Evolutionary Psychology

[Makalakumu]

This topic was discussed briefly in this thread. I'd like to devote an entire thread to this subject.

For those of you who do not know what evolutionary psychology is, here is the short skinny...

EP is a newer theory that piggy backs on the work of EO Wilson and Richard Dawkins sociobiology. The theory posits that much of human behavior was determined in the evolutionary crucible of subsahara africa as our species evolved.

An example of something an EPist might posit is that our physical attraction to fatty foods is a relic of hunter/gatherer times. An attraction to fatty foods would provide more energy to an individual and thus that individual would have a competitive edge over others. This illustrates one of tne of the corner stones of EP theory. Natural selection determined (s) human behavior.

upnorthkyosa

 

[elder999]

This topic was discussed briefly in this thread. I'd like to devote an entire thread to this subject.

For those of you who do not know what evolutionary psychology is, here is the short skinny...

EP is a newer theory that piggy backs on the work of EO Wilson and Richard Dawkins sociobiology. The theory posits that much of human behavior was determined in the evolutionary crucible of subsahara africa as our species evolved.

An example of something an EPist might posit is that our physical attraction to fatty foods is a relic of hunter/gatherer times. An attraction to fatty foods would provide more energy to an individual and thus that individual would have a competitive edge over others. This illustrates one of tne of the corner stones of EP theory. Natural selection determined (s) human behavior.

upnorthkyosa

Yeah...kinda like why women go to the bathroom in groups.

See, once upon a time, if women went down to the river, they were in danger of being dragged off, either by men from another band or big animals, so women have it imprinted upon them to go to the bathroom in groups, whether they have to go or not......

 

[Ray]

Yeah...kinda like why women go to the bathroom in groups.

See, once upon a time, if women went down to the river, they were in danger of being dragged off, either by men from another band or big animals, so women have it imprinted upon them to go to the bathroom in groups, whether they have to go or not......

I was shocked when I once saw the inside of a women's bathroom...it had a sofa, plants and didn't have urine all over the floor. No wonder they seem to enjoy migrating to them.

 

[The Kai]

Oddly enough tho' in the natural world the male of the specius is usally the flashier one, while the female is drabber. So I guess men have to start dressing up a little more?

 

[Makalakumu]

Oddly enough tho' in the natural world the male of the specius is usally the flashier one, while the female is drabber. So I guess men have to start dressing up a little more?

This concept is known as sexual selection and is inheritly tied to the topic of evolutionary psychology. Sexual selection is the selection of traits based on a greater ability to breed.

A good example of sexual selection is the peacock's tail. This morphology has absolutely no practical economic benefit and is actually detrimental to male peacocks because it makes them easier to hunt. Yet, it looks real good to peacock females and to peacock females, size matters. Thus, big...feathers.

Sexual selection, to an evolutionary psychologist, can explain much about human behavior. Sexual selection affects individuals based on their breeding strategy. Here are some general rules about sexual selection that were proposed by Charles Darwin in 1871.

A general female in the animal kingdom, with one egg that is released once per month and one that must tend to offspring generated (this can be gestational), tends to be choosier about her mates. Preferring not only strong traits, but economic power to support offspring.

A general male in the animal kingdom, who produces millions of sperm and is not burdened with the economics of raising the offspring, can afford to spread his seed around rather indiscriminately. What this means means for the male is that the FEMALE chooses and it is the FEMALE who controls reproduction. Males are relagated to the position of sexual sign posts. A balance of flashy and practical scores...literally!

Does anyone see a correllation with human behavior? If you do, then you are not alone. This is evolutionary psychology in action as it explains human behavior.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Oddly enough tho' in the natural world the male of the specius is usally the flashier one, while the female is drabber. So I guess men have to start dressing up a little more?

Speak for yourself!

 

[Makalakumu]

Speak for yourself!

Looks like we got one sexual sign post here!

Pick me! Pick Me! PICK ME!

