Andrew Sullivan on evolutionary psychology

Since Andrew Sullivan has moved to New York Magazine, I find him more liberal, more tempered, more rational, and more readable. His three-part essay this week is notable for what he says in the first part: “#MeToo and the Taboo Topic of Nature” Don’t be put off by the title: it’s really a discussion of evolutionary psychology infused with Sullivan’s experiences as a gay man.

One thing that makes the Left less appealing than it used to be is its overt resistance to scientific findings that supposedly go against the liberal narrative. For example, any suggestion that there might be evolutionary differences between human ethnic groups, or between men and women, is not only denied, but has become so taboo that merely to bring up these subjects risks opprobrium from the Left. Evolutionary psychology and studies of “race” have been demonized by many to the extent that these endeavors are sometimes deemed worthless.

Likewise, the Left obdurately resists any notion that there are evolved differences between the behavior, abilities, or preferences of men and women. Cordelia Fine, for example, has made this her goal, and while her two books on the subject are good in parts, they’re also deeply flawed in some of their critiques. For instance, males are larger and stronger than females, and it’s hard to explain this without invoking sexual selection. And if sexual selection on the human body caused dimorphism in morphology, isn’t it reasonable to expect it to have caused differences in behavior and brains— just the kind of differences that produce behaviors we see in human society? (Males are generally promiscuous and willing to mate with many females, looking for signs of reproductive capacity, while women are pickier, and more attuned to signs of males being good providers. Males are also more competitive and take more risks when they’re of reproductive age.) Another example: P. Z. Myers is on a constant tirade against evolutionary psychology, and has made the ludicrous statement that “the fundamental premises of evo psych are false.” But those “fundamental premises” are only that the human mind, like the human body, bears traces of our evolutionary ancestry and the selective pressures that molded it. (See my longer response here and here.)

The reason that some Leftists oppose this kind of science, of course, is because they think it enables racism and sexism, with the premise being that any observed differences will be grounds for discrimination. But that need not be true: for example, groups will differ on many axes: better on some, worse on others. More important, and as I’ve emphasized endlessly, the moral and political equality of groups should not be grounded on empirical research. For if you do that, and then, like Fine, slant your analyses to match your ideology, asserting that women and men are absolutely equal in all respects, then your argument for equality becomes vulnerable to future empirical observation of differences. Further, as Pinker emphasized in his Spiked remarks at Harvard, if the Left tries to deny scientific findings, it simply drives people toward the right. Our best strategy, and one that comports with centuries of moral philosophy, is to be open to scientific research but absolutely committed to equality of opportunity for all.

Sullivan’s piece is about the denial of evolutionary psychology by the Left; he too thinks that it’s maladaptive to pretend that all groups are, on average, exactly the same. His perspective as a gay man is quite interesting. An excerpt (my emphasis):

. . . in our increasingly heated debate about gender relations and the #MeToo movement, this natural reality [the effects of testosterone on behavior, based on Sullivan’s own experience with hormone therapy]— reflected in chromosomes and hormones no scientist disputes — is rarely discussed. It’s almost become taboo. You can spend a lifetime in gender studies and the subject will never come up. All differences between the sexes, we are now informed, are a function of the age-old oppression of women by men, of the “patriarchy” that enforces this subjugation, and of the power structures that mandate misogyny. All differences between the genders, we are told, are a function not of nature but of sexism. In fact, we are now informed by the latest generation of feminists, following the theories of Michel Foucault, that nature itself is a “social construction” designed by men to oppress women. It doesn’t actually exist. It’s merely another tool of male power and must be resisted.

This is, however, untrue. Even the newest generation of feminists concede this on the quiet. Although they will organize to shut down an entire magazine to prevent an airing of an alternative view of gender, they are not currently campaigning to shut down the Planet Earth series because it reveals that in almost every species, males and females behave differently — very differently — and there appears to be no “patriarchy” in place to bring this about at all. They know enough not to push their argument into places where it will seem to be, quite obviously, ridiculous. But it is strikingly obvious that for today’s progressives, humans are the sole species on this planet where gender differentiation has no clear basis in nature, science, evolution, or biology. This is where they are as hostile to Darwin as any creationist.

