Monday, February 16, 2009

Evolutionary psychology may be able to justify the 'typical' male preference for women with a body of certain proportions or younger women or women of the same height or shorter, or his reluctance to marry a woman who has a child by a different father or a woman does not have enough femininity, but are there good reasons to justify such attitudes and choices? Or are they instinctual? (But if they are instinctual and therefore natural, one would have to say that there is a purpose behind such instincts. Evolutionary psychologists may be able to guess at those purposes, but their theories do not make them any better at guessing.)

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Papabear: It is not about justifying, you are confusing is with ought. They are not instincts, predispositions for physiological markers of health for the most part. Predispositions which are strongly influenced by sociocultural influences mainly during childhood experiences.

papabear said...

I was using instincts broadly, referring to prerational emotional responses to what is perceived. I don't see any confusion with is and ought here. There is a distinction between prerational emotional responses and choices.

predispositions for physiological markers of health for the most part. Predispositions which are strongly influenced by sociocultural influences mainly during childhood experiences.

Culture may influence perception through association, sure. I don't think you are denying that there is a natural basis to those 'predispositions.'