 

[The Kai]

Looks like we got one sexual sign post here!

Pick me! Pick Me! PICK ME!

UpNorth, please tell me you're not jumping up and down with loose, flailing wrist while you yell that are you??

 

[Makalakumu]

UpNorth, please tell me you're not jumping up and down with loose, flailing wrist while you yell that are you??

Naw, I'm fairly stiff wristed Hahahahahaha, I didn't mean it like that. I was attempted to characterize the typical male sexual signpost.

Yet, I can make a point with this. As far as sexual selection goes, what about homosexuality? According to EP, two males sizing each other up is like to billboards facing each other. How can they decide to hook up?

What we have here is a crack in the crazy gene centered Evolutionary Psychology and a glimpse at the EP that will eventually eat all of the other behavioral sciences' lunches...

 

[heretic888]

From the other thread...

I've read some good papers and some bad. Its the same with any field. However, I think the primary principles of EP are sound.

I would argue the primary principles of evolutionary psychology are fairly sound, also. This is in large part because they are derived from fields outside of evolutionary psychology.

However, the same thing can be said of behaviorism and Freudian psychoanalytic theory, as well. Its the specifics that kill yah. And, in my experience, most of the specific claims made by evolutionary psychology as a whole logically seem to make "sense", but cannot be directly tested or verified.

Now, I'm not saying evolutionary psychology is wrong. I have a great deal of sympathy for much of what its trying to do. However, when you can't falsify a claim (once you find out a particular trait is inherited how would you disprove that it was naturally selected millions of years ago?), and when you rely on a philosophy of Universal Darwinism (natural selection can explain everything!), you're bound to run into some criticism.

Principle 1. The brain is a physical system. It functions as a computer. Its circuits are designed to generate behavior that is appropriate to your environmental circumstances.

This is nothing novel. This claim derives from biopsychology and cognitive science, and is well-supported by those fields.

Principle 2. Our neural circuits were designed by natural selection to solve problems that our ancestors faced during our species' evolutionary history.

This, however, is an a priori assumption that cannot be tested.

This would require knowing what the neural circuitry of our ancestors was like (rest assured, we don't), the social circumstances they found themselves in, and the physical environment (right down to diet, level of technology, and weather conditions) that they found themselves in. We know some of this stuff, but not anything close to the total picture.

Hell, we don't even know how old the neural circuitry we currently have is! We know anatomically modern homo sapiens have been around for at least 50,000 years, but that doesn't tell us anything about brain structures (mostly skeletal anatomy is studied, really). It could very well be the modern cognitive system --- with Piaget's well-defined sensorimotor, pre-operational, concrete-operational, formal-operational (and possibly post-formal) stages --- is a rather modern development, dating between 3,000 and 5,000 years (Princeton psychologist Julian Jaynes theorized, based on archaelogical data, that the "self" as we currently know it didn't exist before this time, coinciding with a "cultural explosion" during the so-called 'axial age').

The thing I'm trying to say is, we just don't know. We don't know if it was natural selection, we don't know the real history of our current neural and cognitive systems, and we certainly don't have a way to directly test any of it.

Principle 3. Consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg; most of what goes on in your mind is hidden from you. As a result, your conscious experience can mislead you into thinking that our circuitry is simpler that it really is.

Again, this is nothing novel. This is the basic, enduring insight from psychoanalytic theory: most of our psychological processes are unconscious.

Most problems that you experience as easy to solve are very difficult to solve -- they require very complicated neural circuitry.

Again, nothing biopsychology or cognitive science doesn't tell us.

Outside of Principle 2, none of these main principles seem to be novel to evolutionary psychology. And, ironically, it is Principle 2 that has the theoretical problems.

You are right about biologists and chemists, though. I have a hard time seeing it any other way.

It becomes a lot easier when you realize the answer may very well be "both/and" instead of "either/or". I don't doubt the main insights of evolutionary psychology, I just don't think they're going to "replace" or "unify" currently existing in psychology.

