Talk:Evolutionary psychology

Examples of EP in action

http://www.greencheese.org/EvolutionaryPsychology.png

http://www.greencheese.org/EvolutionaryPsychology

EP/sociobiology distinction

In the sociobiology article, it says that ...

Since then, other terms have come into currency, such as evolutionary psychology.

This doesn't seem to be true from reading this entry; it seems like evolutionary psychology has a more, well, psychological twist to it. Can someone check this? Chas zzz brown 10:59 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

the two fields are different: see http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/sociobiology.html

Critiques of EP

I think that this could do with a discussion of some of the critiques of EP, for example their tendancy to explain everything by recourse to some (sometimes improbable) evolutionary advantage, see William H Calvin, the Throwing Madonna and others.

Recent defenses against criticisms

Re: recent defenses against criticisms - first, I disagree with the substance of many of them. For example, it's absolutely true that little is known about the evolutionary context in which humans evolved. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to say one thing for certain. It's clear that we've diverged, but never clear why. Every adaptive change has a myriad explanations, and I can't recall examples of things that have been specifically tested. If people can't even dismiss the aquatic ape hypothesis (at best saying it's only as probable as other theories), what can we really say with certainty about the circumstances of human evolution? That females get pregnant and males don't? This is true of spiders, as well - but I didn't get my head bitten off last time I had sex. Graft 19:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Woops - second, I think they should not be written as, "yes, but..." responses to the critics, which is not the function of this article... if you feel the criticism needs to be tempered there are ways to do that without explicitly endorsing either viewpoint, which the previous text did. Graft 19:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Graft: We disagree that little is known about the evolutionary context in which humans evolved. If you want to see where I'm coming from, you could peruse my EP FAQ, and/or a book chapter of mine. Here is a brief snippet from the chapter (EEA = the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, the ancestral environment):

Is the EEA knowable? No one would dispute that our lungs evolved in an oxygen atmosphere (the lung EEA) nor that our immune system evolved in response to pathogens (the immune system EEA). Yet when it comes to the selection pressures that shaped the brain, some are skeptical that the past is knowable (e.g., Ahouse and Berwick 1998). The past, however, was much like the present. Physics was the same. Chemistry was the same. Geography, at an abstract level, was much the same—there were rivers, lakes, hills, valleys, cliffs, and caves. Ecology, at an abstract level, was also much the same—there were plants, animals, pathogens, trees, forests, predators, prey, insects, birds, spiders, and snakes. Virtually all biological facts were the same. There were two sexes, parents, children, brothers, sisters, people of all ages, and close and distant relatives. It is a common misconception that the EEA refers to aspects of the past that differ from the present, when it actually refers the aspects of the past whether or not they correspond to aspects of the present. We know that in the EEA women got pregnant and men did not. This single fact is the basis for perhaps three-quarters or more of all EP research. The hefty array of human universals (Brown 1991), although not as assuredly true of the past as, say, gravity, is nonetheless another important source of hypotheses about the EEA. Adding to our already detailed scientific understanding of the past are the historians, archaeologists, and paleoanthropologists who make a living studying it.

Sex differences in parental investment informs an entire industry of research in behavioral ecology. For the theory and a (now decade old) review of the data (on the order of 1000 studies, if I recall correctly), see Andersson, M. (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press.

If and when I get time, I will flesh out the EP section with more content.

I agree with you that the controversies section might simply state the critics' viewpoint (although I note there were v. few references there). But, readers of this article might also want to know how evolutionary psychologists would respond to the criticisms. What do you think? (For now, I have just added a link to my FAQ and book chapter.)

Ed Hagen, August 17, 2004

I think this debate might quickly stray from what's relevant to the page if we engage in it too much, but briefly: the factors you describe are very general factors that apply to an incredibly broad range of species, including our very near relatives the great apes. The specific factors that separated us from those relatives are not known. There are a number of hypotheses for what led to upright posture, vocalization, large brain-size, hairlessness, and the dozens of other adaptive changes specific to the human lineage. However, none of them have been conclusively proven and little remains known about the specifics of human speciation. This is my point: sure, females get pregnant, and males don't, but that doesn't tell us anything at all. That's true of every animal in the world. Some very simple questions cannot be answered. What was the primary diet of humans? What habitats did they occupy? What was the average span of life? What was the size of the human social unit? These simple and unanswered questions have dramatic implications for the evolution of human psychology; this is a considerable weakness of EP.

