I'm not sure that's an accurate representation of Chomsky's position on the totality of EP. And yes, I intentionally used Chomsky's linguistic work to hammer home how far-reaching the implications of wholesale rejections of EP really are. Most are motivated by the blank slate hypothesis so ruthlessly dismantled by Chomsky's pupil, Steven Pinker.

In any case, the "just-so story" critique is ultimately anemic. Even in the instances where it's a potentially accurate criticism, all it does is question whether a trait actually evolved for the hypothesized reasons. It neither negates data, nor that the trait exists, nor that the trait evolved. So it may be appropriate for a philosophy of science style argument, but that line of argumentation is more nuanced and less damning than most people who who recite it every time they want to dismiss EP think it is.

To add to their multi-level ineptitude, "just-so story" critiques are, in themselves, just-so stories in the negative. Hence my previous reference to "just-ain't-so stories".

"…I am actually attracted to women based on their physical features, not their race…"

It would be interesting to see a definition of race that didn't include any reference to physical features.

"I just feel that Occam's razor could be used to slice of the entire "science" of EP without much loss.

This feeling may be greatly aided by some permutation of the following:
1. A misunderstanding of Occam's razor.
2. A misunderstanding of evolutionary psychology.
3. Disregard for truth.

Funny that you respond to his calling EP "just so stories" by citing Chomsky when that's exactly how Chomsky criticized EP.

Since I am actually attracted to women based on their physical features, not their race, and sometimes even *gasp* their personality and interests, I'm trying to figure out if I should consider myself as having some genetic mutation that makes me a random outlier or that my upbringing in a multicultural environment had something to do with it. I just feel that Occam's razor could be used to slice of the entire "science" of EP without much loss.

If what you mean is that you appear unable to enter into an attempt at dispassionate and reasonable discussion without abandoning logic, reason, and political agenda at every possible juncture, then yes, I totally see it.

That you asked "what possible scientific motive could lie behind" {insert anything here} demonstrates perfectly that you're confusing science with politics. The motive of science is truth. You couldn't even make it out of the paragraph without framing the scientific validity of questions in terms of "socio-political advantage".

Because plainly *someone* finds black women attractive, or there wouldn't be a black race anymore.

Fuck this is just tiring. Whatever the question, it's always about probabilities and averages, not some binary system. Tall people are more attractive. "But… but… I know a short guy who has a girlfriend." That's why there's a hoity-toity scientific term for this type of reasoning: anecdotal nonsense.

It'd be nice if ev psych people actually looked into evolution once in a while rather than using hoity-toity scientific language to justify stupid, insulting questions that don't even need asking.

I mean, the black race died out long ago and Africa's empty. 'Cause NO ONE finds black women attractive.

(yes, reducto ad absurdum… but there you go.)

I suppose some of the same people standing up for Kanazawa privately ask one another why so many black women with fifteen kids are on welfare. Wow, someone found those women unattractive FIFTEEN TIMES.

You see what I mean?

Yeah, God forbid anybody ever get pissed off about black women once again being singled out as Least Human Of All Humans.

When I see someone using "PC" as an euphemism for "You mean I gotta RESPECT these people?", that right there tells me that person is not a good person to know.

It's not like we're talking about a haircut here, or a style of dress, or hey, even one's BMI, which sometimes can be changed for the better. We're talking about an essential part of the person that can never be changed. You can bleach a redhead's hair, but you can't stop the roots growing out red. And you can't make a black woman not be black.

So I ask again. What is the point?

And you have to understand that this idiotic article *and* the idiotic data it referenced come on the heels of a whole lot of other cultural insults lobbed at black women over the centuries, at least since the advent of black slavery in Europe and the Americas and possibly even before then. If black people have historically been held to be inferior to every other race, well, women have historically been held inferior to men, so black women get a double whammy.

You can't expect them to not be angry. And since the only question that matters to people like you is whether or not you're being properly scientific, that's what they're going to use against you–they're going to tell you you're not scientific because that's the only place they can hit you.

If you don't like it, pursue some scientific question worth pursuing. Because plainly *someone* finds black women attractive, or there wouldn't be a black race anymore. Nor black-and-other mixed-race people, either.

And by the way, those were questions asked of college students. Affirmative action or not, which race is still predominant on college campuses? Wow, why in the world would black women have come in last on *that* vote?

Science, huh… We'll see, won't we?

"I've heard that defense…too many times."

What we've haven't heard is an actual argument from you that requires a defense. Until you've somehow demonstrated some understanding, spouting sarcasm and chanting "just-so stories" is fucking lazy and boring, particularly when they're lobbed obliquely (we're forced to presume) at every hypothesis in which evolution enters the realm of not only cognition, but all human behavior. You're simply demonstrating argument from incredulity.

We all anxiously await your groundbreaking insight refuting the five decades of work on innateness of language from Chomsky (1969) to Culbertson, et al (2011).

When you've done that, refute this study demonstrating the genetic influence on gender…
Reiner, W. G. and J. P. Gearhart. 2004. Discordant sexual identity in some genetic males with cloacal exstrophy assigned to female sex at birth. New Engl. J. Med. 350:333-341.

Until then, enjoy worshiping at the altar of data manipulating Stephen Jay Gould and the sycophantic proponents of ID who recite his non-arguments as freely as you.

Well, I've heard that defense (roughly: "you don't understand evo psych therefore you won't understand what I am saying hence I won't even say anything") too many times. What I've never seen is someone actually demonstrating that what looks, smells and quacks like just-so story is actually not one. Everything I read points unequivocally to one simple observation: Evo psych is perfectly in line with Freudianism and Marxism – the all-explaining non-falsifyable set of quazi-religious beliefs that allows its proponents to go about their charlatan ways fooling gullible public for profit.

So, once again: How do you think it is reasonable to even start comparing mountains of solidly linked theoretical and experimental data (theory of biological evolution) with hot air fantasies that have explanatory and predictive power of five year old kids' theories on how things work?

It might be related to your naive perspective, or it might be because evolutionary psychology builds on the ideas introduced by Darwin himself in the later major works, The Descent of Man (Part II in particular), and The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals.

The quasi-argument about “just-so stories” has the same anemic logical footing as theists’ “god of the gaps” tendencies. Invoking Regurgitating it hints that your understanding is just shallow enough to mount an attack failing to surpass the threshold of a “just-ain’t-so story”.