Is Evolutionary Psychology Really Scientific?

[JackD]

I was reading my textbook for social psychology the other day. It was just the introductory chapter and it briefly discussed how someone's looks might influence our behavior. They went on to talk about some evolutionary psychology theories about why we find certain people attractive. However, the theories seemed to be nothing more than speculation, things that do not seem testable. I have also thought back to other psychology courses that I have taken, most of which have also discussed evolutionary psychology theories, none of which ever seemed like actual science.

Do you think evolutionary psychology is scientific or do you think it is mostly just guesswork?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ollie123]

Unfortunately, I think a great deal of the evolutionary psych that is out there is completely un-testable and un-proveable.

That said, I think it has some merit and uses, it has just been abused by scientists (and abused even worse by the media and other non-scientists). In particular, I think it has potential when its tied closer to biology (i.e. I can buy into comparing across-species to separate out "older" brain structures, etc. though obviously caution is needed).

Basically, it has the potential to guide research directions. I consider it akin to theoretical models of say...drug addiction, depression, anything else. Its a framework/foundation that by itself proves nothing but might generate some interesting directions for actual work. Is that science? That's sort of a philosophical question I don't want to delve into. Personally, I consider it "part" of science, but in isolation it certainly isn't good science.

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

Unfortunately, I think a great deal of the evolutionary psych that is out there is completely un-testable and un-proveable.

That said, I think it has some merit and uses, it has just been abused by scientists (and abused even worse by the media and other non-scientists). In particular, I think it has potential when its tied closer to biology (i.e. I can buy into comparing across-species to separate out "older" brain structures, etc. though obviously caution is needed).

Basically, it has the potential to guide research directions. I consider it akin to theoretical models of say...drug addiction, depression, anything else. Its a framework/foundation that by itself proves nothing but might generate some interesting directions for actual work. Is that science? That's sort of a philosophical question I don't want to delve into. Personally, I consider it "part" of science, but in isolation it certainly isn't good science.

Agreed. I think some of it is out on a limb (like the hypothesis about how singing/music developed) but it is theory driven, not really empirical. Pretty interesting stuff though.

 

[JackD]

So do you think it should be considered its own field or simply just a method of hypothesis generating or speculation with in other psychological disciplines? It seems to me that if you want to pull out every aspect of evolutionary psychology that is not science, which is probably something that should be done if this field is truly scientific, then it doesn't seem to be involved enough to actually be a field with in psychology. It is fairly new, so it isn't as complex as the other disciplines with in psychology, but I could not see it ever becoming as encompassing as personality psychology, developmental psychology, social psychology, etc. It makes me think that maybe it should be seen as more philosophical or a strategy for research, instead of an actual field.

 

[cara susanna]

I dunno, there have been some studies looking at mate selection that support evolutionary psych claims.

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

So do you think it should be considered its own field or simply just a method of hypothesis generating with in other psychological disciplines?

If you mean do I think they should have cerfiticates and board certifications and all that, no. It is not a sub-specialty in that sense. Not yet anyway. A few more years, maybe. But as was mentioned before, since we psychologists like to think of ourselves as scientists, it needs to develop a little more.

 

[doctoroxygen]

It's unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. I'm fine with evolutionary biology informing biological areas of psychology, but evolutionary social psychology is utter nonsense: fun for philosophers, but definitely not science.

 

[nl2008]

Evolutionary psychology is extremely scientific. There has been an outburst of research in the past few years showing the potential that Ev. Psych has to influence cognitive psych, biopsych, development, and even clinical. When you take the time to read the research for yourself, the evidence will blow you away. Evolutionary psychology has the potential to paint the rest of the picture for other areas of psychology. I don't know how one can argue that EP is not scientific, but can argue that Clinical Psych is scientific when most of the research relies on surveys and inventories that aren't even sure to be measuring the concepts they are intended for. (ex. how do we really measure mindfulness? anxiety? Are these concepts subject to the measuring tape?) I think EP is a new and refreshing stance that has alot to bring to the table in terms of understanding the ultimate causes of human behavior. Go EP!