And this is stupid. The alternative explanation — that these core natural differences between men and women have been supplemented by centuries of conscious oppression — is staring us in the face. The fascinating conundrum is where one ends and the other begins. How much of this difference is natural and how much is social? That is the question. And the answer is a tricky one. Is the fact that the vast majority of construction workers are male and the huge majority of nurses are female a function of sexism or nature? Is male sexual aggression and horniness a function of patriarchy or testosterone? Is the fact that women now outnumber men among college graduates a function of reverse sexism or nature?

My suspicion is that it’s more about nature than about society, and one reason I believe this (apart from all the data) is I because I’m gay. I live in a sexual and romantic world without women, where no patriarchy could definitionally exist, a subculture with hookups and relationships and marriages and every conceivable form of sexual desire that straight men and women experience as well. And you know what you find? That men behave no differently in sexual matters when there are no women involved at all. In fact, remove women, and you see male sexuality unleashed more fully, as men would naturally express it, if they could get away with it. It’s full of handsiness and groping and objectification and lust and aggression and passion and the ruthless pursuit of yet another conquest. And yes, I mean conquest. That’s what testosterone does. It’s also full of love, tenderness, compassion, jealousy, respect, dignity, and a need for security and a home. It’s men’s revenge on men. The old joke applies: What does a lesbian bring on a second date? A U-Haul. What does a gay man bring on a second date? What second date?

I know this must be a pain in the neck for most women. But it’s who we are. It’s a blessing and a curse. It’s called being male, this strange creature, covered in hair, pinioned between morality and hormones, governed by two brains, one above and one below. We can and should be restrained, tamed, kept under control. But nature will not be eradicated. And when left-feminism denies nature’s power, ignores testosterone, and sees all this behavior as a function entirely of structural patriarchal oppression, it is going to overreach.

. . . Trump understands this dynamic intuitively. Bannon believed it was integral to the Trump project, and wants the slanted elite discourse on men to continue and intensify. I think this issue was an under-acknowledged cause for Clinton’s failure. At some point, Democrats and liberals are going to have to decide if they want to “problematize” half the voting population. They are going to have to figure out who they really side with: Brooklyn or much of America? Reality or an ideology? Both genders or one?

Sullivan goes on to describe how gay men, in their own relationships, show the same dynamics that that straight men do with women, while lesbians in relationships show behavior similar to straight women. (Read the piece to see Sullivan’s joke about this.) To Sullivan, this is evidence that the important differences of sexual behaviors between men and women are based on hormones and genetics, not pure social conditioning. (I suppose one could counterargue that even gay men and women were socialized when young, but a counter-counter argument would note, as Sullivan did above, that there are striking parallels between sexual dimorphism in human sexual behavior and animal sexual behavior. Is there a patriarchy in wild chimpanzees?)

Sullivan is not, of course, defending the sexual predators singled out by #MeToo. He’s merely pointing out that in our future discussions of the fraught sexual dynamics between men and women (or men with men, or women with women), we must take into account that there are biological differences between the sexes that will affect their behavior.  It’s always better to know what’s true when trying to deal with a problematic issue.

Read the whole piece (the other two pieces, not as thought-provoking, are about Trump’s wall—Sullivan is for it, but not for the reason you think—and about how underrated Washington, D.C. is).

 h/t: Gregory

53 Comments

  1. mecwordpress
    Posted January 21, 2018 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    Interesting read. I wonder when Senator Gillibrand and others will tell him now’s not the time so he should shut up and let women speak intead.

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted January 21, 2018 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

      Oh, must be talking to me, but that’s good. You know that telling guys to shut up does not mean they are expected to. Most women tell me that guys enjoy talking far too much to ever shut up. Must be genetic?

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted January 21, 2018 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

        The meme is that women talk too much. The reality is that, on average, men talk more. I think that is because psychologically, men expect to talk more, so a lot of the talking from women is seen as too much. And when a woman comes along who talks a lot, she gets noticed more than the majority, who don’t.

