Jahoclave wrote:For example, because they have existed much longer in human evolutionary history, Africans have more mutations in their genomes than other races. And the mutation loads significantly decrease physical attractiveness
That's evo psych right there. He then continues with more nuanced evo psych from there.
The claim that Africans have a higher mutation load has nothing to do with the human mind, and therefore has nothing to do with evolutionary psychology in particular as opposed to evolutionary biology in general. We might as well say that this article proves that evolutionists are racists. The claim is not supported by any evidence or reason (did white people suddenly lose deleterious mutations when their skin color changed?) and of course the fact that Kanazawa wrote this does not prove that either evolutionary biology or evolutionary psychology is racist.
Jahoclave wrote:He's trying to explain a psychological phenomenon--largely based on cultural standards--and arrives at a biology explanation rooted in evolution to explain them. Evo psych: or, how to say "I'm not a racist/sexist/asshole but," in scientific terms.
Consider two competing hypotheses: (A) human psychological traits are not at all genetically determined and (B) some human psychological traits are at least partially genetically determined. Naturally, very nearly all scientifically-minded, non-religious racists will believe B because they will have beliefs that contradict A. This does not mean that any particular proportion of people who believe B are racists, nor does it mean that B is false.
There may be legitimate criticisms of evolutionary psychology as a field, but many criticisms seem to follow this line of reasoning: "If A is true, various offensive ideas are false. If B is true, various offensive ideas might or might not be false. Therefore, A is true. On top of that, people who believe B must want the offensive ideas to be true." This is unscientific and abhorrently offensive to boot.