Best psychology books according to redditors

We found 72 Reddit comments discussing the best psychology books. We ranked the 35 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Physiological Aspects in Psychology:

u/lukeprog · 294 pointsr/Futurology

I'll interpret your first question as: "Suppose you created superhuman AI: What would you use it for?"

It's very risky to program superhuman AI to do something you think you want. Human values are extremely complex and fragile. Also, I bet my values would change if I had more time to think through them and resolve inconsistencies and accidents and weird things that result from running on an evolutionarily produced spaghetti-code kluge of a brain. Moreover, there are some serious difficulties to the problem of aggregating preferences from multiple people — see for example the impossibility results from the field of population ethics.

> if it is super intelligent, it will have its own purpose.

Well, it depends. "Intelligence" is a word that causes us to anthropomorphize machines that will be running entirely different mind architectures than we are, and we shouldn't assume anything about AIs on the basis of what we're used to humans doing. To know what an AI will do, you have to actually look at the math.

An AI is math: it does exactly what the math says it will do, though that math can have lots of flexibility for planning and knowledge gathering and so on. Right now it looks like there are some kinds of AIs you could build whose behavior would be unpredictable (e.g. a massive soup of machine learning algorithms, expert systems, brain-inspired processes, etc.), and some kinds of AIs you could build whose behavior would be somewhat more predictable (transparent Bayesian AIs that optimize a utility function, like AIXI except computationally tractable and with utility over world-states rather than a hijackable reward signal). An AI of the sort may be highly motivated to preserve its original goals (its utility function), for reasons explained in The Superintelligent Will.

Basically, the Singularity Institute wants to avoid the situation in which superhuman AIs' purposes are incompatible with our needs, because eventually humans will no longer be able to compete with beings whose "neurons" can communicate at light speed and whose brains can be as big as warehouses. Apes just aren't built to compete with that.

> Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson mentioned that if we found an intelligence that was 2% different from us in the direction that we are 2% different [genetically] from the Chimpansees, it would be so intelligent that we would look like beings with a very low intelligence.

Yes, exactly.

> How does your group see something of that nature evolving and how will we avoid going to war with it?

We'd like to avoid a war with superhuman machines, because humans would lose — and we'd lose more quickly than is depicted in, say, The Terminator. A movie like that is boring if there's no human resistance with an actual chance of winning, so they don't make movies where all humans die suddenly with no chance to resist because a worldwide AI did its own science and engineered an airborn, human-targeted supervirus with a near-perfect fatality rate.

The solution is to make sure that the first superhuman AIs are programmed with our goals, and for that we need to solve a particular set of math problems (outlined here), including both the math of safety-capable AI and the math of aggregating and extrapolating human preferences.

Obviously, lots more detail on our research page and in a forthcoming scholarly monograph on machine superintelligence from Nick Bostrom at Oxford University. Also see the singularity paper by leading philosopher of mind David Chalmers.

u/zyle · 56 pointsr/worldnews

Psychologists who study why you think and act the way you do from an evolutionary point of view. For example, why do so many people have no problem vegetating in front of a TV movie, but balk at reading a richer book that the movie is based on?

That's because apparently the primate part of your mind subtly rewards you for seeking new information, but it only recognizes new visual stimulus. Reading a book involves the more rational and linguistic parts of your brain (to read stuff) that evolved later, and don't issue the same level of reward. Thus, TV == fun, book == boring.

If that sort of stuff interests you, I highly recommend this book; its non-technical, and an easy read:

http://www.amazon.com/Kluge-Haphazard-Construction-Human-Mind/dp/0618879641

u/BevansDesign · 17 pointsr/OkCupid

There's a really interesting book I read a while back called Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose. It talks a lot about sexual instincts in a few of its chapters.