        (And no, I’m not one of the talkers.)

        • Randall Schenck
          Posted January 21, 2018 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

          The woman who comes along and talks too much. That means she has an opinion on something besides the kids or the garden. That’s just not the way we do it down here. By down here I mean anywhere. Best they leave this MeToo stuff to those guys. They already know so much about it you know.

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted January 21, 2018 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

            😀

            • Bakairi
              Posted January 23, 2018 at 9:59 am | Permalink

              To me, it’s much more important to ascertain whether what they (men or women) are saying is true than whether or not they talk ‘too much’. Nobody has to listen if they don’t want, after all. But if they’re telling the truth, then I certainly do want to.

              • GBJames
                Posted January 23, 2018 at 10:19 am | Permalink

                To be fair, saying something interesting is at least equally important. Some truths are dreadfully dull.

                Repeat “water is wet” a thousand times and see what your friends think.

                On the other hand, a great work of fiction isn’t true, but can be wonderful to listen to.

  2. Randy Bessinger
    Posted January 21, 2018 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    One of the great things about Jerry’s posts is that I am always learning from them. Even xcellent read.

    • Randy Bessinger
      Posted January 21, 2018 at 11:16 am | Permalink

      “Excellent” read.

  3. GBJames
    Posted January 21, 2018 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    I’m not sure the link at the top is correct. Did you intend this one?

    #MeToo and the Taboo Topic of Nature

    (Both relevant, just a week apart from each other.)

  4. Eli Siegel
    Posted January 21, 2018 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    I believe the death rate for American males age 18 to 24 is three times that of females.Accidents, murder, suicides. It is unfortunate that we do not have a large population of eunuchs for comparison.

    • Bob Murray
      Posted January 21, 2018 at 11:34 am | Permalink

      Give it time.

  5. Ken Kukec
    Posted January 21, 2018 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    Since Andrew Sullivan has moved to New York Magazine, I find him more liberal, more tempered, more rational, and more readable.

    I agree completely — although I’ve always found him readable, dating back to his early days as editor of The New Republic, and he’s been drifting left, it seems, at least since sometime during Dubya’s second term. Even in his old days as a staunch conservative, I used to get a kick out of his Left vs. Right bromance battles with The Hitch on Book TV, like this one.

    • Posted January 21, 2018 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

      About 7 minutes in, to the question ‘Is America the greatest nation on earth?’ (Off the cuff answer, after griping about it being too early in the morning for anyone to function properly, no doubt after a long night.)

      Well, there was a Teamsters Union official once, up on this hill behind us, who was asked at the opening of a hearing into his affairs, “Wouldn’t you agree that the Teamsters Union is very powerful?”

      He answered, looking rather narrowly back at the senator, “Well Senator, being powerful is a bit like being lady-like. If you have to say you are, you probably ain’t.”

      So I think I like America most of all on the days when people are not going around shouting ‘USA! USA! We are number one. We are the greatest.’ I prefer the days when they don’t do that; that’s when it’s probably most to be admired. It’s a case of always think of it, and never speak of it.

      Of course, objectively as well as well as subjectively, the American Revolution is now the only revolution with a fighting chance of survival and success — the idea that you could create a multicultural democracy over a vast expanse of the earth’s surface, that could, possibly, be emulated by other people.

      • Posted January 21, 2018 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

        (From the grave, manages to piss off the regressive left, while making a devastating point that dumps Trump straight into the hole he belongs in, and shines a light onto a thing of permanent historical importance about the US.)

  6. Jim
    Posted January 21, 2018 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    Purely hypothetically (and cliche-edly) speaking…. why not both?

    Using biological examples and data, I think it is pretty clear to most honest people that there are biological differences between the sexes that arise out of proximate genetic and/or developmental effects. That hypothesis is not only testable via non-human model species, but also in the minority of humans who are developmentally different in sex to their mental conception of themselves- whether they differ from the “norm” of XX/XY, are transgender, receive hormone therapy, etc.

