| There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with |
More homework for ya
As mentioned in the other thread, Sterling's Myths of Gender focuses more on biology (though it's getting a little bit dated). Also, there's Rebecca Jordan-Young's Brainstorm, which focuses specifically on the hormonal "brain organization theory." It's a bit dry because of that, but the science is good.
Also, sorry about Pinker. :P But he does have lots of other good stuff, I just wouldn't put much stock in what he says on this issue.
I don't mind dry. I've spent my life reading academic studies of religious texts, Language analysis, etc. My only worry is if the sicence / biology gets too hard.
Most of the bio is fairly basic stuff in either one, though the neuroscience gets pretty technical, but that's what you're interested in anyway.
I've been revisiting Buller's Adapting Minds recently, which has some chapters criticizing alleged "evolved" sex differences. The chapters can stand on their own, but the whole thing is worth reading as it's the most informed critique of evolutionary psychology I've found yet (I'm a bit more "pro-EP" than Buller, but I think most of his criticism is spot on). In any case, it's far more accurate than the picture painted by pop evo psych.
More work! I've just been digging up a lot of stuff recently for this "cognition and culture" project I've been working on for a while and it seems like stuff you would like. Colin Renfrew is apparently a big shot in "cognitive archaeology," one of his anthologies some interesting stuff on religion. Dahlberg also has a good debunking of Flintstones-esque pop anthropology (though that first chapter is a bit sketchy IMO).
Nice! I can't wait to read this.
Oh, I'm sure I'll have another entire bookshelf of recommendations by the time I'm done with this thing. It's already fucking gargantuan.
Is this a dissertation? A term project? or just a personal project?
Term project, though it ended up being a bit more sweeping in scope than I had originally planned.
Yeah, then you learn the art of "How can i make this one term project work for all 5 of my classes". :-)
When you are in classes with similar scopes, some profs don't really mind, especially if you are totally "into" the one paper.
Yeah, I feel like it would be pretty easy to just swap in relevant case studies while leaving the theoretical parts untouched for another course. Also, found some more for ya.
I just learned that Tanya is a work of Hasidic philo. huh. the things you learn when you do the wrong search in google.
Wrong searches have made me want to un-learn some things.
Luckily, I've never found anything too bothersome. I am really unable to see dead things, especially humans. I try to be very careful when googling some things like middle eastern news. But so far, I've lucked out.
No ugly naked people, strange sexual encounters, etc...
I've learned not to click links some people send me.
Anyway, interesting stuff on the "sapient paradox", much of which is admittedly speculative.
Not homework this time so much as an evolutionary turd to drop in your punchbowl. Couldn't find any decent snark, so this'll have to do.
ok, i have to vent. 1) apparently, i am not a woman, cause i do not shop, hate to shop, do not spend time "shopping", though my male husband does. 2) the most recent anthro studies are suggesting that men and women hunted, men and women gathered. women cared for the kids, but mostly cause they had the serving fountains right on their bodies. men were able to to larger weight lifting, but this "division" of labor is probably mostly just in the man's mind. On the other hand, we know that many modern tribal societies do have a slightly larger division of labor than i'm talking, but not as extreme as to make us evolve to be "hunters" and "gatherers". sighs. 3) CULTURE, CULTURE, CULTURE.... far more important in "habbits" than biology, i suspect.
But humans are special snowflakes, right? Think again! More from Carl Zimmer.
heh. :-) next thing we will find is that chimps think the world is 1,0000 years old, too.