It mentions a study where scientists wanted to test the sexual instincts of turkeys. They made a life-like dummy of a female turkey, and the male turkeys fucked it. Then they removed a bunch of the feathers and distinguishing features, and the turkeys still fucked it. They kept removing features of the dummy, and the turkeys kept fucking it. Eventually it was pretty much just a stick attached to a platform, and still the turkeys fucked it.

Humans are more like that than we're willing to admit.

u/nathanrjones · 15 pointsr/Archery

Wow. That's actually on a book cover...

https://www.amazon.com/dp/9655504239

u/BlueHatScience · 11 pointsr/philosophy

Meme theory, while it has gained considerable attention in recent years, may not be the best way to describe what goes on with communicable cognitive content and our minds. There are more rigiorous, specific and detailed theories out there dealing with these issues, but it is possible to 'reconstruct' memetic theory in a more rigorous way (as an extension of more realistic models of social learning).

The research-programs that go into specific detail with the required rigor are: Social learning (example article), cultural niche-construction (example article) and gene-culture coevolution theory (example article) [EDIT: MORE TOPICAL EXAMPLE PAPER:Cultural Transmission and the Evolution of Cooperative Behavior].

Meme-theory on its own has always remained rather superficial, and is plagued by the same conceptual problems as the "gene-centric" view of inheritance and evolution, which characteristically neglects the magnitude of t of the contribution by inheritance/'sharing of phenotypically generative information' through multiple channels, having different long-term effects, different rates of dispersion, mechanisms of reproduction, retention rates, noise- & degradation-levels and biases, interacting in complex ways to give rise to evolutionary change of mental contents and characteristics in human populations.

The gene-centric / gene-reductionist view is characterized by some potentially misleading / unrealistic analogies (replicator vs vehicle, gene-meme). There is value in the comparison of cognitive sharing of information to genetic inheritance, but it needs to be carefully extracted from the web of possible misconceptions surrounding it.

Boyd and Richerson (Culture and the Evolutionary Process, The Origin and Evolution of Cultures, Not by Genes Alone - How Culture Transformed Human Evolution and Mathematical Models of Social Evolution: A Guide for the Perplexed) have published extensively on mathematical models of social learning, biased transmission, evolutionary change through social and cultural inheritance - that's where you should look for a solid theoretical foundation of information-sharing in social learning and its role in human evolution.

Laland, Feldman and Odling-Smee have modeled the phenomenon of "
Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution
" providing he seminal work on the topic. It is based around the insight that environments are not static, immunable backgrounds to the actions of organisms as individuals and as populations. The conditions in an environment of indiviudals that allow a population to exist and interact with it just the way it does are not always, not even usually just a "given".

First - organisms locate to where conditions are best for them (within their range of migration), thus selecting the environemental conditions they face and interact with. Second, and more importantly, organisms change their environments in various ways - adaptively, neutrally and maladaptively - through many different channels, 'deliberately' as well as unknowingly.

Many plants change the chemical composition of soil in a way that is favorable to them (releasing poison, attracting microorganisms with beneficial effects etc..). That's a low-level example of niche-construction.

Beaver-dams are a more high-level example. Some capucin monkeys socially learn how to let nuts dry for a few days and then crack them open with stones on larger stones (hammer-anvil principle). This effectively changes the Umwelt of the population, qualitatively changing may aspects of their lives, interactions, and the conditions under which they can survive in the environment.

In humans, uniquely, there is cumulative cultural niche-construction.. (mostly through language), we can study the explicit and formalized theories, inventions and technologies of people in the past, model them in our minds, discuss them, discard or improve upon them - (EDIT:) and most importantly, culture, society and personal caretakers determine the developmental environment and resources our children face, having them grow up learning how to interact with a world that has the accumulated knowledge, theories, techniques and technologies of millenia of people improving on what they grew up with. Growing up we (ideally) become socialized and encultured, learning (some of) what ~2.500 years of rational, methodical investigation of the world has shown us and taught us.