I agree that responses of EPologists are appropriate, and that both sides of the debate should be referenced. I'll try to do some of that in the near future. Graft 17:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If I may suggest, perhaps the criticisms and the responses to them should be moves into separate subsections. I've seen this done on other articles, and it works well to present both sides in an NPOV way. Listing a criticism and then immediately following with a response to it, the way the article currently does, reads almost like a straw man argument in favour of EP. I'm not suggesting that was the original author's intention, but it does read that way. Splitting the sections to allow both the yeas and nays in the argument to have a complete say before introducing counterarguments would read more like a statement of arguments than a refuting of criticism. Joshua Nicholson 05:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I just came to this article and was struck by how POV the criticism section here is. This article states that these criticisms are incorrect. While i'm willing to accept that perhaps these criticisms as written may be simply incorrect, i'm sure there are criticisms that deserve to be here, and not followed in the next breath with "this is wrong because...". This seems to be in major need of revision, and as i'm not well versed in the subject at all, i don't think i'm the one to do it. I came here specifically to read about the criticisms of EP, and the POV of the article makes me unable to determine whether these are strawman criticisms, built up so that the writer may knock them down, or whether these are simply the writer's rebuttal. I shouldn't have to ask these questions in the first place. --Ben.c 17:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'm adding an NPOV dispute tag in the section until these issues are resolved. I'll try to do it myself, but I'd like to draw the attention of people who are more well-versed in EP to write this section from an NPOV. -- Schaefer 22:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

EP misconceptions

It is a very common misconception of EP that EP is primarily interested in what makes humans different from other animals, especially our closest relative, the chimp. In fact, EP is interested in the functional structure of the brain, whether or not this structure is similar to that of other animals. See, e.g., this. The functional structure of human cognition will depend on features of the environment that are often known with certainty. The fact that these aspects of the environment also characterize the environment of other animals is neither here nor there. EP often draws upon comparative analyses with other species for exactly this reason, in fact. If males of many species engage in intrasexual competition over mates, this strengthens the case for adaptations for intrasexual competition in human males. If many primate species are fearful of snakes, this strengthens the case for an innate fear of snakes in humans. It is simply not true that the fact that females got pregnant and males did not tells us nothing. In my previous post above, I cited a review of the biological literature on sexual selection with a bibliography of over 1000 studies. This literature is mostly an exploration of the implications of sex differences in parental investment (i.e., that females get pregnant and males do not) in scores of different species.

Also, the latter part of the sentence "Evolutionary psychology is based on the presumption that, just like hearts, lungs, livers, kidneys, and immune systems, cognition has functional structure that has a genetic basis, and therefore is subject to evolution by natural selection" is perhaps misleading because it seems to be saying that current selection is important. But as EP's have argued for years, it is not current selection that is important, but past selection over evolutionary time. Thus, the design evident in the heart is evidence for a past history of natural selection. Yes, the heart has a genetic basis -- otherwise it couldn't have evolved -- but EP is interested in the design of the heart, not its genetic foundations per se (only because the genetic foundations of complex adaptations like the heart are currently unknown). Adaptations that evolved by natural selection must, by defintion, have a genetic basis, but we do not need to know this foundation in order to study adaptations. Darwin knew nothing of genes, yet he was able to identify many adaptations by evidence of their design.

Fair enough - I rewrote it that way merely because that's the appropriate logical progression. If A then B is not equivalent to if B then A. It is absolutely impossible to say something is adaptive without first knowing that it has a genetic basis. Graft 16:13, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is the point of view described by one speaker at a lecture I attended last year as the argument of "a thousand just so stories can't all be wrong". (This was in the context of the origins of language.) At any rate, the article should at least mention Gould; from his perspective, the framework of EP only makes sense in the panadaptationist paradigm (which he perforce rejects). He wrote a number of essays attacking the EP program, including "The Internal Brand of the Scarlet W" (collected in The Lying Stones of Marrakech) which is the most familiar to me. 18.26.0.18 19:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

EP and sociology

Some studies have been criticized for their tendency to attribute to genetics elements of human cognition that may be attributable to sociology (e.g. preference for particular physical features in mates).

But couldn't sociological studies likewise be criticized for attributing to sociology that which could be attributable to genetics? Or is there some rule that a socilogical explanation is correct by default?

Answer: Science doesn't work either/or those two alternatives. As with most EP hypothesis, the answer is "we don't know" or "the data doesn't tell". So the correct null hypothesis to testing the genetics of a behavioral trait is not sociological explation, but "not attributable to genetics".

Criticism can be positive

All the 'criticisms' in the aforenamed section are negative. Criticism's meaning does not neccesarily connotate negativity 100% of the time, although some fallaciously twist the meaning to mean something that is depreciative. Think of criticism as 'commentary', or 'evaluation' not 'depreciation' or 'disparaging'.--Knucmo2 16:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Translation Question

Le point commun de toutes ces approches est qu'il n'existe pas entre le physiologique et le psychologique une barrière tellement infranchissable que l'évolution ne pourrait expliquer que le premier, et pas le second.(From the French Wiki article on EP)

Is it fair to translate this as meaning, essentially, that EP states that there does not exist an utter separation between psychology and physiology, that evolutionary mechanisms are capable of influencing both? Is that the jist? (A fairly straightforward one, if this is the case). Thanks! ~ Dpr 16:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Literal translation: "The point common to all these approaches is that there does not exist between physiology and psychology a barrier so insurmountable that evolution can only explain the first, and not the second." -- Schaefer 18:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my understanding. Vielen dank! ~ Dpr 20:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Message from 209.232.131.45

Note: I moved this back down to the bottom of the page, where new messages belong. -- Schaefer

I want to put this right at the top just because I'm being ignored. Not that I can't explain that but; Congregation for competitive sexual (mate) selection can evolve into congregation as competitive sexual selection. Whereupon, all traits conducive to congregation (i.e. socialization/enculturation) become subject to the evolutionary influence of sexual selection as noted by Darwin.

So;

1. all traits means all traits. No single trait can be singled out as preeminent.
2. the function of enculturation is regulation of competition. The induces an evolutionary trend. Plus, it achieves a state wherein regulation of competition becomes competition.
3. of the three essential expressions of sexuality, (1) competition, (2) coitus, (3) reproduction, essential to consideration of reproduction is the manner or style of reproduction. There are numerous other references to this but working backwards I refer to the level of dependence involved.

That is to say, some species such as some instects or plants, show only the most minimal concern for the success of offspring and typically deposit large numbers of seed or egg etc. Whereas, if we observe other species from fish to reptiles to avian to mammals & etc. increasing levels of parental involvement with offspring are observed (go look it up).

The most significant aspect of this to psych. is the behavioral quality or nature of the parental and infantile involvement. This leads to the following.

The period of neonatel, infantile, & juvenile dependence cannot exceed the capacity of the parental response. So; the primary expression of dependence by the neonate elicits the secondary expression of dependence by the parent/caregiver. This is a dynamic behavioiral relationship acting to curtail or extend the period of juvenile dependence. This is also essentially, the definition of mammalia.

So we have regulation of competition as competition; and,

• Dependence as a drive with bimodal expression.
• Dependence is a drive, not a disorder. Drives are subject to vicsissitudes.

The activities of the dependence drive and the action of enculturization as competition occur within close temporal proximity in the human juvenile/infant. These drives are not congruent and are mostly incompatible (re: Freud psychosexual stages). The human species has maximized this phenomenon to produce a state of competitive diversity and disparity through the developmental stages of the human infant/juvenile.

Look, I could go on about how evolution maximizes all opportunities, takes maximime use of all diversity, but do I have to? -- 209.232.131.45