    That said, at the same level, “the patriarchy” could definitely be one of the ultimate drivers of those biological differences in humans, both in terms of current-generation cultural effects, and as a long-term selective pressure. As an example, experimentally removing cultural effects as contributing to any study of human behavior is logistically very difficult. Anyway, from a progressive mindset, we no longer have to live in a culture in which the proximate biological differences between sexes, races, etc. are either exaggerated (in the short-term) or selected for (in the long-term) by cultural effects. In that view, just as evolutionary psychology, etc. being ignored due to its uncomfortable implications is scientifically dishonest, ignoring how cultural “norms” might also play a role in these dynamics is arguably too reductionist. Why can’t we be scientifically accurate while also being philosophically progressive? How else can we move beyond our current condition?

    Speaking as an outsider to these fields, I am frustrated by the conflict. Both sides are making good points worthy of at least philosophical consideration.

    • Posted January 21, 2018 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

      Why not both? I think that is the perspective of many. We have intrinsic natural differences between the sexes, with a range of biologically derived variations, plus a range of societies that at times solidify those differences and at times supress those differences.

    • Posted January 21, 2018 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

      “… experimentally removing cultural effects as contributing to any study of human behavior is logistically very difficult.”

      As Jordan Peterson often points out, just such an experiment has been done on a national scale in Sweden. ‘Patriarchal’ influences have been systematically removed there, yet the disparities in career choices have increased dramatically and stand in stark contrast to more ‘patriarchal’ societies.

      • Jim
        Posted January 22, 2018 at 11:30 am | Permalink

        I’m not familiar with that work- can you link to it?

        I could see similar comparisons being made with societies that are more matriarchal.

        • Posted January 22, 2018 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

          I’m not aware of Peterson’s source data, but he mentioned it again in a recent discussion with Jonathan Haidt. For example, 80% of nursing students in Sweden are women.

  7. Posted January 21, 2018 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    By the way, Andrew Sullivan was a panelist on the season premiere of “Real Time with Bill Maher” last Friday. His “Overtime” session can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6k2LnADlpU

    • SnowyOwl
      Posted January 21, 2018 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

      And when he chimed in on a point about restaurant workers (“waitresses”)low established hourly wages vs. tips, ole Andrew exclaimed that without ‘working for tips’ why would ‘they’ smile and give good service!’
      Of course that line-of-thinking was rebutted… by the rest of those on the show, and anyone else with a sense of humanity.
      What an asshole.

  8. Torbjörn Larsson
    Posted January 21, 2018 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    left-feminism denies nature’s power, ignores testosterone,

    What a powerful hormone testosterone must be!

    Or maybe Sullivan is lazy and forgets that there are a lot of hormonal differences (females produce testosterone too, IIRC) underlying sexual dimorphism, including individual such. Actually “testosterone” is not a powerful meme, it is boring.

    Color me unconvinced, if hormones were so structuring of brain/body traits males and females would not come out roughly alike on aptitude tests. Modern humans have a lot less body dimorphism than earlier apes in our lineage, same drastic lessening goes for regional aka “race” differences (barely shows up in LCA whole genome analyses). I am not sure why the null hypothesis of average estimated 50/50 balance between biology and culture would be suspect in either case (of sexual and regional “morphs”).

    • Posted January 21, 2018 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

      I don’t agree at all that the null hypothesis is that 50% of the variance is due to culture and 50% is due to genetics. You devise your null hypothesis based on the question you’re asking. If you think the difference is largely cultural, your null hypothesis is that genetics plays little or no role, and vice versa.

      Where on earth did you get 50/50? That’s like saying that the null hypothesis is 50/50 that God exists.

      • Posted January 21, 2018 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

        I was reading about hereditability last night and jesus, the maths is tough compared with special relativity (which is little more than Pythagoras).

        • Posted January 22, 2018 at 6:20 am | Permalink

          Any sources for that heritability math? And you seem to have left out calculus for special relativity.

          • Posted January 22, 2018 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

            One can present SR (not GR) with high school trigonometry and algebra. _Understanding Einstein’s Theories of Relativity_ does just that. (Warning: it does not link it to E&M, which I think is a mistake.)