Not only do we build cities that evolve with us and increasingly eliminate previous selection pressures (while creating new ones), but we continuously build cognitive captial, experience and power to predict and interact with the environment... that's why the human population has exploded the way it did, why our lives are quite far removed from 'nature - red in tooth and claw' as it exists everywhere else, and why we are here discussing this.

Finally, Kim Sterelny has provided a rather brilliant synoptic view on the evolution of human mentality - incorporating the insights of the gene's-eye-view, social learning, gene-culture co-evolution, multi-level inheritance and niche-construction theory. I thoroughly recommend his books, e.g. Thought in a Hostile World - The Evolution of Human Cognition and The Evolved Apprentice.

TL;DR: Here's Kim Sterelny's article 'Memes revisited', which clarifies how the central insight of memetics can be explicated in more rigours and diverse frameworks to better explain the workings of human mentality and their evolution

(EDITED for clarity - also: New example article for niche-construction->more topical)

u/NataliyaKochergova · 10 pointsr/TheRedPill

There is an evolutionary explanation to it (and there is a book on it: http://www.amazon.com/Natural-History-Rape-Biological-Coercion/dp/0262700832/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1406448750&sr=8-1&keywords=natural+history+of+rape ). Rape hurts a woman psychologically, because in the past it meant involuntarily giving up her mate choice and 9 months of her time and energy through pregnancy. And for men, being raped by a man hurts psychologically, because it reduces their status.

u/MisanthropicScott · 9 pointsr/atheism

I know such people exist. I just don't understand how their heads don't physically explode from the hypocrisy. It must be our Kluge-y brains that allow compartmentalization of knowledge.

u/PocketMatt · 8 pointsr/longevity

The good news is that there are actually multiple, up-to-date textbooks on the biology of aging:

u/CumulativeDrek2 · 8 pointsr/WeAreTheMusicMakers

I don't know the answer but I do believe this might be a book that does. There is a fairly comprehensive chapter on the perception of loudness including the effect of bandwidth, loudness over time, detection of changes/modulation of loudness etc.

I believe the Weber-Fechner law is the starting point for the study of change in stimulus intensity detection in 'all' senses (although apparently it doesn't quite fit when applied to sound)

A study that demonstrates the difference between the perception of loudness and the Weber-Fechner law is here There are other studies but this might get you on the way towards an answer.

u/icantfindadangsn · 7 pointsr/AskScienceDiscussion

I like this question.

Beginner:

u/TychoCelchuuu · 6 pointsr/askphilosophy

There's a massive amount of relevant philosophy. If your professors are talking about Foucault and existentialism then I guess there are some trends in psychology that I am not very familiar with - I thought most of psychology was making undergraduates fill out forms and then generalizing from that to all of humanity. In any case, I can't help you much down the Sartre/Camus track because that's not my bailiwick.

I can point out a few areas of inquiry, though. The two most obvious are philosophy of mind and philosophy of psychology.

Phil mind is fucking huuuuuuuuge. Interestingly enough the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy doesn't have an entry for it, so I'll link to a random relevant article from which you can follow footnotes/related pages at the bottom/etc. and also the IEP's Mind & CogSci category whicih you can browse through. You could also take that course you're thinking of taking or pick up an intro book - the second, third, fifth, and sixth books on Amazon.com when I search "philosophy of mind" seem pretty good, although I've only read one of them.

Philosophy of psychology is big too. It also overlaps with phil mind. In any case, although I haven't read them, these two books from José Luis Bermudez seem pretty good:

http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Psychology-Contemporary-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0415275954
http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Psychology-Contemporary-Readings-Routledge/dp/0415368626/

u/buddhox · 4 pointsr/NoFap

Bro, first of all stop with that "I hate myself" shit. Dopamine is the thing in EVERY human being, which creates a craving and desire for everything providing a dopamine spike, even though that thing is totally against your moral standards. It's the "fuck it, just go get it" neurotransmitter and the way EVERY human brain works.

