The president said he would veto any funding bill that doesn’t include $5 billion in appropriations to start building his wall on the border. To avert a shutdown, Congress must pass — and the president must sign — seven appropriations bills that have already been negotiated before midnight on Friday Dec. 7.

President Trump apparently still believes that Republicans wouldn’t suffer any political fallout from a shutdown (particularly if it’s done in the name of border security); instead, Democrats would shoulder most of the blame. And given the increasingly violent confrontations between border patrol agents and members of a caravan of migrants from Central America, Trump believes the political winds right now are particularly favorable for approving the wall.

via Tip of the Spear

Violent Migrant Border Incident Exact Replay of When Obama Used Tear Gas at Border

Violent Migrant Border Incident Exact Replay of When Obama Used Tear Gas at Border, by Neil Munro.

Five years almost to the day before President Donald Trump’s border officers blocked migrants with tear gas, authorities under President Barack Obama used identical tactics along the same stretch of border near the San Ysidro Port of Entry, according to 2013 press accounts.

The ABC scolds Trump:

President Donald Trump has strongly defended the use of tear gas at the Mexican border to repel a crowd of migrants that included barefoot, crying children as well as angry rock-throwers.

Critics denounced the border agents’ action as overkill but the US President kept to a hard line.

Mr Trump seemed to acknowledge children were affected but said it was “a very minor form of the tear gas itself” that he assured was “very safe”.

Did the ABC scold Obama five years ago? Is the Pope (apart from the current one) Catholic?

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham:

When it comes to Obama, when he uses tear gas, he is protecting the country. The narrative is that Trump is a cruel, heartless bastard …

Look What’s On The Menu — Crude Oil

Look What’s On The Menu — Crude Oil, by John Happs.

Here we see a group of activists protesting at an oil platform:

They are probably not aware that their fiberglass kayaks, surfboards, and life-jackets were made from petrochemicals. So were the tyres on their bicycles and the road asphalt their bikes travel on. They are also unlikely to know that only around 70% of oil is used for fuel with the remainder going into petrochemical feedstock from which thousands of other products are made including their bicycle helmets, vitamin capsules, sweaters, candles, sunglasses, telephones, aspirin and salad bowls. …

Oil spills, seepage, and WWII:

Around 50% of the oil that enters the ocean comes from natural oil seeps scattered around the world. More oil seeps naturally from the ocean floor into the Gulf of Mexico every year than the 200 million gallons spilled from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon accident.

Also, what has happened to the huge volume of oil spilled into the world’s ocean during World War II when submarines sank so many German and Allied oil tankers? According to the Military History Site: “The collective tanker sinkings of ww2 put that (Exxon Valdez spill) to miniscule proportions and insignificance.”

So where is all this oil now? …

Deepwater Horizon:

In 2010 a blowout of BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig, which was about 60 km from the coast in the Gulf of Mexico, leaked 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf. …

But the lasting ecological damage predicted by environmental groups didn’t occur. Alarmists said the spill would still be evident in 40 years time. CBS News Network’s Melanie Warner warned:

This could mean a permanent end to the Gulf’s seafood industry and ten years from now … there will very likely still be seafood — shrimp, bluefin tuna and maybe snapper and grouper — that are contaminated with BP’s oil.

The alarmists were wrong. Most of the crude oil dispersed naturally. Hydrocarbon-consuming microbes rapidly increased in number to feast on the Deepwater oil spill.

Five months after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon, oil spill ocean bacteria had consumed at least 100 million gallons of oil. After five years there was little evidence to show there had been an oil spill in the area. …

What was once a large underwater plume of oil and gas was eaten by the bacteria with the mixing of seawater triggering a microbial bloom explosion.

Some microbes eat oil, and multiply rapidly when oil becomes available — so oil spills soon disappear. What about  plastics? Maybe microbes didn’t evolve to eat plastic — imagine if all our plastic stuff got eaten by microbes within months of being made!

Mom Threatens Child Abuse Charge Against Dad for Not Affirming Son as Transgender

Mom Threatens Child Abuse Charge Against Dad for Not Affirming Son as Transgender, by Susan Berry.

A Texas mother has threatened the father of their six-year-old son with a child abuse charge because he will not affirm their son is transgender.

According to a petition to modify the parent-child relationship brought by mother Anne Georgulas, her 6-year-old son, James, is a “gender expansive or transgender child and, by choice, now goes by the name Luna.”

Georgulas, a pediatrician, is seeking to terminate the parental rights of James’ father, Jeffrey Younger, because the child behaves as a boy – his biological sex – when he is with his father. James’ mother also wants Younger to pay for their son’s counseling with a therapist who will affirm his transgender identity, and for transgender hormonal treatments which may begin at age eight. …

James’ mother has diagnosed their son with “gender dysphoria,” a psychological disorder that is characterized by a child’s “persistent, consistent, and insistent” assertion of “their cross-gender statements and behaviors.” However, when James is with his father, he reportedly acts and behaves as a boy by his own choice.

How trendy! How 2010’s! All that progress — what will the next decade bring?

More seriously, might not the kid merely be trying hard to please both parents, living up to each of their expectations? A boy with dad, but transgender with mum?

So what happens if society as a whole expects all kids to behave as feminine? Good bye “toxic” masculinity, perhaps. But why did masculinity evolve? Why do the societies that thrived and survived have such strong masculine traits? Societies without masculine males seem to not be around — maybe there is a good reason for that? Guess we might find out soon, if masculinity continues to be swept away in the West.

hat-tip Barry Corke

Religious schools at risk of losing right to pursue their faith

Religious schools at risk of losing right to pursue their faith, by Paul Kelly.

Australia risks falling into an epic change that would gravely jeopardise the ability of religious schools to pursue their mission and uphold their faith, the Morrison government warned yesterday.

This follows Labor’s decision to act unilaterally to protect gay ­students, with Attorney-General Christian Porter issuing the warning: “Labor’s bill represents radical change because it provides no legislative ability for schools to act in accordance with their beliefs and the tenets of their faith.

“It completely removes the ability of religious educational institutions to maintain their ethos through what they teach and the rules of conduct they impose on students. This is because Labor’s bill would, for the first time, expose religious schools to litigation under the Sex Discrimination Act merely because they impose reasonable rules such as requiring students to attend chapel.” …

Every sign is that the religious schools are broken and prey to radical change. Their will to ­defend their centuries-old, faith-based teaching mission is compromised by their terror of being labelled homophobic, while their parental communities do not comprehen­d what is happening.

There is universal agreement that the law allowing schools to remo­ve students because of sex or gender be repealed. That is not the issue, though it is constantly presente­d as the issue. The real debat­e is about the remaining protections for religious schools. …

Porter repudiates Labor’s claim that nothing in its bill threatens religiou­s education. “Labor has failed to listen to the genuine concern­s of religious educational institutions and their more than one million families in what amounts to a radical approach to such a fundamental overhaul of exemptions that Labor inserted in 2013,” he said.

Could this really be happening? To take a wider perspective, Marxists have always hated Christianity as the main impediment to creating a model society as they saw it. Now they are using gay activists and homosexual rights to gradually marginalize and outlaw Christian teaching.

Jesus Christ was the world’s most influential politician, whose teachings over the last two thousand years moved the world away from the “might is right” politics that existed before. The notions that we are all equal in the eyes of an omnipresent creator, and that this life is but a prelude to another so we’d better act honorably, eventually led to the end of economic and sexual slavery, for instance.

Do the left realize the nature of the Pandora’s box they are opening? Perhaps they take the benefits of the modern world for granted, and think it is OK to carelessly pick at the underpinnings?

hat-tip Stephen Neil