Offset your carbon footprint on Wren: www.wren.co/start/finntasticm The first 100 to sign up will get their first month of the subscription covered by Wren for free!
As a Californian, I just want to shout out that our state was deep into eugenics based forced sterilization of "undesirables" (POC, people with developmental disabilities, people with mental illness, and others) before the Nazis. These sterilizations didn't stop until the late 70s/early 80s. This is a deeply American problem.
Wanted to add also that it's still legal in the U.S. federally and plenty of states still have laws explicitly allowing forced sterilization of the groups you mentioned above.
@@yourlocalnerd7788 Especially with Native or Indigenous Americans in particularly. 🥺😫🙏 The system does not want us US citizens to learn the ways of growing our own food (Monsanto fights the courts over farmers saving seeds), off-grid living, and other lifestyles that make us live outside the system. The leaders of this world want us to be servitude wage slaves. If we ever gained knowledge of true independence, they will find and fine us or arrest us for building off grid like the indigenous people of this world. They want to get rid of them, because they influence people that there is another way to live outside the wage slave system.
The generous way that I notice Americans behave in a crisis is evidence, to me, that nearly everyone is _aching_ to help others. We just need an excuse to do so, because we're so heavily conditioned into a culture that normally has us saying "I got mine, eff you." But when the normal rules don't apply, see how fast Americans jump at the chance to unconditionally commit their resources to helping those in need. If only we could cultivate that attitude when there hasn't just been a massive hurricane or terrorist attack.
Here thanks to F.D Signifier. Awesome video. As someone who considers myself very scientifically-minded and is currently studying biology in college, I've often been... uncomfortable...? with these "scientific takes" from Peterson and the like. I'm a leftist, and recognize the danger of this kind of rhetoric, but that hasn't made me immune to it. Thank you for addressing the topic in the way you did. I'm bad with writing things concisely so I hope this gets across what I want it to lol
Jeremy Rifkin's book "The Empathic Civilization" is interesting, and says a lot about how empathy and cooperation is in human nature, much more than competitiveness
It’s become my life’s mission to spread this message-and that was before I watched this video. Thank you for making me feel WAY less lonely and way more hopeful that, eventually, we’ll get somewhere.
Where I live, teaching has become such a difficult profession that most people don't last more than a couple of years. But despite this, a lot of the teachers and parents I've talked to in the past four years have reported their students becoming increasingly progressive, open-minded, and empathetic. Just like any demographic, there's plenty of toxicity on the left, but I really do feel that Lefttube is helping to shift the narrative to one that is generally more forgiving.
This is some incredible work. Personally I've had an immense amount of skepticism for evo psych because... well let's just say much of what I've seen from the field struck me as heavy on a priori and light on rigor. But it sounds like there are folks doing good work in the field and maybe I should be a little less reflexive towards it.
Your skepticism is well-aimed, for sure. Where I found the most valuable insights about the evolution of the human brain came from (obvi. neuropsych, but also:) anthropology, archaeology, and sociology, so when it comes to looking at evopsych perspectives, I check and see whether those subjects are an accompaniment (especially sociological perspectives.) It can be a really neat subject, but it's *so* easy to patchwork and twist without even realizing.
Many years ago, I used to read some evo phych, and find the most interesting traits, described using the most contrived parable. The story would get picked up by pop-sci writers and reported with an air of certainty.
This is fantastic! I majored in developmental biology, and I'm so happy you used the actual evolutionary knowledge in this video to make you point. I get so sad when transphobes use "basic biology" arguments or all around nutjobs like Peterson use "social Darwinism". I'm more and more impressed by your content!
Goal according to EvoPsych, keep populating the Earth Goal according to climate scepticts, keep using resources in accelerating rates Goal according to narcissists, don't feel remorse or shame JBP fills all categories. Having all the cakes and eating them too.
I'm not an evolutionary psychologist but am an evolutionary geneticist, and looking at evolution overall; mammals have a whole lot of "Eh good enough". Not everything has a perfect explanation, sometimes it's just that we have a tailbone because it's not stopping people from having babies. Mammals often have comparatively low population numbers and low evolutionary pressure. Like, billions of yeasts in a flask have a lot more pressure to gain even the smallest genetic advantage. That's just not the case for mammals.
If you've ever participated in a worthy cause that was very daunting- whether as an employee, volunteer, or even just for the sake of a loved one- you might be familiar with the "Starfish Thrower" story, the moral of which boils down to "You don't have to save everyone to have saved someone". What not a lot of people don't know is that the original essay that this story was based on, written in the 60s by anthropoligist/historian/philosopher Loren Eiseley, paints a slightly different picture. While the book that included this essay was, for the most part, a somber and fairly bleak outlook on the nature of life, death, and humanity, this story was slightly more hopeful. In it, the protagonist comes upon a man throwing live starfish, who have washed ashore, back into the ocean. The protagonist does not help him and continues on his way, conceding that "death is the final collector". But after reflecting a little at home, he returns to where the starthrower labors and says "I understand. Call me another thrower", and starts throwing starfish as well. Even when cognizant a world that so often pits helpless souls against immense odds; even knowing that the there were hundreds of starfish on that beach who could not be thrown; even perhaps knowing then that starfish have no brain; the mere urge to assist other creatures who are struggling is an innate, human characteristic. To deny our empathy is to deny our humanity.
Holy fuckkkkk i needed a comprehensive analysis of why it's not "natural" for things to be as they are. Everytime Jordan says that i have a brain aneurysm. You are doing gods work
You deserve a medal, Finn! This video's Leftist thought at its finest: the arguments are presented VERY clearly and carefully, always emphasizing the complexities of the situation and the contingency of human behavior, but never giving up on hope and empathy. I'll try to use it as a source of inspiration whenever I critique something, which basically means all the time, bc I'm a History undergrad, so critiquing historical sources is gonna be my literal job a few years from now.
This was really thought provoking. I don't think I'd ever really considered whether cooperation or competition was the dominant human strategy. But really the answer is obvious, because even our competition is done through and for the purpose of cooperation. We don't fight alone, and we don't fight for ourselves alone. Obviously that doesn't mean all fighting parties are equally cooperative, but even the most insular of parties have to cooperate on some level to survive.
If one really believed that there's a single general measure of intelligence, that ability to think is genetically determined and not greatly affected by environmental factors, and that the people with it will reliably rise to the tops of hierarchies - then one would be much more likely to figure that, if one is apparently at the top (tenured professor, famous, celebrated, etc.) then one is fully able to opine outside one's own specific professional experience and training since one clearly has the brains and whatever one's picked up and kept from contact with other fields (evo psych, neuroscience, philosophy) must be true, well-understood and relevant.
If you have not read it, Rutger Bregman’s book, Human Kind, goes into a lot of historical, psychological, philosophical, and evolutionarily biological explanations of why we are programs to cooperate rather than compete, and only compete when we are faced with the idea of an external force, a wolf at the door, so to speak. Good video, thank you!
Great job and thank you for taking special care when it came to the issue of disability, really show that you did your research and listened to disabled people
this video is very nuanced and well thought out~ i appreciate this perspective more than you can know! your message of hope at the end was incredibly uplifting as well, thank you for a great video! i’ll be subbing and checking out more of your stuff!
I also came from F.D. signifier and am very interested to hear your take son evo psych, coming from the field of evo + behavioural bio myself and having a private interest in psychology. Excited for this one!
This video is one of the few that truly stimulates my own oxytocin production, thank you for making it. On a sidenote, just to be a little petty I want to clarify that not all those who didn't agreed with covid measures disagreed out of that "survival of the fittest" mindset.. quite the opposite in fact considering the real and huge (and yet fully underestimated) negative impact that those had on the most marginalised populations and on general health. Anyways, precious video, thank you.
I certainly saw those concerns being raised, but so often they seemed to be voiced by people speaking about the vulnerable and rarely speaking as the vulnerable. (Or at least: with a prior history of advocating for a specific vulnerable group that predates it's convenient intersection with an external self interest.) My personal experience is not a good substitute for statistical sampling here, and I welcome any examples you have that would expand my working data set.
@@mxpants4884 There sure is a good amount of statistical sampling into the part of literature that remains uncensored and regardless the neat economic advantages of that part of literature that did its best or employed the right kind of scientists (with the right kind of perceptive assets) to disprove the argument. I'm not researching it by now nor I have an impressive mind when it comes to remembering full articles names and copyrights, still, it is not going to be too difficult to find good datas (cross language searching might help a lot). Besides finding good datas, statistical sampling alone might well leave you blind to the qualitative aspect of the discourse, especially when assessing what defines "vulnerable" on a 360° view and not just by applying the term to a specific parameter, still, if you work with data you are probably already aware of it, to an extent at least. About "predatorial personal interests", that do not necessarily invalidates the argument nor the effectiveness of the positive social impact that discussing it provides (if you get help and those who help you help themselves through helping you, that's still help, actually, that's a much more healthy and effective form of help compared to the "self sacrifice" kind of help). About what you've never seen, I'll say a banality that is "just cause you've never seen it, it doesn't means that it doesn't exist". If you were to assess my own "predatorial personal interest" in making the argument, you'd indeed be left quite deceived.
@@mxpants4884 on a sidenote, maybe I'm misinterpreting the meaning of the sentence in your parenthesis (it would be nice if you could please reformulate) i'm not catching if the subject of predatory behavior is the group itself or the advocate and I'm not sure I am grasping what you mean by "external self interest". Moreover I don't understand if you are referring to a particular case or if it's generic. Thanks in advance in case you'll take the boredom to re-explain.
This is a really great example of why you can't look at basically any science in complete isolation - from other sciences, from the current state of that science compared with the past, etc. - and be wholly "right."
I've been listening to JBP since maybe 2017, from a social democrat's perspective. And it took me a long time to figure out where our core values differed. To pinpoint the crux. And it was the Vice interview about the men-women workplace dilemma and the lipstick part that opened the box (the second time I listened to it a few years ago.) And that's how I got into the EvoPsych is astrology for men arc. How have this video not been suggested to me earlier, is maybe my question. Great work!
Excellent video 🤠 I've seen a few others about JP, but they didn't talk so much about the evopysch and competition Vs cooperation aspects. Apparently there's starting to be some discussion about the importance of cooperation for the business world. However whether it will hold is something else. It's disturbing that when it comes to our understanding of our own nature, we are increasingly brainwashed into turning to business for answers. Well, turning to it to explain everything.
I found you through your James Somerton video, so looks like he did do something for queer creators after all. :') I just wanted to say, I love your videos so far. You have such a pleasant voice and tone and your points are laid out so clearly and compassionately that it's like I'm learning something and getting a gentle motivational speech at the same time. Thank you for sharing!
hey, evolutionary biologist here, great video! the only note I have is that the sickle-cell anemia thing is only beneficial when the individual has that mutation in 1 copy out of 2, which is a classic example of overdominance - a case where being a heterozygote (having 2 different alleles at the same locus) is better than having 2 dominant or 2 recessive copies of that gene. also, some of the stuff you mention is in my disability and capitalism video, so yeah, double approval!
Wren helps to reify the idea that climate change will be fixed through passive consumerism, which it won’t. It also works to normalize the myth of the carbon footprint which is oil industry outsourcing of responsibility. I urge anyone who actually cares about this issue to ask themselves whether Wren exists to help the problem so much as exploit genuine concern for (some) end.
They protect old growth, pay local farmers for tree planting, supply refugees with sustainable and low emission cooking alternatives, fund policy groups (so yes, going after the big polluters), and remain transparent with their use of subscriber money. I have personally felt motivated and learned how to better help through their organization. I do not accept sponsorships without first doing my research.
@@FinntasticMrFox you have fundamentally misunderstood the issue. Nothing about what wren does is going to fix the problem and everything about what it does will work to sustain it. It is a neoliberal bait and switch. Check any major oil company’s “sustainability” websites and you’ll find similar propaganda. Note that you haven’t actually countered a single point I made against it, simply offered marketing key points. This would indicate an ideological need to defend rather than engage; I don’t blame you since you’re now on their payroll, it’s rather hard to backtrack.
I was sure to take breaks as needed; it's weird engaging with his content because he's not always horrendously wrong--sometimes he even says great stuff. He's just so overwhelmingly, harmfully wrong when he is (which is most of the time) that it crushes any good points he has.
The core concept of evolutionary psychology isn’t a mere possibility, it is undeniably true - that some aspects of our psychology is shaped by evolution, or to be specific by natural selection. Evolutionary psychology as a current scientific field is something else, filled with small samples, publication bias, data manipulation and all other problems that are present within softer fields.
Loving this video so far! You've hit on a bunch of the points I mentioned in the Fatphobia and Evolution videos, and your clear explanations are great as always.
only about 12 minutes in-- but hysteria as a dx is still very much alive and well in western US medicine. They just call it different things, but the concept is still weaponized.
Good hierarchies require 2 things: empathy and respect. (And I guess the minimum levels need for the hierarchy to be useful to all those involved.) If everyone respects and empathize with each other, I see very few circumstances where the hierarchy would be unjust.
"The joke is that neither of us are evolutionary biologists." 👌😆 " . . . but you're also biased by your proximity to, you know, yourself." LOL, never heard it phrased that way, and, as always, your presentation makes me want to explore the idea instead of discount it. 🥰👍
I'm a therapist and in a few months I'm starting my PhD in clinical psychology so in a few years, all being well, I'll have the same level of education as Peterson. Of course, I'm a gay enby who presents femme so I won't even come close to gaining the level of blind trust that he's been able to court from people that seem to think (in his case) being a clinical psychologist makes you a magical superbeing of rationality and correctitude. Anyway, I plan on making it my life's work to be the anti-peterson. He's taught me an awful lot about the mistakes you can make when you become arrogantly certain in your own beliefs. Sadly, I don't think I'll have as much success as a grifter as him. No one is gonna pay me that much to tell them comforting lies that the world is all ok and we can all make it if we just fix ourselves.
Thank you 🙏🏼 amazing work 🙏🏼 It would be great if you could draw attention to the recent events in Iran 🥺🙏🏼 they really need all the support they can get
I think so! DogMartyr edited the video together, and has access to stock footage. I'm not sure if it's a separate subscription or comes with the software, though.
There are behaviors linked to evolution and survival of the fittest that are probably hardwired in the human brain. However our potential for problem solving, creation, and destruction points toward no longer having a driving need for certain more survivalist behavior. We could choose to share and share a like across the planet instead of competing for resources. On the flip side, Darwin did have an example of an island animal inhabitant who in the absence of other species to be a threat to them, became apex predator to their own species. Perhaps this is our date too and why there are those in power seeking dominion over communion. Again though we have the ability to choose not to prey upon each other which makes this theory fall apart.
I want to start off by saying I love your videos. They're great. But I had to comment because I think you can take it. Evo psych is regularly being explained incorrectly, and I assume it's to make a point about Peterson and them. I'm a massive Peterson hater and have made vids as well, but evo psych is much more than researching apes. If you want me to connect you with any evo psychologists, let me know so they can better explain how they do this research. For example, they study tribes who live without technology and influence from the outside world, so they're able to test hypothesis and update them. Anywho, I know you're good people, but I've seen munecat explain it like this as well, and it's just leaving a lot out and kind of discrediting a whole field that does some super important work outside of the toxic masculine nonsense.
At no point in the video is evo psych described as “researching apes”… in fact, the brief mention of primatology ends by covering the inherent differentiation between modern humans and modern chimpanzees (not apes). That’s it. Why interject one’s own involvement with vague offerings of professional connections, if not to service an unrelenting inner desire for attention and presumed intellectual authority?
I appreciate it! I think there might be a misunderstanding here, though, and I'll certainly own my end of it for not being more clear; I don't think evolutionary psychology is just ape studies--in fact, I took evolutionary psychology in uni, which is part of why I wanted to talk about it. There were things I found fascinating, but a *lot* of... well. Ethnocentric bunk. It's a subject that makes it incredibly easy for cultural and individual bias to come through (the prof who taught it was lovely, for the record. It wasn't him so much as it was the source material.) It's been some years since I studied it, and psychology in general tends to change quickly as we learn more. I do make a point of saying that I know not every evolutionary psychologist is like this, and that a lot of them are doing very important work. I also give an example of a helpful evopsych explanation (panic responses.) But if you just google "Evolutionary Psychologist" nearly every single major name who comes up is a TERF, an aggro conservative, or both, not to mention overwhelmingly white. This is a problem in a lot of fields, but evolutionary psychology is one that is easy to muddy into pop psychology to suit an agenda, which is why I've discussed it this way here. Ultimately, my own argument here *is* evolutionary psychology.
@@FinntasticMrFox thanks for taking the time to reply. I definitely think you did an excellent job throughout the video telling people that you're not trying to say the whole field of evo psych/biology is bad. And I'm 100% on board with the fact that there are many bad things people do with this type of research. It's one of my main concerns as well. I've watched these manosphere people twist so many things, and it bums me out. I guess my main concern is that the average viewer sees this and thinks "oh. evo psych is just guess work", and then the viewer disregards the whole field. There are quite a few evo psych researchers doing good, ethical work. Albeit, as you said, they're often white dudes lol. But, some of them are doing good work and just having their work butchered like the guy you mentioned how did the wolf study. I think a book you'd like is Moral Tribes by Joshua Greene. I think one of the people they butcher the most is David Buss, but he also doesn't do himself favors by being used by them and doing interviews when they twist his work. His latest book Why Men Behave Badly does basically what you said in this book. That even if we evolved a certain way, that doesn't mean we don't have the power to change. Anywho, I could talk about this stuff all day lol. If you want some more books to check out, let me know
@@TheRewiredSoul Oh god, the manosphere butchery of evolutionary psychology is some truly next level stuff. It's twisted into something that just justifies what they want to believe, and they believe their own crap. And I definitely see your concern on that one, I'm not averse to revisiting the topic with greater clarity (I'm gonna add a clarification point to the description, too.) Book recommendations help a whole lot with that, so thank you for those! I've added them to the list and am excited to read them. Not sure what I would do without my Kindle at this point in my life.
JP only uses 1920s science! That's why he never gets on a commercial jet engine plane, drives a car faster than 20mph, or takes OTC or prescription medicine developed in the last 100 years.
hi! arriving from fthealgorithm! i think i'll be sharing your videos with people, but just wanted to share that what you're saying from 6:28 is very confidently stated, but totally wrong, or at least not at all supported by contemporary science, for principled reasons. it got my laser attention (writing this before having watched the rest of the video after this brief section), because i am a philosophy of mind / philosophy of science student. there is no neuroscientific explanation of consciousness - or any 'mental event', because there's a principled distinction between qualitative and quantitative. the distinction exists because physical substance is postulated to differ from mentality precisely in that it is thought to be strictly non-qualitative, and exhaustively quantitative. there is no empirical evidence, nor firm theoretical reasons to suppose that consciousness emerges from electrochemical actions in the brain, which are 'real patterns' that we may construct and recognize as a certain set of structural regularities in experience, and manipulate them as bookkeeping devices, but they're not fundamental. similarly, living biological systems are 'bookkeeping devices' for us, concepts that we - conscious observers, hold, by cognitively relating regularities observed in conscious experience. the concept of biology presupposes conscious observers. if you subscribe to physicalism, there is nothing qualitative in physical descriptions, which is strictly all there is, according to physicalism; some sort of 'mind-independent existent' (no consensus in literature, the idea is very incoherent) which is exhaustively and exclusively describable by a bunch of numbers. if you say that qualities emerge from a purely quantitative world, then you are appealing to what we know as 'magic' via 'emergence', and you are here totally unsupported by contemporary physics. it's entirely speculative and without an iota of empirical or theoretical evidence to say that any conscious experience was an evolutionary adaptation for any organism. it's totally unnecessary for survival and propagation. you can confirm this with any expert of any branch of evolutionary theory. biological 'robots' going on about their thing, surviving, reproducing, all this happening 'in the black' would be far more efficient and smooth than living systems with conscious experience. it's very confusing if one believes the non-scientific a-priori assumption that only mind-independent 'matter' exists - this is physicalism, which has varying versions, unsurprisingly lacking a consensus in the literature. it's pulling the territory out of the map. it's confusing, because it's incoherent, because you're trying to explain the only given - consciousness, by arguing that actually, it is not given, while an unobservable mentally constructed fiction is the only given, and consciousness emerges, or 'supervenes' on this transcendental 'matter', or isn't actually real... anyway, lovely channel, thanks for sharing! i have a hunch that consciousness is truly at the center of everything that's important to us, and i think that it's worth doing a silly little myth-busting, assumption-shaking.
I appreciate you being here! I think you may have put a personal-expertise/interest lens on what I said, though. I said *feelings,* not consciousness, and I did that on purpose. My area of study was neuroscience, and we were concerned with cognitive function, memory, and emotional experiences. Emotions in particular are complicated, but very much related to neural pathways and neurotransmitters, which is what I was talking about, and specifically to touch on an example of a “complicated answer” without necessarily digging into the nuances and complexities of that answer. It was just an example of one human experience and how complicated its basis is, not an argument about the nature or origin of consciousness.
@@FinntasticMrFox thanks for answering! yes, but emotions are experiential, and there are no neuroscientific explanations for any experientiality whatsoever, only varying types of correlation (of varying reliability). it's certainly a lively area of research, but the ontological principles behind neuroscientific theories of any type of experientiality are mostly arising from folk-ontologies, intuited from the medium-scale world, incompatible with contemporary physics. unfortunately many scientists don't learn, or regard as helpful, philosophy of science, but in the case of mainstream views of physicalism, it's a particularly strongly held view, having its power mostly due to its historical usefulness in challenging supernatural thinking, but also connected to this day, to feeling 'in control', as it's a great idea if you want to be assured that 'ultimately' everything is determined and non-ambiguous and concretely identifiable. again, physics appears to not support this at all, like, the standard model as we understand it through the framework of quantum field theory is so absurdly abstract and unlike physicalist substance theories... neuroscience is so awesome though, i almost began a MSc in it haha, it was one of my favourite subjects to study before university. *oh and yes, the correlations between experientiality and what we call 'bodies' are undeniable and very very robust and reliable. there's just no causal explanation at all, and there won't be without an as-of-now unimagined/unimaginable revolutionary shift in our understanding of physics or biology or consciousness. ** and i appreciate the nod towards complexity, but again the unsupported part is saying that it's the "basis" of experience. it appears very strongly that it's a necessary, but insufficient part. it's an extremely tricky topic.
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA Finals D1 | Fall | ยิงต้องโหด ให้เหมือนโกรธกันมาก่อน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OnTdfGySmds/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Re:all TREASURE] EP.6 in 방콕ㅣ🚩 쩡캠의 방콕 투어 빵 마이 와이 👍](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uyFw-nItA_s/mqdefault.jpg)
![Megan Thee Stallion - Neva Play (feat. RM) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TpYTyAaTRts/mqdefault.jpg)
Offset your carbon footprint on Wren: www.wren.co/start/finntasticm The first 100 to sign up will get their first month of the subscription covered by Wren for free!
As a Californian, I just want to shout out that our state was deep into eugenics based forced sterilization of "undesirables" (POC, people with developmental disabilities, people with mental illness, and others) before the Nazis. These sterilizations didn't stop until the late 70s/early 80s. This is a deeply American problem.
Not just before the nazis, American eugenicists directly collaborated with and funded them. We even used gas chambers first in 1921.
Wanted to add also that it's still legal in the U.S. federally and plenty of states still have laws explicitly allowing forced sterilization of the groups you mentioned above.
@@yourlocalnerd7788 Especially with Native or Indigenous Americans in particularly. 🥺😫🙏 The system does not want us US citizens to learn the ways of growing our own food (Monsanto fights the courts over farmers saving seeds), off-grid living, and other lifestyles that make us live outside the system. The leaders of this world want us to be servitude wage slaves. If we ever gained knowledge of true independence, they will find and fine us or arrest us for building off grid like the indigenous people of this world. They want to get rid of them, because they influence people that there is another way to live outside the wage slave system.
The generous way that I notice Americans behave in a crisis is evidence, to me, that nearly everyone is _aching_ to help others. We just need an excuse to do so, because we're so heavily conditioned into a culture that normally has us saying "I got mine, eff you." But when the normal rules don't apply, see how fast Americans jump at the chance to unconditionally commit their resources to helping those in need. If only we could cultivate that attitude when there hasn't just been a massive hurricane or terrorist attack.
Here thanks to F.D Signifier. Awesome video. As someone who considers myself very scientifically-minded and is currently studying biology in college, I've often been... uncomfortable...? with these "scientific takes" from Peterson and the like. I'm a leftist, and recognize the danger of this kind of rhetoric, but that hasn't made me immune to it. Thank you for addressing the topic in the way you did. I'm bad with writing things concisely so I hope this gets across what I want it to lol
Peterson the biologist indeed
Jeremy Rifkin's book "The Empathic Civilization" is interesting, and says a lot about how empathy and cooperation is in human nature, much more than competitiveness
It’s become my life’s mission to spread this message-and that was before I watched this video. Thank you for making me feel WAY less lonely and way more hopeful that, eventually, we’ll get somewhere.
Where I live, teaching has become such a difficult profession that most people don't last more than a couple of years. But despite this, a lot of the teachers and parents I've talked to in the past four years have reported their students becoming increasingly progressive, open-minded, and empathetic. Just like any demographic, there's plenty of toxicity on the left, but I really do feel that Lefttube is helping to shift the narrative to one that is generally more forgiving.
This is some incredible work. Personally I've had an immense amount of skepticism for evo psych because... well let's just say much of what I've seen from the field struck me as heavy on a priori and light on rigor. But it sounds like there are folks doing good work in the field and maybe I should be a little less reflexive towards it.
Your skepticism is well-aimed, for sure. Where I found the most valuable insights about the evolution of the human brain came from (obvi. neuropsych, but also:) anthropology, archaeology, and sociology, so when it comes to looking at evopsych perspectives, I check and see whether those subjects are an accompaniment (especially sociological perspectives.) It can be a really neat subject, but it's *so* easy to patchwork and twist without even realizing.
I think the study has a bad wrap because it can sound a bit dehumanizing. Nobody likes to feel like they're on a petri dish
Many years ago, I used to read some evo phych, and find the most interesting traits, described using the most contrived parable. The story would get picked up by pop-sci writers and reported with an air of certainty.
@@nubiancaynes2128 I think even worse, having to hear that they aren't as righteous or enlightened as they think.
This is fantastic! I majored in developmental biology, and I'm so happy you used the actual evolutionary knowledge in this video to make you point. I get so sad when transphobes use "basic biology" arguments or all around nutjobs like Peterson use "social Darwinism". I'm more and more impressed by your content!
🤣🤣🤣
Goal according to EvoPsych, keep populating the Earth
Goal according to climate scepticts, keep using resources in accelerating rates
Goal according to narcissists, don't feel remorse or shame
JBP fills all categories. Having all the cakes and eating them too.
I'm not an evolutionary psychologist but am an evolutionary geneticist, and looking at evolution overall; mammals have a whole lot of "Eh good enough". Not everything has a perfect explanation, sometimes it's just that we have a tailbone because it's not stopping people from having babies.
Mammals often have comparatively low population numbers and low evolutionary pressure. Like, billions of yeasts in a flask have a lot more pressure to gain even the smallest genetic advantage. That's just not the case for mammals.
Loving this thumbnail, my guy 😮💨
Thank you! I took your advice. 😌
If you've ever participated in a worthy cause that was very daunting- whether as an employee, volunteer, or even just for the sake of a loved one- you might be familiar with the "Starfish Thrower" story, the moral of which boils down to "You don't have to save everyone to have saved someone".
What not a lot of people don't know is that the original essay that this story was based on, written in the 60s by anthropoligist/historian/philosopher Loren Eiseley, paints a slightly different picture. While the book that included this essay was, for the most part, a somber and fairly bleak outlook on the nature of life, death, and humanity, this story was slightly more hopeful.
In it, the protagonist comes upon a man throwing live starfish, who have washed ashore, back into the ocean. The protagonist does not help him and continues on his way, conceding that "death is the final collector". But after reflecting a little at home, he returns to where the starthrower labors and says "I understand. Call me another thrower", and starts throwing starfish as well.
Even when cognizant a world that so often pits helpless souls against immense odds; even knowing that the there were hundreds of starfish on that beach who could not be thrown; even perhaps knowing then that starfish have no brain; the mere urge to assist other creatures who are struggling is an innate, human characteristic.
To deny our empathy is to deny our humanity.
Holy fuckkkkk i needed a comprehensive analysis of why it's not "natural" for things to be as they are. Everytime Jordan says that i have a brain aneurysm. You are doing gods work
Excellent angle to approach all of this from. Gently presented. Irresistable arguments. Great company.
Thanks so much!
Maybe this wasn't an intended effect but the meme of mispronouncing his name in different ways each time really helped my adhd focus on the video c:
It was not intentional, but I love that it happened.
Same lol.
your voice is so soothing and nice
Thank you! 💙
came over from fd signifier post and was very pleasantly surprised by the video, thanks for taking the time to make it.
And thank you for taking the time to watch it. 💙
I'm flashing back to a great class I took in college, Social Relativism... and a book called Man Is The Measure 💚
Sounds like one I need to add to the list!
24:05 ok I was trying not to laugh but "jeepers peeperson" made me burst out, lmao
You deserve a medal, Finn! This video's Leftist thought at its finest: the arguments are presented VERY clearly and carefully, always emphasizing the complexities of the situation and the contingency of human behavior, but never giving up on hope and empathy.
I'll try to use it as a source of inspiration whenever I critique something, which basically means all the time, bc I'm a History undergrad, so critiquing historical sources is gonna be my literal job a few years from now.
This was really thought provoking. I don't think I'd ever really considered whether cooperation or competition was the dominant human strategy. But really the answer is obvious, because even our competition is done through and for the purpose of cooperation. We don't fight alone, and we don't fight for ourselves alone. Obviously that doesn't mean all fighting parties are equally cooperative, but even the most insular of parties have to cooperate on some level to survive.
If one really believed that there's a single general measure of intelligence, that ability to think is genetically determined and not greatly affected by environmental factors, and that the people with it will reliably rise to the tops of hierarchies - then one would be much more likely to figure that, if one is apparently at the top (tenured professor, famous, celebrated, etc.) then one is fully able to opine outside one's own specific professional experience and training since one clearly has the brains and whatever one's picked up and kept from contact with other fields (evo psych, neuroscience, philosophy) must be true, well-understood and relevant.
If you have not read it, Rutger Bregman’s book, Human Kind, goes into a lot of historical, psychological, philosophical, and evolutionarily biological explanations of why we are programs to cooperate rather than compete, and only compete when we are faced with the idea of an external force, a wolf at the door, so to speak. Good video, thank you!
Thank you for the recommendation! I gotta get a copy of that one.
This is so thoughtful and eye opening. The laying out evidence of our instinct to care the way you did was wonderful!
Great job and thank you for taking special care when it came to the issue of disability, really show that you did your research and listened to disabled people
I love your voice, both the literal and the metaphorical one. You make the world a better place and you give me hope for humanity!
Thank you so much!
yes!! my field!! i'm doing my thesis in this! this video is so good; i'm going to show it to everyone i've ever talked to about my stuff.
A beautiful human made this.
Your voice is wonderful with this documentary presentation style 💚
this video is very nuanced and well thought out~ i appreciate this perspective more than you can know! your message of hope at the end was incredibly uplifting as well, thank you for a great video! i’ll be subbing and checking out more of your stuff!
I also came from F.D. signifier and am very interested to hear your take son evo psych, coming from the field of evo + behavioural bio myself and having a private interest in psychology. Excited for this one!
I just discovered your channel. The content is up my alley, and boy, your voice is GORGEOUS!!!
What a well made, well articulated video. Thank you.
Love your calm voice but also love how you prod me to analyse and critique what and how I think and why 🤔
This video is one of the few that truly stimulates my own oxytocin production, thank you for making it.
On a sidenote, just to be a little petty I want to clarify that not all those who didn't agreed with covid measures disagreed out of that "survival of the fittest" mindset.. quite the opposite in fact considering the real and huge (and yet fully underestimated) negative impact that those had on the most marginalised populations and on general health.
Anyways, precious video, thank you.
I certainly saw those concerns being raised, but so often they seemed to be voiced by people speaking about the vulnerable and rarely speaking as the vulnerable. (Or at least: with a prior history of advocating for a specific vulnerable group that predates it's convenient intersection with an external self interest.)
My personal experience is not a good substitute for statistical sampling here, and I welcome any examples you have that would expand my working data set.
@@mxpants4884 There sure is a good amount of statistical sampling into the part of literature that remains uncensored and regardless the neat economic advantages of that part of literature that did its best or employed the right kind of scientists (with the right kind of perceptive assets) to disprove the argument. I'm not researching it by now nor I have an impressive mind when it comes to remembering full articles names and copyrights, still, it is not going to be too difficult to find good datas (cross language searching might help a lot).
Besides finding good datas, statistical sampling alone might well leave you blind to the qualitative aspect of the discourse, especially when assessing what defines "vulnerable" on a 360° view and not just by applying the term to a specific parameter, still, if you work with data you are probably already aware of it, to an extent at least.
About "predatorial personal interests", that do not necessarily invalidates the argument nor the effectiveness of the positive social impact that discussing it provides (if you get help and those who help you help themselves through helping you, that's still help, actually, that's a much more healthy and effective form of help compared to the "self sacrifice" kind of help).
About what you've never seen, I'll say a banality that is "just cause you've never seen it, it doesn't means that it doesn't exist". If you were to assess my own "predatorial personal interest" in making the argument, you'd indeed be left quite deceived.
@@mxpants4884 on a sidenote, maybe I'm misinterpreting the meaning of the sentence in your parenthesis (it would be nice if you could please reformulate) i'm not catching if the subject of predatory behavior is the group itself or the advocate and I'm not sure I am grasping what you mean by "external self interest". Moreover I don't understand if you are referring to a particular case or if it's generic.
Thanks in advance in case you'll take the boredom to re-explain.
I like the rewording of "fittest" to "best fit"
This is a really great example of why you can't look at basically any science in complete isolation - from other sciences, from the current state of that science compared with the past, etc. - and be wholly "right."
YES! It’s so important to factor other things in.
I've been listening to JBP since maybe 2017, from a social democrat's perspective.
And it took me a long time to figure out where our core values differed. To pinpoint the crux. And it was the Vice interview about the men-women workplace dilemma and the lipstick part that opened the box (the second time I listened to it a few years ago.) And that's how I got into the EvoPsych is astrology for men arc.
How have this video not been suggested to me earlier, is maybe my question.
Great work!
This video was great! So well thought out and explained. I wish I could be this organized when I have to face misinformation.
fantastic video. from now on when i talk about this topic with people, i will refer ppl who may wanna learn more about it to your video
This video is incredible! And incredibly important! Thanks for making it!
Great vid, thanks for making this. Gonna be very useful to share in a bunch of discussions I've seen.
JP’s repeated attacks on Postmodernism make sense when you realize he embodies the exact kind of modernism the movement was created to challenge
Banger comment.
Thank God, at first I thought this was yet another Jordan Peterson video
Instead, top notch Gerbil Porterson critiques. Very well made!
So beautiful and well thought out.
Excellent video 🤠
I've seen a few others about JP, but they didn't talk so much about the evopysch and competition Vs cooperation aspects.
Apparently there's starting to be some discussion about the importance of cooperation for the business world. However whether it will hold is something else.
It's disturbing that when it comes to our understanding of our own nature, we are increasingly brainwashed into turning to business for answers.
Well, turning to it to explain everything.
I've seen and enjoyed a few of your videos, but I'm subscribing because of this one. Excellent work!
Your voice, eyes, and thoughts are very attractive, thank you for sharing them with us ❤
This was such an amazing video!
I'm looking forward to your next one!
@@FinntasticMrFox ❤ Thanks! Its still a bit of a mess rn, but some day soon it will be a video! With Elephants toooo 💜
I found you through your James Somerton video, so looks like he did do something for queer creators after all. :') I just wanted to say, I love your videos so far. You have such a pleasant voice and tone and your points are laid out so clearly and compassionately that it's like I'm learning something and getting a gentle motivational speech at the same time. Thank you for sharing!
hey, evolutionary biologist here, great video! the only note I have is that the sickle-cell anemia thing is only beneficial when the individual has that mutation in 1 copy out of 2, which is a classic example of overdominance - a case where being a heterozygote (having 2 different alleles at the same locus) is better than having 2 dominant or 2 recessive copies of that gene. also, some of the stuff you mention is in my disability and capitalism video, so yeah, double approval!
this is a wonderful, thorough and thoughtful video. and thank you for bringing up MAID and how dangerous it is.
Your narrative style really works with this longer format.
This is beautifully put.
Wonderfully said and well done. Came from fd signifier. Loved this video and I subscribed. Looking forward to more content.
Wren helps to reify the idea that climate change will be fixed through passive consumerism, which it won’t. It also works to normalize the myth of the carbon footprint which is oil industry outsourcing of responsibility. I urge anyone who actually cares about this issue to ask themselves whether Wren exists to help the problem so much as exploit genuine concern for (some) end.
They protect old growth, pay local farmers for tree planting, supply refugees with sustainable and low emission cooking alternatives, fund policy groups (so yes, going after the big polluters), and remain transparent with their use of subscriber money. I have personally felt motivated and learned how to better help through their organization. I do not accept sponsorships without first doing my research.
@@FinntasticMrFox you have fundamentally misunderstood the issue. Nothing about what wren does is going to fix the problem and everything about what it does will work to sustain it. It is a neoliberal bait and switch. Check any major oil company’s “sustainability” websites and you’ll find similar propaganda.
Note that you haven’t actually countered a single point I made against it, simply offered marketing key points. This would indicate an ideological need to defend rather than engage; I don’t blame you since you’re now on their payroll, it’s rather hard to backtrack.
this perspective is so important
Good work man F D sent me
Another animal with a pretty strong tendency toward pro social behavior worth pointing out: our OTHER closest primate relative, the Bonobo.
The vaguely matriarchal omnisexual harem cousins?
I freakin' love bonobos.
I hope you were able to get sufficient aftercare after subjecting yourself to Jordy Pee. 😬 That is some impressive masochism!
I was sure to take breaks as needed; it's weird engaging with his content because he's not always horrendously wrong--sometimes he even says great stuff. He's just so overwhelmingly, harmfully wrong when he is (which is most of the time) that it crushes any good points he has.
The core concept of evolutionary psychology isn’t a mere possibility, it is undeniably true - that some aspects of our psychology is shaped by evolution, or to be specific by natural selection.
Evolutionary psychology as a current scientific field is something else, filled with small samples, publication bias, data manipulation and all other problems that are present within softer fields.
Mr. Fiq sent me
Thank you for this excellent video.
"Competition is the law of the jungle, cooperation is the law of society"
Loving this video so far! You've hit on a bunch of the points I mentioned in the Fatphobia and Evolution videos, and your clear explanations are great as always.
Also, shared consciousness has some pretty acknowledgeable bases amongst animals too.. still, this by no means is about agreeing with JP views of it.
15:26 this line gave me chills because the massacre in Uvalde at that school
Did I mentioned how much I appreciate the overall content of this video btw? Have I commented already? lol
I wish we had reliable statistics on how many people die of poverty (of not being able to afford proper healthcare, housing, food, etc.).
only about 12 minutes in-- but hysteria as a dx is still very much alive and well in western US medicine. They just call it different things, but the concept is still weaponized.
Hystrionic Personality Disorder for example 🙃
This is very, very true. The misogyny in Western medicine is rampant.
Don’t look at me, just giving my sacrificial offering.
I recommend my Praxis And Utopian Futures playlist
In your cooperation argument you forgot the one thing that makes the phenomenon work and function: Consent.
Dropping a pre watch love comment!
Thank you, my friend!
Good hierarchies require 2 things: empathy and respect. (And I guess the minimum levels need for the hierarchy to be useful to all those involved.) If everyone respects and empathize with each other, I see very few circumstances where the hierarchy would be unjust.
Ooo, a new addition to the Lobster Daddy Is Garbage playlist perhaps?
Evolutionary psych and bio are interesting when they are based on actual science and not assumptions.
"The joke is that neither of us are evolutionary biologists." 👌😆
" . . . but you're also biased by your proximity to, you know, yourself." LOL, never heard it phrased that way, and, as always, your presentation makes me want to explore the idea instead of discount it. 🥰👍
Wonderful content. The choir appreciates your preaching.
I'm a therapist and in a few months I'm starting my PhD in clinical psychology so in a few years, all being well, I'll have the same level of education as Peterson. Of course, I'm a gay enby who presents femme so I won't even come close to gaining the level of blind trust that he's been able to court from people that seem to think (in his case) being a clinical psychologist makes you a magical superbeing of rationality and correctitude. Anyway, I plan on making it my life's work to be the anti-peterson. He's taught me an awful lot about the mistakes you can make when you become arrogantly certain in your own beliefs. Sadly, I don't think I'll have as much success as a grifter as him. No one is gonna pay me that much to tell them comforting lies that the world is all ok and we can all make it if we just fix ourselves.
on the sponsor; BP popularized the idea of a carbon footprint. individuals don't have a very big carbon impact compared to companies
“Jordan Pronounson” XD
Be sure to watch last week tonight's segment about carbon off sets
Thank you 🙏🏼 amazing work 🙏🏼
It would be great if you could draw attention to the recent events in Iran 🥺🙏🏼 they really need all the support they can get
I’m really enjoying your channel. Also, 42:18 black is in mate.
Very well done.
Can I ask ... where do all these video clips come from? Is there clipart collections for video?
I think so! DogMartyr edited the video together, and has access to stock footage. I'm not sure if it's a separate subscription or comes with the software, though.
I am here to Hype!
31:30 that sounds like a you problem Jordan.
Packed full of wonderful information! I would read a little bit slower.
F.D Signifier sent me.
Thank you for this video. ❤
There are behaviors linked to evolution and survival of the fittest that are probably hardwired in the human brain. However our potential for problem solving, creation, and destruction points toward no longer having a driving need for certain more survivalist behavior. We could choose to share and share a like across the planet instead of competing for resources.
On the flip side, Darwin did have an example of an island animal inhabitant who in the absence of other species to be a threat to them, became apex predator to their own species. Perhaps this is our date too and why there are those in power seeking dominion over communion. Again though we have the ability to choose not to prey upon each other which makes this theory fall apart.
Well, I'm never going to call him anything besides Jeepers Peeperson ever again.
i haven't went out of my way to watch jardon lobsterson but i don't think im a fan, loved the video though might be one of your best?
Thanks, Carman! I think so, too. I already see things I would have done different, but onward and upward. 💙
Gravity always wins
I do have ghosts in my blood tho
I want to start off by saying I love your videos. They're great. But I had to comment because I think you can take it. Evo psych is regularly being explained incorrectly, and I assume it's to make a point about Peterson and them. I'm a massive Peterson hater and have made vids as well, but evo psych is much more than researching apes. If you want me to connect you with any evo psychologists, let me know so they can better explain how they do this research. For example, they study tribes who live without technology and influence from the outside world, so they're able to test hypothesis and update them.
Anywho, I know you're good people, but I've seen munecat explain it like this as well, and it's just leaving a lot out and kind of discrediting a whole field that does some super important work outside of the toxic masculine nonsense.
At no point in the video is evo psych described as “researching apes”… in fact, the brief mention of primatology ends by covering the inherent differentiation between modern humans and modern chimpanzees (not apes). That’s it.
Why interject one’s own involvement with vague offerings of professional connections, if not to service an unrelenting inner desire for attention and presumed intellectual authority?
I appreciate it! I think there might be a misunderstanding here, though, and I'll certainly own my end of it for not being more clear; I don't think evolutionary psychology is just ape studies--in fact, I took evolutionary psychology in uni, which is part of why I wanted to talk about it. There were things I found fascinating, but a *lot* of... well. Ethnocentric bunk. It's a subject that makes it incredibly easy for cultural and individual bias to come through (the prof who taught it was lovely, for the record. It wasn't him so much as it was the source material.)
It's been some years since I studied it, and psychology in general tends to change quickly as we learn more. I do make a point of saying that I know not every evolutionary psychologist is like this, and that a lot of them are doing very important work. I also give an example of a helpful evopsych explanation (panic responses.) But if you just google "Evolutionary Psychologist" nearly every single major name who comes up is a TERF, an aggro conservative, or both, not to mention overwhelmingly white. This is a problem in a lot of fields, but evolutionary psychology is one that is easy to muddy into pop psychology to suit an agenda, which is why I've discussed it this way here.