Evolution has formed us in a way that we always strive for progression, just because this means a higher chance of surviving. As you started watching porn, even the softest videos provided a high dopamine spike just because your brain didn't even know about this kind of stimulus. But with time, your dopamine receptors got more and more desensitized, leading to you searching for novelty in porn just to get the same spike as when you started watching. Novelty means a new stimulus. The reasons why certain people may stop their journey at hardcore bondage porn and others get thoughts as you do can vary. But those reasons are the same which made you the person YOU are. It can be because of the genetical heritage of your anchestors, the way you were raised as a kid or the circumstances and people you got with during life. Those are the 3 determinisms Freud talked about. Things which are NOT in your power.

What I'm trying to point out is that there is totally NOTHING wrong with you, if I was born, raised and living the exact life that you did, i would be the same as you. That's the reason why the greatest spiritual leaders like Ghandi and else always told us not to judge people by any means, even a rapist. The one who knows, he understands.

What you have to do now is think about yourself rational rather than emotional. Get yourself some knowledge about sensitization of dopamine receptors. Heal your brain. Google about dopamine fasting.

Here is a book about the term called "supernormal stimuli", which helps understanding why people in modern civilization act in the way they do. There is a great chapter on porn
Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose https://www.amazon.de/dp/039306848X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_.qwXCbTQGT4QK

And watch this, too
https://youtu.be/wSF82AwSDiU

u/TheUnregisteredNurse · 3 pointsr/nursing

It's not enough and it never will be...Our patients demand perfection and in many ways deserve it, but that's not reality. Reality is that we are imperfect persons working in an imperfect system, making choices with imperfect information, all in the hope that we are healing/helping imperfect patients. You must draw a line between your work and your life otherwise the negativity and toxicity of the work will taint the rest of your life. Unfortunately there aren't any books that talk about managing the emotional stress you will be exposed to in healthcare. I've found that books about dealing with the stress of law enforcement are a good analog.


I recommend:

Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement: A guide for officers and their families

and
Warrior Mindset: Mental Toughness Skills for a Nation's Peacekeepers


Best wishes; hope you find the strength and balance you're looking for.

u/riemannzetajones · 3 pointsr/pics

Actually the opposite is true, according to research documented in this book.

One study showed lefties were more prone to raising their right hand in surprised defensive posture, whereas right handed folks raised their left. In a driving emergency, this would mean that the right handed majority would have a greater tendency to veer onto the shoulder / ditch in right-hand driving countries, as opposed to oncoming traffic. The study's author predicted one would see higher traffic-related mortality rates in countries like England that drive on the left, and indeed that was the case at the time they posed the question.

u/[deleted] · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

flavor8's comment and this: don't forget that the spine is not well suited to walk upright, hence lower back pains and slipped disks.

Basically, talk to a doctor and see all the problems humans have due to "poor design".

Plus, the brain is a complete hack.

u/eihort · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

Ooh, ooh, ooh! I wrote a big chunk of my thesis on exactly this question. However, I'm with /u/TychoCelchuuu on not just giving away all the answers.

Here's a hint: it doesn't really vindicate it at all, but it isn't supposed to. Fodor's RTM presupposes propositional attitude psychology is an accurate characterisation of cognition. RTM is an analysis of how propositional attitude psychology could function at the level of brain/mind processes.

You should definitely read Jose Bermudez's book Philosophy of Psychology: A Contemporary Introduction chapters 2-4. It's the best work on this issue, as far as I am aware.

u/metabeliever · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

While not 100% on topic here I found this book an interesting and related take on what animals will and won't attend to.

https://www.amazon.com/Supernormal-Stimuli-Overran-Evolutionary-Purpose/dp/039306848X

u/Ish71189 · 2 pointsr/AskScienceDiscussion

Two things, (1) I'm going to recommend mostly books and not textbooks, since you're going to read plenty of those in the future. And (2) I'm going to only focus on the area of cognitive psychology & neuroscience. With that being said:

Beginner:

The Man Who Mistook His Wife for A Hat: And Other Clinical Tales By Oliver Sacks

Brain Bugs: How the Brain's Flaws Shape Our Lives By Dean Buonomano

Kludge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Mind By Gary Marcus

The Trouble with Testosterone: And Other Essays on the Biology of the Human Predicament By Robert M. Sapolsky

The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers By Daniel L. Schacter

Intermediate: (I'm going to throw this in here, because reading the beginner texts will not allow you to really follow the advanced texts.)

Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind By Michael S. Gazzaniga, Richard B. Ivry & George R. Mangun

Advanced:

The Prefrontal Cortex By Joaquin Fuster

The Dream Drugstore: Chemically Altered States of Consciousness By J. Allan Hobson

The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning By Keith J. Holyoak & Robert G. Morrison

u/CavAv8tr · 2 pointsr/asktrp

Ulan is bang on! Have you heard of "mental rehearsals"? You think about the optimal outcome and then rehearse the actions required in your mind. This is highly effective (it's a less spiritual wankiness version of "the Secret" i guess).

I used to mentally rehearse every mission when I in the army. from Physical Fitness tests, to the range, to flights.

Read Warrior Mindset
https://www.amazon.com/Warrior-Mindset-Toughness-Nations-Peacekeepers-ebook/dp/B06XCX2GVY/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=bulletproof+mind&qid=1555418814&s=gateway&sr=8-5

u/arcturnus · 2 pointsr/longevity

The book you mention, Handbook of the Biology of Aging is probably the best I've run across for what you are looking for. It is very much like review articles. They cover the major research up to publication date (in 2015), and dive into specifics going over experimental design and methodologies.

A simpler, shorter, and more accessible intro for those who don't have your credentials is Biology of Aging. But if you wanted a very general sweep that is still focused on those with a biology education to supplement the deeper dive, this would be a good choice. (For example the Handbook of the Biology of Aging focuses on animal and human aging whereas the Biology of Aging has a section on plant senescence as well).

Laura Deming also has a good Longevity FAQ that covers the aging research landscape but more importantly for your needs contains links to papers and clinical trials at the bottom.

u/oljames3 · 1 pointr/CCW

I think you would enjoy reading On Combat and On Killing by LTC (Ret) Dave Grossman. He discusses, in detail, the physiological aspects of defensive gun use, especially the impact of stress/adrenaline on the body. He also offers considerations to minimize the negative effects. In addition to 34 years in the US Army artillery, I take force-on-force classes (shoot house with Simunition) as well compete in USPSA and other matches. Not the same as a true two-way range, but about as close as civilians can get. I train hard on the range so that when the evil threat presents, and the adrenaline dumps, I can, in the words of former SEAL Jeff Gonzales, "suck less than the other guy."

https://www.amazon.com/Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Deadly-Conflict/dp/B00FJWP7MK/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=on+combat&qid=1568143121&s=gateway&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/B002EAS5KQ/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=on+killing&qid=1568143142&s=audible&sr=1-1

u/amindwandering · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

>handedness isn't uniquely human

Why does that pose a problem to the theory u/cannibalismo references? That theory doesn't purported to explain the origin of handedness in humans, only the origin of the proportional bias specifically favoring right-handedness.

"Handedness" (or "footedness") is prevalent in other animals, yes, but the sources I've encountered (here's one, for example) suggest that, at the species level, there usually isn't a clear statistical bias favoring one side of the body or the other—i.e. the proportion of 'righties' vs. 'lefties' tends to be even mixed across the population as a whole.

u/jmdegler · 1 pointr/askscience

There is a great book out there on this topic: Kluge (The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind). It provides reasonable and thought-provoking answers to these questions, and I really had a good time reading the book.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002ECETZY/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0618879641&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1MM7WAT5F150EQ31AZWJ

u/NYCCOOP · 1 pointr/MGTOW2

That's how Nature works in general, and those Stimuli can be hacked, and they are hacked everyday.

You'll enjoy this book:


https://www.amazon.com/Supernormal-Stimuli-Overran-Evolutionary-Purpose/dp/039306848X

u/MonkeyG0d · 1 pointr/chemistry

Although not chemistry per se right hand, left hand (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Right-Hand-Left-Chris-McManus/dp/0753813556) was recommended to us by our organic chemistry lecturer (Clayden, the guy who wrote co-authored http://www.amazon.co.uk/Organic-Chemistry-Jonathan-Clayden/dp/0198503466/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1370533504&sr=1-1&keywords=clayden+organic+chemistry)

Edit: Also there is a chemistry section within Bill Brysons short history of nearly everything, and tbh if you have any general interest in science then you should read this book anyway as it covers loads of topics throughout the history of science really well and its very accessable

u/FilterOutBullshit3 · 1 pointr/videos
u/theallnightchemist · 1 pointr/askscience

If OP or anyone else is interest in further reading on the subject of handedness, particularly left handedness, I would recommend a book called The Left-Handed Syndrome by Stanley Coren, a psychologist and neuropsychological researcher. It's an excellent read.

u/sylvan · 1 pointr/environment

>Animals, without a mind or conciousness, cannot rape as they do not know what that means.

This is faulty reasoning. Regardless of whether they have a moral system that considers it wrong, they do have both consensual and non-consensual sex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behavior#Coercive_sex

Dolphins, elephants, ducks and geese have been documented doing this.

http://www.amazon.com/Natural-History-Rape-Biological-Coercion/dp/0262201259

Rape carries a reproductive advantage, allowing the rapist to pass on their genes, while not investing any effort in caring for the offspring, and bypassing the female's selection process which would normally let her pick the most suitable male.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiological_theories_of_rape

Stating that meat eating is natural is not an ethical justification. It's a behavior which has significant negative consequences, and is not necessary to living a healthy and rewarding life. It's a luxury done to satisfy a preferred taste.

u/GroundDigger · 1 pointr/slavelabour

Looking for the pdf for this book
Foundations of Neural Development, by S. Marc Breedlove
https://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Neural-Development-Marc-Breedlove/dp/1605355798

u/FLOREANATWINS · 1 pointr/skeptic

First off, don't automatically assume everyone critical of the progressive politcal agenda is a right-wing youtube-troll. You can read all the Buzzfeed articles you want, I won't hold it against you. Alright, let's hit it!

> the goal of progressive politics is equal opportunity to attain the same economic, societal and political power. The same CV should get the same proportion of callbacks and the same wages no matter what name is on it. Men in power should not be able to rape dozens of women and avoid consequences.

Equal opportunities are mostly the reality. Women in their early twenties out-perform men. Obviously some companies will be cautious hiring women that are about to have babies, but there are discrimination laws for that. I'm aware of the studies that shows discrimination happens in regard to what name you have. This is a problem.
Pay gap is a myth. Rape is a whole other issue.

> Coal mining isn't a position of economic, societal and political power.

I'm not sure if I agree with you that the progressive goal is power-balance. Affirmative action is utilized all over the board, not just for positions of power.

> If you think feminism is too focused on rich white women, read up on intersectional feminism. This is precisely the issue that concept addresses.

I'm aware of it. I haven't seen that it is changing the dynamics much. Isn't it basically feminism for black women?

> Your view of gender studies come from e. g. YouTube videos and cherry-picked list articles. It is a distorted view. If I had done the same by portraying biomedical research as homeopathy and reiki (there are hundreds of such shitty "studies"), you would surely have explained how skewed such a view was. I suggest reading more empirical sociology research instead. I have given some examples so far, but you can start with this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915460/

There is real conflict between the dogmas of feminism aka gender studies and biology-based science. I recommend this book if you're interested.

