What's your opinion of evolutionary psychology?

It’s extremely interesting to me; I’ve read some books on it. The thing I don’t like is that it relies on logic and there isn’t much of a good way to test it empirically. The logic seems pretty air-tight at times, but logic has lead us astray before. It has changed the way I look at things, though – now when I find out about a common trait, I always try and figure out how it is advantageous to a species to have that trait; why natural selection would have favored individuals with that trait and caused it to emerge as prevalent.

I believe we’ll be studying that in class soon, so as of now, I know nothing about it. If it has anything to do with us evolving from some type of ooze, I highly doubt I’ll be a fan.

@Facade Huh? Some type of ooze?

@MyNewtBoobs I’m just as confused as you are lol… You can replace “ooze” with however evolution explains humans =)

Everything you need to know about evolutionary psychology! (listen to it here)

@MyNewtBoobs

the “ooze” stuff sounds like what the creationists dismissively call “goo to you theory.”

Great question. We were just discussing this in our lab meeting today. I think it’s a lot of fun to talk about and speculate on, but really difficult to form testable hypothesis about.

It’s mostly good science.

Here’s a good article deconstructing one of evo/psych’s studies. Much of evo/psych studies are used to reinforce and condone current societal patterns even though societal patterns (like gender norms) change much faster than we change due to evolution.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir It was actually that article that prompted me to ask this question.

@MyNewtBoobs Ah, lol, really? That’s great!

What I think, quite frankly, is that evo psych, although a developing science, is science. And, as such, it will live or die by the maxims of science. If a theory is proposed and the data supports it, it will take hold. If a theory is not supported by the data, it will be discarded. The validity will be based on the quality of the data and the analysis of it. Right now, there is a lot of very warranted criticism about the scientific aspects of evo psych, and a lot of lively debate.

There are quite a few people who question the validity of evo psych for reasons that have little to do with the science, and much to do with their own personal feelings. For example, there’s a lot of data that supports a theory that female orgasm is an evolutionary byproduct that has not been selected for that what has been selected for is male orgasm, and since the male and female reproductive organs arise from the same tissues, female orgasm, for some women, is just a lucky physiological result. There are many people who criticize this theory not because of the science that supports it or does not support it, but because they believe it “devalues” women or “elevates” the importance of male orgasm.

Frankly, there’s no difference between the thought process involved here and that of a creationist who refuses to accept evolution because he feels it contradicts the Bible.

There is a lot of very justified criticism of many of evo-psych’s ideas (there’s a lot of nonsense in the linked article, for sure.) But we have to be careful not to fall into a trap of trying to make science fit an ideology- any ideology.

@crisw I’ve read studies (re: female orgasm) that say otherwise in that female orgasm is necessary, they claim, because it aids in either preparing the female to be more responsive to sperm (if she cums before) or to aid sperm in reaching the egg (if, presumably, everyone cums at the same time). What do you think? Frankly, the conversation is not all the relevant to me on the subject because as always, to me, it doesn’t matter why we have the female orgasm, the point is we DO have it and it HAS been, as a concept and a reality, through an interesting history. Part of that history was considering it to be a cure for hysteria, that catch-all phrase to mean all sorts of ‘women’s problems’ in a century not far from this one.

Oh and I also do agree with you that if only the scientific method was allowed to rule, it would rule many of these studies invalid on the jump from ram coitus, for example, to human gender norms. However, science isn’t presented in such a manner. The media and other people pick up certain tentative findings and rolls with them, the more sensationalist the better. That’s why you never see articles in NYTimes about the studies that show how men and women actually don’t differ on cognitive tests, etc but they, of course, do exist and outnumber the ones bent of showing difference.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir

“What do you think?”

The book I cited goes over every explanation that has been given for the evolution of the female orgasm then looks as to whether research supports the explanation- it’s a fascinating read. As far as the fertility aspects, if orgasm boosted fertility, we’d expect orgasmic females to be more fertile- but they aren’t.

@crisw I will look up the book. Sounds interesting!

I don’t put a whole lot of stock into it, personally. Partly because it doesn’t seem to take into account all the exceptions, and presents itself as a hard and fast rule. Another part is that it seems to frequently come to conclusions that make people skeptical of psychology in general – that a male baboon sees a female baboons red behind and takes that as a sign of fertility, and somehow that means that if I wear a red shirt on a date, my male date will be more sexually interested in me seems, at best, a far reach, and doesn’t take into account all the other possible answers. But mostly, I don’t care for it because at least 90% of the studies I’ve seen a) are all about confirming and excusing existing gender stereotypes, not challenging them and b) seem to come to a conclusion, then go out and find evidence to support it, discarding any evidence that doesn’t support the theory.

“A big problem with a lot of the evolutionary psychology stuff, and a lot of the arguments using animal behavior to prove that women act in a certain way and that gender roles are totally biological, is that it’s real, gendered people who are doing the interpreting.” – The best part of the article @Simone_De_Beauvoir linked to

@MyNewtBoobs

“But mostly, I don’t care for it because at least 90% of the studies I’ve seen a) are all about confirming and excusing existing gender stereotypes, not challenging them and b) seem to come to a conclusion, then go out and find evidence to support it, discarding any evidence that doesn’t support the theory.”

This certainly is a big fault with pop interpretations of evo psych. I think it’s far less of a problem when you look at actual research.

No research “excuses styereotypes.” It may help explain exactly why we have them in the first place. And a great deal of evo psych actually disconfirms some gender stereotypes. A great book which I have been reading is Sex at Dawn; the Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, which provides some pretty eye-opening research on why many modern stereotypes- that humans are naturally monogamous, that women enjoy sex less than men, etc.- are wrong.

in the end, though, let’s say that a large body of research confirms that a behavior that we consider a stereotype exists. We cannot then throw out the research just because we don’t like the conclusions. If we don’t like that behavior, then we at least have information about why it exists, which can help us formulate strategies to change it. Rejecting the research won’t make the behavior go away.

@crisw I agree. However, laypeople reading information about supposedly scientific studies aren’t well-versed in deconstructing analysis, methodologies or design of studies. That’s why spinning science is a dangerous business.