    • Posted January 21, 2018 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

      Aptitude tests are devised so that men and women have the same mean so they can’t demonstrate different mean differences. Variation is another matter: there are generally wider distributions of aptitudes among men than women giving a flatter, fat tailed distribution.

      In any case differences aren’t so much about aptitudes, they are about predispositions. There are fewer women in IT because fewer women want to work in IT. There are fewer men in teaching or social work because fewer men want to work in teaching or social work. The women who work in IT don’t lack aptitude, it’s just that there are fewer of them.

      There is a huge difference between men and women in body dimorphism. ‘Less than a monkey’ is not the same as ‘no difference’.

      • Darrin Carter
        Posted January 24, 2018 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

        I am 6 ft.2in.250lbs. My Wife is 5’3 130.I would call that a big differance.

    • nicky
      Posted January 22, 2018 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

      “Humans have much less body dimorphism than earlier apes in our lineage”. Is that so?
      I know that in extant apes the body dimorphism in Orangutans (well, some of them, there are these small raping males too) is greatest, and Gorillas come next. But in the supposedly monogamic Gibbons the dimorphism is much less than in humans, while in Chimps and Bonobos the difference is comparable to us.
      In many of our fossil ancestors we don’t even know the sex of the fossil.

      • Posted February 4, 2018 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

        I guess Australopithecus is meant, which has a huge sex difference in body size.

  9. Liz
    Posted January 21, 2018 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    When I first saw a post on here about Cordelia Fine’s most recent book I was thinking, what is she talking about? That doesn’t make any sense. Men and women are different. Men are stronger for one thing. The physical differences inevitably affect behavior. How do they *not* affect behavior? I have a hard time believing that researchers are unable to explore these differences.

  10. dd
    Posted January 21, 2018 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    I came out of the closet, as they used to say, mid 70s. And one thing I noticed was how sex, talking about it and doing it, flavored everything about gay male society.

    So, I asked some friends in their late 20s and early 30s-I was 19-how many sexual partners they had, and they said maybe 600 or 700 so far. They had friends who could claim 1000-1200. And this was no boast as it’s pretty easy to get men to have sex.

    (BTW, I asked if they weren’t afraid of diseases, and was told they would visit public health clinics and they would get a shot. Like
    other people, I had already figured out that at some point a health catastrophe would happen in the gay male community at some point.)

    Anyway, I soon found out that Lesbian world was very different. Endless amount of pornography for gay men, far less so for Lesbian…and I don’t think it was a matter of their buying porn aimed at straight men because of the way sexual fantasy occurs and how bodies are portrayed.

    So, yes, I know what Sullivan is talking about.

    It hasn’t dawned on queer studies people that gender studies precepts are a negation of much of what they base their “gayness”. After all, Just how critical is being gay if men and women are not that much different…and it’s not just genitalia I refer to.

    • dd
      Posted January 21, 2018 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

      Note: by “mid-70s” I mean mid-1970s.

  11. Steve Pollard
    Posted January 21, 2018 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    Many thanks for drawing our attention to this interesting article.

    I can imagine many old Lefties pointing out that the USSR had many women doing men’s jobs, especially in WW2, in construction and heavy industries, as well as on the front line (as snipers) or as Air Force pilots. True. And the historical record suggests also (a) that many of those women were patronised and not given due credit at the tine; and (b) that after WW2 they were put back in their places. Much the same happened in the UK after both World Wars.

    Nature or nurture? Patriarchy or socialisation?

    PS: a couple of questions from across the Atlantic: (a) what is U-Haul; (b) why Brooklyn?

    • jaxkayaker
      Posted January 21, 2018 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

      U-Haul is a company from which one can rent trucks for moving furniture, etc. “you haul” your own stuff when moving residences. They also sell boxes, tape and other moving supplies.

      • Steve Pollard
        Posted January 21, 2018 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

        Thank you!

        • Randall Schenck
          Posted January 21, 2018 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

          Yes, it’s kind of like, why pay someone else to damage your stuff when you can do it yourself at much lower cost.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted January 21, 2018 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

      The US had many women who took up the industrial jobs vacated by the 18 million or so GIs who served during WW2. “Rosie the Riveter” became their symbol. In its way, that experience helped set the stage for second-wave feminism in the US.

