New research in the journal Evolutionary Human Sciences, from University of Kent researchers Louis Bachaud and Sarah Johns, explores how members of various manosphere communities (think Andrew Tate and his ilk) misuse research and concepts from evolutionary psychology to bolster their own misogynistic views.
lol and I’m here trying to imagine how there could ever be a valid context for that.
This is only one example, but a lot of people are interested in studying top performers like Olympians etc. and what things are different about them. In studies like those, genes are relevant, as are performance results.
I see what you mean and I’m not trying to stir shit, but that’s not superior genes those are specialized genetic traits. Superior is such a loaded word, why even use it in an academic sense when there are plenty of near synonyms that don’t have that eugenics baggage?
Because they are likely talking in context of that one activity, and it is indeed accurate to describe certain people as genetically superior in that context. Not everyone thinks about every implication of every word choice and which effect that would have on the larger society.
I’d bet most people can probably think of three words for superior. If you’re in the same field that shares some unfortunate history with eugenics then it’s definitely better to be a little more intentional with specifically words like that. I’m just surprised that’s still vernacular in genetics research still is all I’m saying.
Exactly, michael Phelps is genetically superior by dolphin standards, but for the standards of calorie limited pursuit predators with high plant consumption relying on high intelligence and social skills on land, meh he’s not impressing me.
I don’t understand your point.
Certain things that may be considered “genetically superior” in contexts of extreme outliers, especially of athletics are more optimization for certain tasks and can contain drawbacks for other tasks that our species actually evolved for.