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

Evolutionary psychology is extremely scientific. There has been an outburst of research in the past few years showing the potential that Ev. Psych has to influence cognitive psych, biopsych, development, and even clinical. When you take the time to read the research for yourself, the evidence will blow you away. Evolutionary psychology has the potential to paint the rest of the picture for other areas of psychology. I don't know how one can argue that EP is not scientific, but can argue that Clinical Psych is scientific when most of the research relies on surveys and inventories that aren't even sure to be measuring the concepts they are intended for. (ex. how do we really measure mindfulness? anxiety? Are these concepts subject to the measuring tape?) I think EP is a new and refreshing stance that has alot to bring to the table in terms of understanding the ultimate causes of human behavior. Go EP!

Not sure about mindfulness, but anxiety is a pretty well validated and measurable construct.

 

[JackD]

Not sure about mindfulness, but anxiety is a pretty well validated and measurable construct.

Agreed. Constructs may not be directly observable but we are able to get close enough to measuring them where it can still be considered science. We can't directly observe many things in biology, chemistry, and physics but it is still science. While I am sure there are some things in evolutionary psychology that are scientific, it seems that much of it is beyond measurement.

I could made this argument stronger and more elegant but I have to go. Good enough.

 

[JockNerd]

I see value in framing things in evo. psych as a theory, but I agree that it seems kind of useless; all its explanations are post-hoc, and it can be used to explain anything. If women (who like men) like big guys, it's for protection. If they like small guys, it's to increase lifelong mating (and so on with all the other stuff it's applied to).

 

[Ollie123]

all its explanations are post-hoc, and it can be used to explain anything.

This is really the problem in a nutshell. Its possible to come up with a post-hoc explanation for just about anything, even with data😉 Hence the importance of hypothesizing in advance. There's nothing wrong with exploratory analyses even though they are subject to the same problem, provided they are framed as such. I feel the same about evolutionary psych, but unfortunately, I think the authors have been less responsible about how they frame it. Though I realize that's in part due to the peer review process and the fact that no journal would publish a theory paper with weak conclusions.

JackD - I don't know I'd consider it a "field" at this point. There really are not that many people well known in the area, to the best of my knowledge there are no schools offering a degree in evolutionary psych, and often times even those who have published in it do not do so exclusively. And I'm not suggesting we pull anything out of evolutionary psych, just start using more caution in the writing and interpretation of it.

nl - As I said before, I definitely think it has its place (and I'm far from an expert in it, but I'm not completely ignorant in this area either), but I think many of its uses so far have walked to fine a line to be clearly scientific. As I said before, I've seen some animal behavior work that ties into evolutionary psych - that is one area I think evo psych has potential. However, a large portion of the literature has been strictly theoretical. I'm not sure I'd call it science, but there's nothing wrong with that. The designation of science isn't magical. Whatever designation its given, it has the potential to aid science, to be a tool that scientists use.

The argument for anxiety and mindfulness is...a bit absurd, to be frank. Certainly, measurement is FAR from exact in this field...incredibly far from it. Subjective measurement is inherently flawed - hence the reason many clinical psychologists attempt to assess behavioral and physiological measures as well (at least the best ones do, in my opinion). However, don't you think its a huge leap from "This measure may not represent the identified construct completely" to "Why collect data at all". The latter is not representative of all things I'd consider to be evo. psych, but its a serious problem when it does and people think they've proven something with it.

 

[cara susanna]

The efficacy of mindfulness is heavily supported by empirical research. It's hard to measure, but there are several questionnaires that do a pretty good job of it.

 

[KillerDiller]

Even though I don't think evolutionary psychology is scientific in the strictest sense of the word for the reasons others have mentioned, I also would not want to exorcise it from the discipline of psychology. Evolutionary psychology theories are interesting and stimulate basic research. Also, in my opinion, theories that draw attention to biological underpinnings of behavior are much preferred to the other unfalsifiable and unscientific theories that used to dominate the discipline.

