Evolutionary Psychology

What are your views on evolutionary psychology?

I would need to hear a solid definition of the subject and one of the theories, of which I have the feeling there are several. Although I'm not versed in this particular subject I feel as though I could gain a basic understanding of it quickly (about a month or two).

From what I do know of neurology there is a strong connection between genetics and the development of different patterns of behavior through the development of differing structures of the brain. There has been extensive research into this on the subject of violence and sociopathy that I have been exposed to.

That said, I do not think that the genetic basis for brain structure can explain more than impulses that an individual experiences. Anytime that someone tries to use this kind of research to justify immoral behavior is mistaken, in my opinion.

So, what definition do you mean?

Red Aegis wrote:I would need to hear a solid definition of the subject and one of the theories, of which I have the feeling there are several. Although I'm not versed in this particular subject I feel as though I could gain a basic understanding of it quickly (about a month or two).

From what I do know of neurology there is a strong connection between genetics and the development of different patterns of behavior through the development of differing structures of the brain. There has been extensive research into this on the subject of violence and sociopathy that I have been exposed to.

That said, I do not think that the genetic basis for brain structure can explain more than impulses that an individual experiences. Anytime that someone tries to use this kind of research to justify immoral behavior is mistaken, in my opinion.

So, what definition do you mean?

How about this. A study that seeks to identify aspects of human psychology that are a result of evolutionary adaptation.

That isn't specific, sorry.

Red Aegis wrote:I would need to hear a solid definition of the subject and one of the theories, of which I have the feeling there are several. Although I'm not versed in this particular subject I feel as though I could gain a basic understanding of it quickly (about a month or two).

Evolutionary psychology is a theory of human behavior which is derived from E. O. Wilson's sociobiology. It is premised on two basic concepts: kin selection applied to human beings (though certain sociobiologists have recently resurrected multilevel selection), and the evolution of thousands of specific cognitive modules. These modules purportedly endowed our ancestors with the means by which to survive in the African savannah during the Pleistocene, and have remained largely unchanged since then as a result of selection pressures having receded to a significant extent with the ascendancy of civilization. Thus, according to the theory, all manner of human behavior and social relations observed today (e.g., gender relations, the structure of political and economic institutions, and religion) are 'natural' phenomena.

However, despite what its proponents argue, evolutionary psychology cannot be regarded as an actual scientific discipline because its main claims are simply unfalsifiable—in fact, they are analogous to Rudyard Kipling's Just So Stories. The falsifiable claims the discipline has made haven't withstood serious investigation. The massive modularity hypothesis, for example, has been discredited by the relatively recent discovery of neuroplasticity. Far from being a computational device consisting of static modules which evolved to suit an archaic ecology, scientists have found that the human brain is a dynamic organ capable of modifying itself to handle ever changing conditions. In short, evolutionary psychology suffers from the same shortcomings as all manifestations of biological reductionism. In my opinion, the dialectical approach to biology, pioneered by neuropsychologists like Peter Kuzmich Anokhin, and later developed by Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose, Richard Levins, and Leon Kamin, is a far more fruitful scientific paradigm.

Anyone interested in learning of the empirical and theoretical shortcomings associated with evolutionary psychology should listen to Richard Lewontin's lecture on "Biology as Ideology," and consult the following works:

The Mind Doesn't Work That Way by Jerry Fodor
Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature by David J. Buller
Getting Darwin Wrong: Why Evolutionary Psychology Won't Work by Brendan Wallace
Neo-liberal Genetics: The Myths and Moral Tales of Evolutionary Psychology by Susan McKinnon
The Use and Abuse of Biology: An Anthropological Critique of Sociobiology by Marshall Sahlins
Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology edited by Steven and Hilary Rose
Beyond Human Nature by Jesse J. Prinz
Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature by Lewontin, Rose, and Kamin
Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology by Robert C. Richardson

I don't see why the idea of Evolutionary Psychology should trigger the hostility I've seen in some.

Evolutionary Psychology is somewhat interesting to me. I'm certainly no expert on the subject but I think some of its' studies are interesting.

GreenBowman wrote:I don't see why the idea of Evolutionary Psychology should trigger the hostility I've seen in some.

Evolutionary Psychology is somewhat interesting to me. I'm certainly no expert on the subject but I think some of its' studies are interesting.

The reason evolutionary psychology elicits the ire of many leftists is because it essentially reduces to a biologized version of the doctrine of possessive individualism. As I mentioned above, the paradigm is fraught with unfalsifiable claims and ideological assumptions about human nature, despite the fact its practitioners present themselves as dispassionate 'seekers of the truth.' The few testable claims the discipline does happen to make are routinely debunked. For example, the much acclaimed Trivers-Willard hypothesis of parental investment was empirically refuted by Jeremy Freese and Brian Powell in “Making Love out of Nothing At All? Null Findings and the Trivers-Willard Hypothesis” (American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 106, pp. 1776-1789), as was David Buss's theory of human infidelity by David J. Buller in “Sex, Jealousy & Violence: A Skeptical Look at Evolutionary Psychology” (Skeptic, Vol. 12, No. 1). Additionally, to repeat what I described in my previous post, Jerry Fodor has challenged the massive modularity theory of cognition upon which evolutionary psychology is based in The Mind Doesn't Work That Way: The Scope and Limits of Computational Psychology (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001), and recent findings in cognitive science—particularly the discovery of neuroplasticity—have validated his criticisms.

As you might know, the field is currently undergoing a rather heated debate regarding what the precise unit of selection was in human evolutionary history, and this has profound implications for the future direction of evolutionary psychology. Whatever the answer might be is largely irrelevant though, because, as Stephen Jay Gould noted, "culture interposes itself as a unique level between the genotype and the phenotype of human conduct." Marshall Sahlins's anthropological research on the subject of kinship, for instance, reveals the considerable extent by which culture effects humanity's conception thereof—see What Kinship Is-And is Not (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013).

Simply put, it's a paltry "science" that nevertheless has the potential to contribute to the false consciousness of the proletariat.

I'm interested by a lot of irrational things. I like to read certain fiction and mythology myself but that doesn't make the content any less nonsense.