> Popular culture is not science. Compare any scientific topic you feel comfortable with and then look at how it is portrayed in popular culture. Cancer biology, biotech agriculture, immunology, nutrition etc. are all butchered by pop culture and does not give you a reasonable or evidence-based view of the research field. Thus, you should accept the same conclusion for e. g. gender studies or empirical sociology.

Well you're right about that, but you're missing my point. The "tabula-rasa"-view is the predominant narrative among liberals/progressive whom basically run the whole media

> It isn't the skin color of white people that are the problem. The problem is that, on average, some groups get benefits they do not deserve and some other groups get punishments they do not deserve had we based our conclusions purely on meritocracy. These advantages are not randomly distributed but tend to aggregate among those who already sits on most economic, political and societal power. The punishments tend to aggregate among those who have the least and are already treated the worst.

Interesting to see how you use the words "benefits" and "punishment". It's like there was some invincible moral forces fucking things up. And by the way, asian men are the most paid ethnic group. I guess it's reversed racism making that happen.

> Look at this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on CV studies. Why do you think that the exact same CV gets 36% more callbacks if there is a white-sounding name on it? http://www.pnas.org/content/114/41/10870.full, these facts are not questionable.

Agree. It's a problem. And I've never denied it either.

u/fizzles-out · 1 pointr/martialarts

https://www.amazon.com/Warrior-Mindset-Toughness-Nations-Peacekeepers-ebook/dp/B06XCX2GVY/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=mental+toughness+grossman&qid=1569054155&s=gateway&sr=8-1

Just a disclaimer, i havent finished it myself yet, hell i've barely gotten started. But i went for this one cause grossman was involved. Lt Col Dave Grossman is well known (with high status) for his books On Combat and On Killing.

u/BluCSGO · 1 pointr/slavelabour

Looking for the pdf for this book Foundations of Neural Development, by S. Marc Breedlove

https://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Neural-Development-Marc-Breedlove/dp/1605355798

10$ paypal

u/oneiroplanes · 1 pointr/occult

Read anthropology, if that hasn't been part of your reading already. It's much more useful than a lot of the new age shit out there. Here are three great books about it.

u/Jess_than_three · 1 pointr/TwoXChromosomes

Well, yes, it kinda is. No, not every sex act is about procreation - far from it, in fact. But humanity's sexual urges (and those of other sexual species, as well) are based on procreation. I mean, listen, you tell me: there are, what, multi-billion-dollar industries devoted to allowing women to appear as if they're in their mid-twenties, or as close to that as possible - why, if attractiveness (and especially sexual attractiveness) had nothing to do with reproduction, would that be the case?

And further: If sex wasn't at some level "about" procreation, or if rape wasn't at some level "about" sex, why would we see a vastly disproportionate number of female rape victims being within the most fertile ages? When a large portion of the population is in their 40s, 50s, 60s, etc., why wouldn't women in those age groups make up an equally large portion of female rape victims?

Again, there is a disconnect between sex and reproduction, especially with the advent of birth control. When most people have sex, most of the time, procreation is not the goal, or even something they're thinking about. But the idea that our behaviors - the universal ones, that are ingrained in our species - are not implicitly related to reproductive success is.. well, it's a very silly claim, to be honest.

(To preemptively clarify: I agree wholeheartedly with Thornhill and Palmer, who have somewhat controversially argued that rape is a behavior with roots in our evolutionary history. But before you attack me on that basis, let me be perfectly clear: doing so commits the naturalistic fallacy, attempting to derive an ought from an is - or rather, implying that an "ought" statement that is objectionable follows from the "is" statement that I am making. Nothing could be further from the truth. To say that something is "natural" is not to say that it is moral, ethical, or acceptable. Humans are unique in our ability to critically reason about our behaviors and decide for ourselves whether or not to accept the behaviors that natural selection has endowed us with.)

u/jssumm · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

There is a growing literature on the topic, so you could start by looking at journals (Philosophical Psychology, Mind and Language, and Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology are three you might want to look at). There's also [this collection] (http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Psychology-Contemporary-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0415275954). I also like this book, which is a fairly accessible intro text but not a textbook.

u/iLEZ · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Read this book!