      I think Sullivan picked on Brooklyn because it’s become something of a haven for hipsters. Sullivan goes into it a bit more in third mini-essay of the piece Jerry linked to.

    • Posted January 26, 2018 at 11:47 am | Permalink

      Lots of Hipster Millenials live in Brooklyn. Brooklyn is very diverse, but when white journalists mention Brooklyn, it’s usually a sort of synecdoche for unsufferable, Prolier-than-thou, recent college graduates. It is the culture war antithesis of a small town in the Bible Belt.

      • James
        Posted February 4, 2018 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

        I think you mean metonymy, not synecdoche.

    • Posted February 4, 2018 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

      I do not think that a physically demanding job elevates the status of women – quite the opposite.

  12. Posted January 21, 2018 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    I can’t help feeling the world might have been a better place of Michel Foucault had had a girlfriend. Nothing tests a theory of ‘social construction’ like a long-term relationship and a fight over leaving the toilet seat up.

  13. Ken Kukec
    Posted January 21, 2018 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    I agree with much of what Sullivan says, and appreciate how articulately he says it, though I do object, on behalf of the good people in the borough of the trolley dodgers, to his use of “Brooklyn” as pars pro toto for regressive feminism. 🙂

  14. James
    Posted January 21, 2018 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    Is equality of opportunity enough? Egalitarianism that shades into the empirical is suspect if dogmatically pursued, I agree. However, if we take the truths of genetics and evolution seriously, this seems like a strong argument for forms (albeit limited, usually in the form of security nets) of redistribution. But maybe I’m just being optimistic or interpreting research to conform with my basic philosophical commitments.

  15. Richard Sanderson
    Posted January 21, 2018 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    I laugh at the fact PZ Myers now finds himself in the same anti-science camp as the religious creationists he used to riff on.

    All because of his regressive dogma.

  16. Posted January 21, 2018 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

    *Sigh* Over decades, I’ve watched the Left go from struggle to triumph to righteous complacency to hysterical senility. And where did they ever pick up the idea that “equal” means “identical”? Of *course* there are genetic and behavioral differences between men and women; hell, there are genetic and behavioral differences between *individuals*.

    And just how do particular genes react to different environmental conditions? And just how do all those genes on the immense spiral staircase of DNA interact with each other? And just how much of even animal behavior is immutable? And what do the revelations about transgender individuals tell us? There’s a huge amount that we *don’t* know, and won’t know until these questions are thoroughly studied. The Left used to encourage, even demand, scientific research into socially-relevant questions. What’s it so afraid of now?

  17. KD33
    Posted January 21, 2018 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

    “..for example, groups will differ on many axes: better on some, worse on others.” Yes, and another point that I wish would get a lot more play is that the variation of a metric within a group is much larger than the difference in average between groups, for just about any metric. That is, you could say race A is on average more (intelligent, stronger, good looking, etc.) than race B, but pick an individual from A and one from B, and the odds or only very slightly better that *individual* A is “better” wrt the metric than *individual* B. It seems to me this supplies a strong moral underpinning for equality of opportunity for individuals, and should assuage any concerns about related scientific research.

  18. ladyatheist
    Posted January 22, 2018 at 6:54 am | Permalink

    Men are bigger and stronger than women. Women would be stupid not to be a bit afraid of men. That point alone should be a basic fact of male-female relations. Even if a strong woman dates a humunculus of a man, experience with thousands of bigger, stronger men in the past is going to inform the woman’s instinctive/learned thinking.

  19. Posted January 22, 2018 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    Also:

    Suppose it were true that biology made it such that group G was disadvantages in some way X. We can then implement at least two policies: help G to improve their status with regard to X or we can do the null policy and let the chips fall where they may. We can debate in each case whether or not the “progressive” policy of helping out is warranted (and the tradeoffs appropriate) but I even had to call out Bunge on this, using his own “rule based on law” principle as shown. (He too has claimed that evolutionary psychology and sociobiology has fed conservatism in bad ways.)


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: