On the Evolutionary Psychology mailing list, dangerous ideas thrive

[Rudolf P. Gaudio]

First:  I'm sorry to everyone on this list that I ever bothered to engage
this particular thread & thereby contributed to cluttering your mailboxes.
I think I'll go back to lurking.  Before I do, however, I'd like to clarify
my "analysis" of the exchange that has taken place here.

I have not read the Andrew Brown article suggested to us by Ian Pitchford.
I never intended, nor do I wish, to comment on it or on the more general
field of evolutionary psychology.

What did motivate me to enter this fray was (1) the coolly supercilious
comments directed at my friend John Clark because of his (in my opinion)
reasonably snide reaction to (2) the blatantly racist rhetoric used to
attract participants to the Evolutionary Psychology mailing list (to wit,
"Are blacks genetically programmed for promiscuity?").  This ostensibly
tongue-in-cheek mode of marketing is not only juvenile (recalling the
posters used in my high school by candidates for Student Council--"SEX!  Now
that I've got your attention..."), but hurtful to anyone who has ever had to
struggle against such dehumanizing stereotypes.  The use of such stereotypes
to advertise a mailing list, or the field of evolutionary psychology
generally, does not reflect well on those would promote either one.

As a linguistic anthropologist and an antiracist, I applaud John Clark for
criticizing the use of such rhetoric by (alas) our fellow academics.  That
was my intent from the outset; I'm sorry I was unable to convey that in my
earlier posting.

Rudi Gaudio

on 9/6/00 5:54 PM, Larry Gorbet at lgorbet at unm.edu wrote:

> Rudolf Gaudio <gaudio at u.arizona.edu>
>
>> I clicked the link on Dr. Pitchford's earlier e-mail and ended up on a page
>> that provides wonderful data for discourse analysts interested in
>> advertising and mass-marketing.  The page is devoted to praising not only
>> the Evo-Psych mailing list, but also the efforts of its founder, one Dr.
>> Ian Pitchford.
>
> Fascinating analysis.  Now would someone (perhaps Rudolf) explain to
> me how his category "advertising and mass-marketing" applies to the
> article cited but not to *any* popular press review of academic work
> which turns out to be mostly positive?  Or maybe it only applies if
> such a review is of work which the writer disagrees with?
>
> I did read Andrew Brown's article and found it no more "devoted to
> praising" than many a review in the journals in which many on this
> list publish.
>
> I frankly got the feeling that most of the responses on this list
> have been driven by an aversion to anything positive said about
> evolutionary psychology than to anything at all about the specific
> piece mentioned or about the online list it is about.  If so, I find
> that embarrassing to our profession and to our practice of it.
>
> - Larry