Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(110,159 posts)
21. there are many explanations about the issues with evo psych. here are 6 major, not even the minor
Thu Jul 26, 2012, 09:28 PM
Jul 2012

Does evolutionary psychology have any problems?

Yes. Here are what I see as a few of the major problems currently faced by evolutionary psychology:

1. Evolutionary psychology is attempting to elucidate the functional organization of the brain even though researchers currently cannot, with very few exceptions, directly study complex neural circuits. This is like attempting to discover the functions of the lungs, heart, etc., without being able to conduct dissections. Although psychological evidence indisputably reveals that cognition has structure, it is less clear that it does so with sufficient resolution to provide convincing evidence of functional design. Can the current state of the art in cognitive psychology successfully cleave human nature at its joints? Maybe, maybe not. Despite these reservations, it is worth noting that virtually every research university in the world has a psychology department. Grounding psychology in an explicit framework of evolved function cannot help but improve attempts to unveil the workings of the brain. It is far easier to find something if you have some idea of what it is you are looking for.

2. The domains of cognition proposed by evolutionary psychologists are often pretty ad hoc. Traditionally, cognitive psychologists have assumed that cognitive abilities are relatively abstract: categorization, signal detection, recognition, memory, logic, inference, etc. Evolutionary psychology proposes a radically orthogonal set of 'ecologically valid' domains and reasoning abilities: predator detection, toxin avoidance, incest avoidance, mate selection, mating strategies, social exchange, and so on. These latter domains and abilities are derived largely from behavioral ecology. Although mate selection surely involves computations that are fundamentally different from predator detection, it is not so clear that the organization of the brain just happens to match the theoretical divisions of behavioral ecology. The concept of 'object' is obviously quite abstract, yet it is equally obvious that it is an essential concept for reasoning about mates, predators, kin, etc. The same goes for other 'abstract' abilities like categorization and signal detection. Ecologically valid reasoning about domains such as kinship may require cognitive abilities organized at higher levels of abstraction like 'recognition.' On the other hand, numerous experiments show that reasoning can be greatly facilitated when problems are stated in ecologically valid terms. Negating if-p-then-q statements becomes transparently easy when the content of such statements involves social exchange, for example. The theoretical integration of more abstract, informationally valid domains with less abstract, ecologically valid domains remains a central problem for evolutionary psychology.

3. Evolutionary psychology (and adaptationism in general) has devoted considerable theoretical attention to the issue of design, the first link in the causal chain leading from phenotype structure to reproductive outcome, but has lumped every other link into the category 'reproductive problem.' This failure to theorize about successive links can lead to spectacular failures of the 'design' approach. Three examples: 1) evidence of design clearly identifies bipedalism as an adaptation, but what 'problem' it solved is not at all obvious, nor does the 'evidence of design' philosophy provide much guidance (though more detailed functional analyses of bipedalism are further constraining the set of possible solutions). 2) Language shows clear evidence of design, and there are several plausible reproductive advantages to having language, so why don't many other animals have language? 3) It can be very difficult to determine whether simple traits are adaptations simply because there is insufficient evidence of design. Menopause may be an adaptation, but it has too few 'features' to say based on evidence of design alone (some 'features' of menopause, like bone loss, seem to indicate that it is not an adaptation). Very simple traits will not always yield to a 'design analysis,' simply because there isn't enough to grab onto.

4. Evolutionary psychology is founded on a model of ancestral human reproductive ecology (the EEA), yet the current version of this model is woefully out of date. Life history theory, the sub-discipline of biology devoted to understanding the fundamental aspects of the reproductive ecologies of plant and animals, has made enormous strides in the last decade or so. Little of this work has entered the 'mainstream' of human evolutionary psychology. Part of the problem is that the units of analysis for life history theorists (e.g., body size, mortality rates, taxonomic categories) are quite different than those used by adaptationists (e.g., strategies, design elements). Yet life history arguments are central to much work in evolutionary psychology (e.g., parental investment). Evolutionary psychologists need to get up to speed on the current state of the art in life history theory.



Science, no, ideology yes. hifiguy Jul 2012 #1
Uh, yeah... I can read, thanks. redqueen Jul 2012 #5
Peer-reviewed science is what it is. hifiguy Jul 2012 #6
Do you understand what those words mean? redqueen Jul 2012 #8
I certainly do. hifiguy Jul 2012 #10
Her methodology is sound I'm sure. redqueen Jul 2012 #12
There is no abusive language and the parallel is appropriate. hifiguy Jul 2012 #17
" you sound like a climate-change denier?"" I am being thoroughly civil here." ah, no. seabeyond Jul 2012 #14
do you have the fainist idea how much you sound like an evo babbler??? seabeyond Jul 2012 #9
The one and ONLY pont I made in post #1 hifiguy Jul 2012 #13
you have made it clear since it made "peer-reviewed academic journal" it is valid. seabeyond Jul 2012 #15
Your statement is faith-based hifiguy Jul 2012 #18
you would be wrong, but dont let that stop you. nt seabeyond Jul 2012 #19
How do you infer Evo? One_Life_To_Give Jul 2012 #2
This part: redqueen Jul 2012 #3
totally amazing tying evo babble to this when from the day girls and boys are born they are taught seabeyond Jul 2012 #11
Actually it is not hard to imagine an experiment hifiguy Jul 2012 #22
there is plenty of documentation that challenges this. you obviously did not read any of it. to me, seabeyond Jul 2012 #23
Actually, I read that link, and most of the comments. hifiguy Jul 2012 #24
unilaterally attack Evolutionary Psychology is to deny that there is any part of human behaviour seabeyond Jul 2012 #25
Jeezus. hifiguy Jul 2012 #26
i can say the same right back at you. so why bother? i have no desire to converse with a person seabeyond Jul 2012 #27
I "throw out insults" hifiguy Jul 2012 #34
I am also having trouble seeing any assertion about natural behavior or evo-psych MadrasT Jul 2012 #4
In addition to the comment quoted in post three, there's this... redqueen Jul 2012 #7
Ahhhhhhhhh MadrasT Jul 2012 #35
evo babble dismisses all of history for the first moment in time. they ignore conditioning, nurture, seabeyond Jul 2012 #16
Explain this: pscot Jul 2012 #28
see... this is exactly the crap i am talking about. you define it thru this period of time seabeyond Jul 2012 #29
Peer reviewed it may be ismnotwasm Jul 2012 #20
there are many explanations about the issues with evo psych. here are 6 major, not even the minor seabeyond Jul 2012 #21
Like clockwork... redqueen Jul 2012 #30
this would be a never ending process we do with women. but hell, lets not consider seabeyond Jul 2012 #31
I guess that writer at iO9 had no problem seizing onto the evo psych angle. redqueen Jul 2012 #32
"the media is probably a prime suspect." seabeyond Jul 2012 #33
Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»History of Feminism»An example of junk scienc...»Reply #21