EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY IS HERE TO STAY: A RESPONSE TO BULLER

[Bonobo]

It amuses me that people dismiss scientific thinking when they "feel" it is in conflict with emotional needs or political goals.

thttp://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/evolutionary-psychology-is-here-to-stay/


THE OPENING MOTIONS in philosopher David J. Buller’s case against Evolutionary Psychology (EP) appeared on his web site,1 followed by the major argument in his book, Adapting Minds.2 More recently, Buller argued against leading evolutionary psychologists John Tooby and Leda Cosmides, Martin Daly and Margot Wilson, and David Buss in the journal Trends in Cognitive Science (TCS), which allowed them to respond to Buller’s critique.3 In his Skeptic article in this issue, Buller takes his case to a more popular jurisdiction. His brief against EP has two parts:

A general critique of the concept of the modular (“Swiss Army Knife”) model of the mind, which he describes as a core dogma of EP. If this foundation crumbles, the entire edifice of Evolutionary Psychology will fall.
A specific critique of the data used to support two “signature achievements” of EP: Martin Daly and Margot Wilson’s Cinderella Effect; and David Buss’s studies of male-female differences in jealousy.

Conclusion: Cased Dismissed

In his case against Evolutionary Psychology, Buller misses — or skillfully avoids — the big picture. The interesting, though by no means novel, points he makes fit Richard Dawkins’ description of earlier such criticisms as “a catalogue of methodological shortcomings of particular studies.”24

Buller fashions his arguments like a defense attorney in a criminal case. He attempts to sow doubt regarding this or that piece of evidence, or to offer alternative interpretations as to what might have happened. The scientific method, however, is like a civil case, where the standard is not “beyond a reasonable doubt” but rather “the preponderance of evidence.” Moreover, a civil case does not require an either-or verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty;” rather, liability can be apportioned. Likewise, in the behavioral sciences especially, a good theory or hypothesis need not explain everything, but only provide the simplest and most coherent explanation.

Important challenges remain, however. The most important are determining the role of domain-specific versus domain-general processes27 and integrating evolutionary psychology, behavior genetics, neurosciences, and psychometrics.28

The critics notwithstanding, Evolutionary Psychology is here to stay.

[Dash87]

1. While I don't doubt all Evo-psych, I hate when it's used to describe certain things it shouldn't.

For example, attraction - you can find 1000 different people and they'll all be attracted to different things, where as Evo-psych needlessly simplifies attraction into simplistic ideas like "macho men are more attractive to everyone everywhere" and "women evolved to be more nurturing!" Both of these are hackish (and false) conclusions.

Evo-psych as a whole is interesting, but should also be taken with a grain of salt, imo. Some of it borders on pseudoscience (if not being outright). I don't like how it tends to dehumanized humans and reduce them to unthinking slaves of their biology. I tend to favor studies of social constructs and how culture influences humanity over the "we're animals and will never be more than raging, unthinking monkeys! (Hyperbole)" form of thinking.

[Bonobo]

2. Excess in anything is bad.

But some choose to think the approach itself is ridiculous. As if millions of years of evolution could have no effect on the way we think. LOL. Not THAT is silly.

[Gravitycollapse]

3. Evolutionary psychology, for the most part, is no more falsifiable than blank slate theories.

There are of course fairly obvious forms of inherited traits that can be observed in humans not subjected to social conditioning. Like instincts. But, beyond that, evolutionary psychology is really nothing other than attempt to make broad reaching hypotheses that are structured in such a way that even disproving proves the hypotheses.

One of the issues is affirming the consequent. Which can be okay for inductive strength under certain conditions. But, generally speaking, is rather pigheaded.

Not that I'm saying this is a unique trait of ES. In fact most theories on social structure suffer from these weakness. What I have a problem with, however, is people who claim ES is somehow above all other theories and this if often the case because there is a very specific agenda at play. They want to construct hypotheses that serve their own preconceived narratives.

[Bonobo]

4. Instincts.

Among the various types of human behaviors, I daresay that those that relate to sexuality are among the most highly influenced by instinct.

Care to disagree?

[Gravitycollapse]

5. That you have so nonchalantly confined sexuality so tightly is extremely problematic.

There is the physical act of sex, all the various thrusting, receiving, gyrating, stimulation, pain and pleasure (not referring to the social constructs), orgasm, muscle contractions, sweating, and ejaculation and then there is the social constructs of sex.

The two are not of the same source. Just as the fact that my finger hurts when I burn it says almost nothing of the source of the burning.

It is, according to my own analysis and studies, almost exclusively the process of socialization that creates normative values for things like attraction, sexual orientation, gender identity and much of an individuals pleasure.

[Bonobo]

6. Yes, it is a complex and multi-layered matter to be sure.

But I disagree that it is entirely the process of socialization is behind what people find attractive.

The larger point is, that, claiming that millions of years of evolution has no effect on the substructures of the human brain that influence behavior is really silly.

In animals, the roles of men and women have affected their evolution -this is undeniable. To pretend that such influence ends above where the brain begins is not credible.

[Gravitycollapse]

7. Maybe Jews are just naturally more greedy. Maybe black people naturally have a lower average IQ.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Essentialist arguments are self-serving. The theories were designed not to explain phenomena but to justify certain deplorability.

There is a very thin layer of foundational phenomena that can be explained using social psychology. Above those, social psychology has no footing.

For instance:

Why do we have a tendency to animalize women of color? Is there a specific part of our brain that tells us "women of color are animals?" Of course not because inherited instincts are not complex enough to transmit specific language and symbols. You aren't born knowing complex language. You aren't born understanding demarcations between animals and non-animals.

[Bonobo]

8. I think a descent into absurdities does not invalidate the approach.

Yes, anything can be misused.

But evolution has a clear aim. Natural selection favors animals who can raise more children to maturity so that their genes are passed on. This is a fact.

As such, certain behaviors are favored. I am sure you don't deny this.

The question is not whether evolution has resulted in certain behavioral and cognitive differences, the question is only "how much".

Which behavior has the greater evolutionary advantage? Those are the behaviors that are selected -and if you accept that there is a link between brain structure and behavior, then you must accept that evolution has played a part in our behavior.

The ONLY argument is one of degree.

BTW, NONE of what I said is meant to deny the role of socialization in all of this.

[Gravitycollapse]

9. There are in fact clearly environmental effects that alter the physicality of an animal...

That have literally nothing to do with evolution.

A common example is that of the malnourished animal due to a drought. The animal is not underweight because it's phenotype dictates that it be underweight. The drought is not caused by any sort of evolutionary process.

The proximate cause of the animal being underweight is malnourishment. The distal cause is the drought.

So, no, evolution is not always the source. And it is not necessarily the case that all things are sourced in evolutionary processes. The vast majority of the physical realm is not dictated at all by biological evolution.

[Bonobo]

10. No doubt.

And now we are talking around each other.

[Gravitycollapse]

11. So thus we have shifted away from "how much" to "when." Which is an important distinction.

Especially in the case of those who claim social psychology is ALWAYS at play.

[Bonobo]

12. I don't know anyone here who said it was ALWAYS in play, but

I do know a number of people who claim the entire approach is ridiculous and worthy of scorn as a concept.