Right Hand Left Hand by Chris McManus.

u/rodmclaughlin · 1 pointr/unitedkingdom

Here's a book which disagrees with this hypothesis:

https://www.amazon.com/Natural-History-Rape-Biological-Coercion/dp/0262700832

And another which claims that the feminist approach has actually hindered police investigations:

https://www.amazon.com/Galileos-Middle-Finger-Heretics-Activists/dp/0143108115/

I don't know enough to say which view is correct.

u/CRUZDIDNOTHINGWRONG · 1 pointr/Braincels

https://www.amazon.com/Natural-History-Rape-Biological-Coercion/dp/0262700832

Your argument was that rape is not natural in mammals with higher order brain functions. You should provide evidence to support your claim. I have provided evidence for my original claim.

u/major-major_major · 1 pointr/AskFeminists

>instinctual drives that are more a set of goals than they are behaviors. We instinctively enjoy sex and want to survive, but the behaviors we engage in to fulfill those goals vary in every which way

That's an apt description. But the behaviors we engage in to fulfill those goals don't vary randomly. Some of them consistently vary with regard to sex. Again you reference "hard coded" behaviors, which is a biological determinist position. No scientists are talking about 'hard coded,' and innate doesn't mean 'hard coded.' You're oversimplifying the issues yourself, and accusing an entire branch of science of not getting it. But the science is aware of the complexities. It's possible for innate proclivities to be enormously complex and still innate; take language, as an obvious example.

As for parental investment theory, you still haven't provided any examples of the many counterexamples that scientists ignore. I'm unaware of them, and I don't think you'll find any. Likewise for certain tendencies that exist across cultures. The countless tribes certainly didn't share all of our social structure, but some social institutions are as far as we know ubiquitous. Some of the behavioral differences between the genders span age groups and cultures.

As far as what the proper arguments are, and how these studies can be attempted... it's really complicated. I can leave a few papers that if you're interested in, will do a much better job of explaining it. I hope it doesn't seem like I'm just dumping an 'educate yourself' link on you, but I think these papers are representative, and I honestly think that if you read through them without discounting the possibility that biology has these affects, you'll find that the field is not as insane as it can be portrayed.

[This is a good starting point for an accurate summary of an evopsych theory we discussed](
http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165805.pdf)

The book Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities is a very neutral and comprehensive source on what we know about the differences between men and women

More specifically, on the intersection of feminism and science:

This is an excellent paper, and while it likely represents your position much more than mine, I think it presents a good argument that mirrors some of what we discussed


The book Who's Afraid of Charles Darwin and a critique called "more misuses of evolutionary psychology" unfortunately behind a paywall.

This last one is a very on topic; it is a response to social constructionist critiques of EP and a summary of recent debates.
http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/196924.pdf

u/theduder3210 · -1 pointsr/EARONS

Well, some have pushed for a “left-hander’s syndrome” condition to explain away things over the last few decades.

As relating to this particular case, if the “homework” that was found in Danville is in fact J. J.’s, then he claims that the rage in his heart first began because his sixth grade teacher forced him to write lines over and over as a form of punishment—something particularly painful for left-handers to do due to the way that they write. In short, being raised in a harsh right-hander’s world oppressed him so much that he eventually was driven to murder.

u/jlevy1126 · -3 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

I disagree. I think that this interpretation is a case of presentism. Slavery was not always wrong, in fact some people saw setting slaves free immoral and not having slaves at all was an affront to the proper way of life. Even more extreme rape, humanities development and survival was at one time (I can't find the right word here) "dependent" on rape.

I do agree slavery and rape are wrong but only because of the Moral context of the era and society I am apart of. Were I a prehistoric human neither would strike me as morally wrong but perhaps not going on a hunt with the other men would be. I am not an professional anthropologist so forgive the poor example just think off the top of my head.