Ultimately, my own argument here *is* evolutionary psychology.
@@FinntasticMrFox thanks for taking the time to reply. I definitely think you did an excellent job throughout the video telling people that you're not trying to say the whole field of evo psych/biology is bad. And I'm 100% on board with the fact that there are many bad things people do with this type of research. It's one of my main concerns as well. I've watched these manosphere people twist so many things, and it bums me out.
I guess my main concern is that the average viewer sees this and thinks "oh. evo psych is just guess work", and then the viewer disregards the whole field.
There are quite a few evo psych researchers doing good, ethical work. Albeit, as you said, they're often white dudes lol. But, some of them are doing good work and just having their work butchered like the guy you mentioned how did the wolf study. I think a book you'd like is Moral Tribes by Joshua Greene. I think one of the people they butcher the most is David Buss, but he also doesn't do himself favors by being used by them and doing interviews when they twist his work. His latest book Why Men Behave Badly does basically what you said in this book. That even if we evolved a certain way, that doesn't mean we don't have the power to change.
Anywho, I could talk about this stuff all day lol. If you want some more books to check out, let me know
@@TheRewiredSoul Oh god, the manosphere butchery of evolutionary psychology is some truly next level stuff. It's twisted into something that just justifies what they want to believe, and they believe their own crap.
And I definitely see your concern on that one, I'm not averse to revisiting the topic with greater clarity (I'm gonna add a clarification point to the description, too.) Book recommendations help a whole lot with that, so thank you for those! I've added them to the list and am excited to read them. Not sure what I would do without my Kindle at this point in my life.
JP only uses 1920s science! That's why he never gets on a commercial jet engine plane, drives a car faster than 20mph, or takes OTC or prescription medicine developed in the last 100 years.
I'll watch the rest of it later. I might have different thoughts. That ending though. T.T Go algorythm! Promote kindness for once!!
For the Algorithm!
hi! arriving from fthealgorithm! i think i'll be sharing your videos with people, but just wanted to share that what you're saying from 6:28 is very confidently stated, but totally wrong, or at least not at all supported by contemporary science, for principled reasons. it got my laser attention (writing this before having watched the rest of the video after this brief section), because i am a philosophy of mind / philosophy of science student.
there is no neuroscientific explanation of consciousness - or any 'mental event', because there's a principled distinction between qualitative and quantitative. the distinction exists because physical substance is postulated to differ from mentality precisely in that it is thought to be strictly non-qualitative, and exhaustively quantitative. there is no empirical evidence, nor firm theoretical reasons to suppose that consciousness emerges from electrochemical actions in the brain, which are 'real patterns' that we may construct and recognize as a certain set of structural regularities in experience, and manipulate them as bookkeeping devices, but they're not fundamental. similarly, living biological systems are 'bookkeeping devices' for us, concepts that we - conscious observers, hold, by cognitively relating regularities observed in conscious experience. the concept of biology presupposes conscious observers.
if you subscribe to physicalism, there is nothing qualitative in physical descriptions, which is strictly all there is, according to physicalism; some sort of 'mind-independent existent' (no consensus in literature, the idea is very incoherent) which is exhaustively and exclusively describable by a bunch of numbers. if you say that qualities emerge from a purely quantitative world, then you are appealing to what we know as 'magic' via 'emergence', and you are here totally unsupported by contemporary physics.
it's entirely speculative and without an iota of empirical or theoretical evidence to say that any conscious experience was an evolutionary adaptation for any organism. it's totally unnecessary for survival and propagation. you can confirm this with any expert of any branch of evolutionary theory. biological 'robots' going on about their thing, surviving, reproducing, all this happening 'in the black' would be far more efficient and smooth than living systems with conscious experience.
it's very confusing if one believes the non-scientific a-priori assumption that only mind-independent 'matter' exists - this is physicalism, which has varying versions, unsurprisingly lacking a consensus in the literature. it's pulling the territory out of the map. it's confusing, because it's incoherent, because you're trying to explain the only given - consciousness, by arguing that actually, it is not given, while an unobservable mentally constructed fiction is the only given, and consciousness emerges, or 'supervenes' on this transcendental 'matter', or isn't actually real...
anyway, lovely channel, thanks for sharing! i have a hunch that consciousness is truly at the center of everything that's important to us, and i think that it's worth doing a silly little myth-busting, assumption-shaking.
I appreciate you being here! I think you may have put a personal-expertise/interest lens on what I said, though. I said *feelings,* not consciousness, and I did that on purpose. My area of study was neuroscience, and we were concerned with cognitive function, memory, and emotional experiences. Emotions in particular are complicated, but very much related to neural pathways and neurotransmitters, which is what I was talking about, and specifically to touch on an example of a “complicated answer” without necessarily digging into the nuances and complexities of that answer. It was just an example of one human experience and how complicated its basis is, not an argument about the nature or origin of consciousness.
@@FinntasticMrFox thanks for answering!
yes, but emotions are experiential, and there are no neuroscientific explanations for any experientiality whatsoever, only varying types of correlation (of varying reliability).
it's certainly a lively area of research, but the ontological principles behind neuroscientific theories of any type of experientiality are mostly arising from folk-ontologies, intuited from the medium-scale world, incompatible with contemporary physics. unfortunately many scientists don't learn, or regard as helpful, philosophy of science, but in the case of mainstream views of physicalism, it's a particularly strongly held view, having its power mostly due to its historical usefulness in challenging supernatural thinking, but also connected to this day, to feeling 'in control', as it's a great idea if you want to be assured that 'ultimately' everything is determined and non-ambiguous and concretely identifiable. again, physics appears to not support this at all, like, the standard model as we understand it through the framework of quantum field theory is so absurdly abstract and unlike physicalist substance theories...
neuroscience is so awesome though, i almost began a MSc in it haha, it was one of my favourite subjects to study before university.
*oh and yes, the correlations between experientiality and what we call 'bodies' are undeniable and very very robust and reliable. there's just no causal explanation at all, and there won't be without an as-of-now unimagined/unimaginable revolutionary shift in our understanding of physics or biology or consciousness.
** and i appreciate the nod towards complexity, but again the unsupported part is saying that it's the "basis" of experience. it appears very strongly that it's a necessary, but insufficient part. it's an extremely tricky topic.