 

[daydreaming]

this thread is misinformed (in my humble opinion of course) and I would encourage you to read the following if you think that evolutionary psychology is not to be respected.

Read this by Kurzban:

http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/apd.html

and this:

http://www.bradley.edu/academics/la...chmitt-Pilcher-Psychological-Science-2004.pdf

(in case the link doesn't work)

evaluating evidence of psychological adaptation: How do we know one when we see one?

David P. Schmitt and June J. Pilcher

and then tell me if you still think that evolutionary psychology is less falsifiable or (in theory) less respectable than any other refutable hypothesis in psychology. However, this is not to say that some people take evolutionary perspectives too far or abuse them to a non-scientific pulp. Just the same, it is common for people to make claims about evolutionary psychology without really understanding it (I am not being judgemental, I did the same thing).

Daydreaming

 

[numbereight]

The efficacy of mindfulness is heavily supported by empirical research. It's hard to measure, but there are several questionnaires that do a pretty good job of it.

this is interesting. a link or two would be appreciated 🙂

 

[PsyDr]

daydreamer,

my favorite point from the article you supplied

"...despite a very limited nomological network of evidence, many evolutionary
psychologists make broad and unwarranted claims about the
positive identification of human adaptations. It is our contention that
psychological science would be better served if evolutionary researchers
think outside their usual ‘‘box’’ and that, as a field, evolutionary
psychology should expend more scholarly effort building
cross-disciplinary networks of evidence for adaptation."


doesn't sound too respected to me.

 

[cara susanna]

I don't have the links, but I can give you the names of some questionnaires: the Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS, for use after mindfulness practice), the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale Revised (CAMS-R).

There are also some good articles that attempt to operationalize mindfulness, such as the one by Bishop: Bishop et. al (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 230-241.

 

[235750]

It's unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. I'm fine with evolutionary biology informing biological areas of psychology, but evolutionary social psychology is utter nonsense: fun for philosophers, but definitely not science.

Agreed. We can use fossil evidence and molecular genetics to guide our views of biology from an evolutionary perspective, but we don't know (and likely, will never know) how prehistoric people lived. As the name implies, we don't have the historical knowledge needed to base our theories on. Therefore, evolutionary psychology is without merit.

 

[daydreaming]

Agreed. We can use fossil evidence and molecular genetics to guide our views of biology from an evolutionary perspective, but we don't know (and likely, will never know) how prehistoric people lived. As the name implies, we don't have the historical knowledge needed to base our theories on. Therefore, evolutionary psychology is without merit.

The behaviors that are examined by EP are still present today, so you can test your hypothesis just like in any other branch of psychology.

From this link which was posted above:
http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/apd.html

"Evolutionary psychologists use our limited knowledge about the past to generate hypotheses. However, as others have pointed out, evolutionary psychologists’ hypotheses about human psychology can be tested in the very same way that other hypotheses about human psychology can be evaluated. David Buss, on the basis of evolutionary ideas, hypothesized that there would be cross-cultural sex differences in a number of variables related to sex and mating. He collected data from 37 cultures to test these hypotheses (Buss, 1989), and many of his hypotheses were supported. If the data had turned out differently, his hypotheses would have been undermined. It didn’t stop being science because his hypotheses derived from an evolutionary analysis. (Holcomb, 1998, provides a very nice discussion of this, as do Ketelaar and Ellis, 1998)."

Explain to me the scientific difference between the EP cross-cultural sex difference hypotheses and a cognition experiment where the researcher has a hypothesis that conceptual knowledge is organized primarily in visual association cortex.

 

[Ollie123]

Explain to me the scientific difference between the EP cross-cultural sex difference hypotheses and a cognition experiment where the researcher has a hypothesis that conceptual knowledge is organized primarily in visual association cortex.

I think what you described is an example of a responsible evo. psych study. I didn't check the primary, but based off what you said, that is where I think evolutionary psych CAN be very beneficial. Hypothesis generation, coming up with new ideas to test. Having a solid rationale for conducting a study. Heck, how much research is conducted on a whim? Because "Why not"? Having an evolutionary basis for running a study is probably more grounded than half the work out there, which is done on the basis of "Hmm, I wonder how schizophrenics will do on this task".

The problem is that I'm not convinced those studies make up the majority of the evolutionary psych literature. Or at least not from what I've seen. The more common version is a few pages of speculation about what early humans did, somehow leading to a firm conclusion about why something is happening today, with no data, no experimentation, and nothing to base the belief on other than the author's guesswork about early humans.

I don't think ANY tool used for hypothesis generation can be bad. At best, it can be inefficient if your studies always come out negative, but its never bad. What's bad is when generating hypotheses is mistaken for the complete scientific process. Like it or not, a great deal of evolutionary psychology does this. That's not a reason to close it off and banish it from the field, but its important to understand that it has a bad rep because of it and not fall into the same traps.

 

[daydreaming]

I think what you described is an example of a responsible evo. psych study. I didn't check the primary, but based off what you said, that is where I think evolutionary psych CAN be very beneficial. Hypothesis generation, coming up with new ideas to test. Having a solid rationale for conducting a study. Heck, how much research is conducted on a whim? Because "Why not"? Having an evolutionary basis for running a study is probably more grounded than half the work out there, which is done on the basis of "Hmm, I wonder how schizophrenics will do on this task".

The problem is that I'm not convinced those studies make up the majority of the evolutionary psych literature. Or at least not from what I've seen. The more common version is a few pages of speculation about what early humans did, somehow leading to a firm conclusion about why something is happening today, with no data, no experimentation, and nothing to base the belief on other than the author's guesswork about early humans.

I don't think ANY tool used for hypothesis generation can be bad. At best, it can be inefficient if your studies always come out negative, but its never bad. What's bad is when generating hypotheses is mistaken for the complete scientific process. Like it or not, a great deal of evolutionary psychology does this. That's not a reason to close it off and banish it from the field, but its important to understand that it has a bad rep because of it and not fall into the same traps.

Point well taken, however I would like to see examples of some poor EP studies that everyone is mentioning from refereed journals (not so much for the sake of argument but more to evaluate them for myself). I just hope that people aren't reading non-scientific literature such as media outlets that summarize some EP finding and blow it out of proportion or twist the findings and then base their critique of the field that way.

It would be interesting to look at different literatures (EP v. social for example) and compare the number of poorly designed studies/overdrawn conclusions made from each to assess whether EP is receiving a proportionate amount of flak. In other words, I would like to see an objective measure of EPs credibility (if that is even possible since the very nature of credibility is subjective...but, hopefully you get my hypothetical point). So far, everyone that has a poor opinion of EP hasn't cited anything to make their point more understandable/persuasive.

I hope we can continue to have a friendly debate about EP, this is fun. 🙂

 

[KillerDiller]

I am going to talk about Buss's study on sex differences in jealousy, because that is the study I am most familiar with. Buss hypothesized that evolutionary forces would predispose men and women to behave differently in terms of sexual jealousy. He ran a study and found the hypothesized differences. Great.

Now, the problem springs from the fact that there is no way to demonstrate that the sex differences came about because of evolution acting on psychological mechanisms. I'm not saying that Buss's work is bad or that it shouldn't have been done, I'm just pointing out its limitation, which happens to be one that isn't shared by research programs that are truly and purely "scientific". I think Buss's work is great because it has stimulated alternative hypotheses and further research. Nevertheless, Buss's theories will only hold up if those other theories--such as the one that states his results are an artifact of his measurement--do not sufficiently explain the data. Thus, his theory is not purely scientific, because we all know the problems with concluding the validity of a null hypothesis.

 

[235750]

The behaviors that are examined by EP are still present today

Really? How do you know what behaviors humans had 2 million years ago?

Here's the thing: we know nothing about the ancient past. I mean nothing. Humans' earliest history is from the Pleistocene era which is close to 2 million years ago, and we do not know anything about them, including population size, diet, mating behavior, clothing worn, tastes in music...nothing. One can generate theories from this nothingness, but it's not helpful. For example, this chap claimed (I am summarizing here, but you get the point)that women prefer well built men because men used to hunt for food (so he says). Therefore, women have evolved to select the best hunters. Great, so I guess his theory is correct

But wait, I think men used to cook and clean, staying at home with the little ones. That's why women prefer to be lighter on average then men in contemporary society, so they could be more agile and sneak up on prey better. And, since prehistoric people had some type of clothing that needed to be cleaned, they used their abdominal muscles as pre-historic...washboards! Ah ha! Even the name has stuck. So THAT'S why women like fit men, so they can use their bodies as washing machines. So how do you tell who's right?

You can't, and that's the point.

Noam Chomsky says it best:

“You find that people cooperate, you say, ‘Yeah, that contributes to their genes’ perpetuating.’ You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that’s obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else’s. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it.”

Explain to me the scientific difference between the EP cross-cultural sex difference hypotheses and a cognition experiment where the researcher has a hypothesis that conceptual knowledge is organized primarily in visual association cortex.

That's easy, one is testable (ie verifiable) and the other is not. You could conceive a study that uses an fMRI to gauge brain activity when subjects are presented with problems that challenge thier conceptual knowledge (square roots or something). See if V1 lights up as compared to the controls.

KillerDiller (ie. Companion Cube 🙂 ) is right in his analysis of Buss so I won't address that, just read what s/he said.

I know that evolutionary psych is all the rage right now. Some of my favourites have been an article that usese EP to explain competition in Scramble and a book that shows murdering unfaithful wives is just an evolutionary throwback.

To the OP: if you want a good primer on EP, check out this book. Buss, Pinker, Tooby, all the big EP proponents are addressed.

It's a shame that EP has the word 'evolution' in it because there's quite an anti-evolution revolt in the US. When EP becomes unpopular in the media it will probably make the average person respect evolution less, which is not what we need right now

 

[cara susanna]

Wow, that Scrabble article is pretty ridiculous!

 

[235750]

Wow, that Scrabble article is pretty ridiculous!

Lol you said it! 🙂

 

[daydreaming]

Really? How do you know what behaviors humans had 2 million years ago?

Here's the thing: we know nothing about the ancient past. I mean nothing. Humans' earliest history is from the Pleistocene era which is close to 2 million years ago, and we do not know anything about them, including population size, diet, mating behavior, clothing worn, tastes in music...nothing. One can generate theories from this nothingness, but it's not helpful. For example, this chap claimed (I am summarizing here, but you get the point)that women prefer well built men because men used to hunt for food (so he says). Therefore, women have evolved to select the best hunters. Great, so I guess his theory is correct

But wait, I think men used to cook and clean, staying at home with the little ones. That's why women prefer to be lighter on average then men in contemporary society, so they could be more agile and sneak up on prey better. And, since prehistoric people had some type of clothing that needed to be cleaned, they used their abdominal muscles as pre-historic...washboards! Ah ha! Even the name has stuck. So THAT'S why women like fit men, so they can use their bodies as washing machines. So how do you tell who's right?

You can't, and that's the point.

Noam Chomsky says it best:

“You find that people cooperate, you say, ‘Yeah, that contributes to their genes’ perpetuating.’ You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that’s obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else’s. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it.”

Think about it this way: a spider’s web formation (a behavior) was shaped over time by natural selection (this is generally accepted and there are computer models which generate random web formations and calculate the probability of insects being trapped in a given area. From this you can calculate the likelihood of that spider’s genes being continued and so on and so on for subsequent generations). At one point in deep time, the genetic component for a spiders web was all over the place, i.e., the webs were random silk formations looking nothing like a modern spider web (which is the most efficient). As more and more evidence accumulates which supports the spider web formation theory (matching the simulated amount of generations it takes to get the perfect circle-like web formation with real world evidence for example), you can begin to feel more confident that the behavior was indeed shaped by natural selection. So what you are saying is, because we can’t possibly know (which I am not entirely convinced of based on your arguments) how spiders behaved x amount of years ago, we can’t gather (multidisciplinary) evidence, work backwards, generate models, test hypotheses, and theorize how natural selection shaped web formation behavior?
Also, as a side note, keep in mind that Homo sapiens evolved from “lower” species and that the gross neuroanatomy and function of the human brain is organized in a phylogenetic hierarchy (e.g., brainstem up to neocortex) which is why comparative psychology is used as one piece of the puzzle when attempting to figure out human behavior across deep time.
I am not disagreeing with you if you think that it is poor practice to run one study about a behavior (or process) and conclude its origins or how it was selected. One study in science does not tell you anything, no matter the field under the scope or how good the study is. Also, remember that as a psychologist, you are providing one piece of the puzzle to a multidisciplinary endeavor (behavioral, cognitive, neural, etc.).
I too am not disagreeing with you that there are poor evolutionary theories out there. What I am disagreeing with you on is the notion that EP is unscientific and that there is nothing to be gained from (properly) investigating it. Your argument about two hypotheses for one behavior happens all the time in psychology. Typically, evidence is collected and collected and slowly one emerges as more likely (or it is possible for both to be partially true). Also, remember that natural selection is not the only evolutionary force at work, so your argument of panadaptionism doesn’t hold.

That's easy, one is testable (ie verifiable) and the other is not. You could conceive a study that uses an fMRI to gauge brain activity when subjects are presented with problems that challenge thier conceptual knowledge (square roots or something). See if V1 lights up as compared to the controls.

On the surface it may seem that only one is testable, however, both studies require a degree of assumption. The EP study requires assumptions about the laws of natural selection/fitness. The cognition study assumes that fMRI isn’t modern day phrenology, i.e., just because an area has an increased BOLD signal, does it really mean that area is entirely necessary for a specific cognition/behavior (extreme viewpoint, not saying that I hold it). Also, because fMRI is a secondary measure of neural activity, you assume that neural activity = more oxygen (there is a lot of evidence which supports that this is true, but there is also a lot of evidence which supports that natural selection helps shape species). It seems on the surface that the EP study is more absurd probably because the cognition study is more proximate; however, both are good studies which add evidence to our understanding of human nature.

 

[235750]

First of all, I was not arguing about the Pleistocene era. What I said is a fact about our current understanding of that epoch. If you uncover any knowledge about the genus homo (say, habilis) and their behaviour 2 million years ago, please let us know! It would be the most famous SDN post for sure

Your argument is valid, but not sound. Meaning, if we did know that what behaviors and selective forces existed 2 million years ago, then we'd be set. Unfortunately we don't. And as for the analogy you made...

I'm not sure if we can study the evolution of spiders' webs in the same manner as a human's desire to win at a game of Scrabble, or most other human behavior for that manner.

No doubt we have fossil evidence, maybe some ancient tree sap, that has intact spiders which upon analysis shows glands which resemble the silk producing component of modern day spiders. I'm sure the genetics is there to back up the leap of faith that it was meant to do the same thing, ie make silk. With enough time and money from [insert spider interest group here], I'm sure we can even find the genes that are involved in making the silk and encode the instincts necessary to spin it. We even have fossilized spiders' web so we can quell those silly spider haters who would say webs did not exist back then. Do some math modeling, and Bob's your uncle, you can make some great predictions I'm sure.

Human behavior is not so straightforward. And that's what makes this field so exciting!

What any evidence do we have of competitive behavior from 2 million years ago in early homos? How big of a component was competition in their everyday life? To answer these question we would have to know things like population size, diet, where they lived, what animals hunted them, etc. Did these early homos dance or sing? Can you think of some mathematical models to predict the complexity of music in the same way you can on a spider's web?

We have early human fossils too, but as of yet there is no behavioral appendage in humans that is as cut and dry as a spider's silk sac. The function of our higher brain powers- to think and reason- is slightly more abstract then to simply spin a web for food, wouldn't you say?

The cognition study assumes that fMRI isn't modern day phrenology, i.e., just because an area has an increased BOLD signal, does it really mean that area is entirely necessary for a specific cognition/behavior (extreme viewpoint, not saying that I hold it).

You're right, that view would be so extreme as to be laughable! I think the evidence for cells requiring more energy when active is pretty solid...I'm not sure where the controversy in that one is. If the majority of subjects showed a rise in V1 during that experiment, then you bet you'd have a pretty convincing paper.

That EP article assumes that a behavior existed millions of years ago without verification...so when you look at the assumptions, the EP article is really lacking. Also, you didn't seem to refute what I said: that EP is not testable. So, if you're you're going to call it scientific you've hit a bit of a wall there. In regards to good studies and study design...

One study in science does not tell you anything, no matter the field under the scope or how good the study is.

If you're trying to say that few papers provide conclusive, irrefutable answers (especially in psychology), I would definitely agree with you. I think you are completely right. That said, there are very convincing theories and papers, and ones that are not so convincing. If you really think that EP meets the criteria of a scientific theory, then at the very least you'd be hard pressed not to categorize it into the latter.

Also, as a side note, keep in mind that Homo sapiens evolved from "lower" species and that the gross neuroanatomy and function of the human brain is organized in a phylogenetic hierarchy (e.g., brainstem up to neocortex) which is why comparative psychology is used as one piece of the puzzle when attempting to figure out human behavior across deep time.

For it to be relevant to psychologists we would have to be able to gleen some definable behavior from their biology. As it stands, my understanding is that homo habilis and the rest of our ancestors had a smaller crainial capacity...so they weren't as smart. And maybe some were smaller or bigger in stature. Beyond that we don't really know much else. Ok so they were not as smart, but how does that help us in the quest to find out why contemporary human males are more competitive?

Let me finally say that evolution is my favourite theory in the world. It tells me how I am related to the person next door, or to the person I see on the internet matching for human rights in Burma. Did you know that if you're of European decent like me, there's probably a few thousands years that separates you and I from having a common ancestry? And only add a few thousand years more if you're of middle eastern decent. How cool is that! I love evolution, I just want to see it applied in a responsible manner.

Thanks for the good discussion daydreaming.

wow my head hurts (and my eyes too). If you read all this you need to get out more! Lol

 

[daydreaming]

That EP article assumes that a behavior existed millions of years ago without verification...so when you look at the assumptions, the EP article is really lacking. Also, you didn't seem to refute what I said: that EP is not testable. So, if you're you're going to call it scientific you've hit a bit of a wall there. In regards to good studies and study design...

No, EP assumes that an environment existed that isn't radically different from our environment today (gravity, survival pressures, females, males). As to whether or not an EP hypothesis is testable, think of this scenario: I tell you that I have a hypothesis (completely made up) that men react to fear different than women. I run a few studies and find that my hypothesis is supported. Then some other researchers do a cross-cultural study and find that in all tested cultures, men react to fear different than women. At this point, my hypothesis is testable. You could examine my hypothesis from a different angle and say that no, this is wrong because x or yes, this seems to be right because I found more support in y. If I never said a word about EP, the above would be fine and testable. Throw into the mix that I got my idea from thinking about environmental pressures and evolution, and suddenly it is not science. No one seems to question that our immune systems evolved to "defend" our bodies from invaders, because the process seems more mechanical, yet discuss behavior or the processes underlying behavior (which has the same ultimate goal as the immune system) and now it is poor practice to think in those terms.

Let me finally say that evolution is my favourite theory in the world. It tells me how I am related to the person next door, or to the person I see on the internet matching for human rights in Burma. Did you know that if you're of European decent like me, there's probably a few thousands years that separates you and I from having a common ancestry? And only add a few thousand years more if you're of middle eastern decent. How cool is that! I love evolution, I just want to see it applied in a responsible manner.

Fair enough, evolutionary "theory" (I am more with Dawkins on this one and think of evolution as a fact but the ways in which evolution happens, theory) is my favorite too and I want to see theories about evolution carried out properly as well. Did you hear the news about Ida?

Thanks for the good discussion daydreaming.
wow my head hurts (and my eyes too). If you read all this you need to get out more! Lol

Thank you for the good discussion as well! I did read your whole argument but in order to keep this from escalating to all out nuclear-forum-warfare 😉 and in the interest of not spending hours replying I will leave you with this (for now..muahah)

http://itb.biologie.hu-berlin.de/~hagen/papers/Controversies.pdf

If you have a chance to read a couple pages of this EP reply to some of the criticisms you brought up, scroll down to page 8 (8 in the pdf 7 in the document itself) and read through page 11 (pdf) about the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA).

 

[Brad S]

No, EP assumes that an environment existed that isn't radically different from our environment today (gravity, survival pressures, females, males).

That's the whole debacle right there I think. Despite the neutral idea that the environment is the same, evolutionary psychology also assumes that our brains and therefore our minds owe their gestalt to natural pressures.

This is hard for people to swallow. No one wants to think that their enjoyment of a sunset reflects on the one-on-one mechanical events of natural selection.

I personally find it considerably more fascinating that millions of years of tooth and nail, love and hate, procreation expiration culminated in my ability to enjoy a hot tub, a painting, gangsta rap- than that my head is just some empty fish-bowl containing some super-natural intelligent gaseous entity.

With that in mind, its easy to see why evolutionary theory is so inspiring and fascinating regardless of what you frame with it- it encompasses countless life stories of creatures just like us that each lived at one time.

I like more than one or two of Dawkins' ideas. That evolution is the basis of medicine and biology gives a small hint that it is pragmatically a fact. Given that our minds exist due to and/or within the processes of our brains, that those brains are protected by the skull we developed to increase in size as our brain increases in size... well, to find a missing link between evolution and psychology, you would have to subscribe to a supernatural mindset. I don't think there is one valid argument against the idea of minds being a general product of evolution.

Like all things fascinating and inspiring, its easy to let that enthusiasm spill over into certainty on occasion. As with all science, its subject to human error, and the debate over the findings of new theories is essentially to find the truest ones. Both points have their qualities.

It might be fun to define evolutionary psychology's mission statement in a couple different ways...

Evolutionary psychology seeks to prove the unprovable about Pleistocene era homos.

Evolutionary psychology seeks to look at quirky things about society, and make up a cute story like a BC comic.

Evolutionary psychology seeks to destroy the free will and human spirit.

OF COURSE NOT!!! It's first and foremost psychology.

Evolutionary psychology seeks to increase the scientific body of knowledge about the mind using evolutionary theory in the generation of hypotheses.

 

[cara susanna]

Any good points Dawkins may have are negated by his meme theory, IMO.

 

[futureapppsy2]

^
What makes you say that?

I only have the most cursory introduction to Dawkins, so I have no opinion either way on him.

 

[cara susanna]

I just think memes are really... unlikely. He claims that all ideas are in existence and we only discover them when they jump from person to person, like viruses.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Yeah, I can see why that would be logical leap...

On the other hand, I know an animal/comparative bx grad student who all but worships Dawkins and his theories... EP seems pretty popular among a lot of the animal/comparative people here, much more so then the clinical students and clinical faculty.