Social psychology, cognitive psychology, and structuralist psychology all have much stronger empirical evidence in their corner. They don't try to supercede all the other sub-disciplines of psychology, either.

I think a "big picture" of psychology is possible, but evolutionary psychology ain't it.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

What we have here is a crack in the crazy gene centered Evolutionary Psychology...

Take that, Dawkins!

... and a glimpse at the EP that will eventually eat all of the other behavioral sciences' lunches...

They're gonna have to start making claims that can be falsified first.

And, in all honesty, don't bet on it. Some kind of synthesis or integration of psychological theories seems to be a reality --- something that would work at integrating 'physicalist' schools like biopsychology and evolutionary psychology with 'mentalist' schools like structuralism, psychoanalysis, and humanistic-existentialism. But, claiming any one schools will "eath all of the other behavioral sciences' lunches" is just a hallmark of academic hubris.

I know this is a shock, but Piaget has told us more about how the mind works and develops than all the evolutionary psychologists and sociobiologists put together. If you're going to formulate any "theory of everything" within psychology, you can't simply ignore the research of the schools you don't like.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

This, however, is an a priori assumption that cannot be tested.

This would require knowing what the neural circuitry of our ancestors was like (rest assured, we don't), the social circumstances they found themselves in, and the physical environment (right down to diet, level of technology, and weather conditions) that they found themselves in. We know some of this stuff, but not anything close to the total picture.

Hell, we don't even know how old the neural circuitry we currently have is! We know anatomically modern homo sapiens have been around for at least 50,000 years, but that doesn't tell us anything about brain structures (mostly skeletal anatomy is studied, really). It could very well be the modern cognitive system --- with Piaget's well-defined sensorimotor, pre-operational, concrete-operational, formal-operational (and possibly post-formal) stages --- is a rather modern development, dating between 3,000 and 5,000 years (Princeton psychologist Julian Jaynes theorized, based on archaelogical data, that the "self" as we currently know it didn't exist before this time, coinciding with a "cultural explosion" during the so-called 'axial age').

The thing I'm trying to say is, we just don't know. We don't know if it was natural selection, we don't know the real history of our current neural and cognitive systems, and we certainly don't have a way to directly test any of it.

On the contrary, we have a wealth of paleobotanical, paleoclimatic, and paleontogic evidence that inform us of past environments. As far as actually experimenting on the human mind though, you are correct, impossible.

However, other animal minds, especially simpler ones that use the same physical processes that ours uses can be experimented upon. Comparitive anatomy has a lot to say about how brains develop as the environment changes. For instance, it is well established that planaria develop cup shaped light receptors in order to detect light and that the development of these light receptors caused a reciprocal development of the brain. Why would humans be any different?

Sure, we are much more complex, but whether we are talking about planaria, fish, or gnats, our brains basically function the same.

It becomes a lot easier when you realize the answer may very well be "both/and" instead of "either/or". I don't doubt the main insights of evolutionary psychology, I just don't think they're going to "replace" or "unify" currently existing in psychology.

Social psychology, cognitive psychology, and structuralist psychology all have much stronger empirical evidence in their corner. They don't try to supercede all the other sub-disciplines of psychology, either.

I think a "big picture" of psychology is possible, but evolutionary psychology ain't it.

Much of the evidence in evolutionary psychology comes from outside the fields of psychology. Zoology and comparitive anatomy provide mucho insights into the general evolution of brains and these insights are extrapolated to humans.

The basic assumption is that we are animals and we function similarly. I don't see any reason to doubt this assumption.

Regarding the replacement of psychologic fields, I think that it will never totally erase people's work. It will just be looked at through a new lense as more evidence is presented and people learn to look at fields outside psychology for input. EP has a point and I think that it needs to be blended into our curret understanding of the brain. I don't want to poo-poo all of the arguments against EP, but some of it seems like turf war.

 

[heretic888]

On the contrary, we have a wealth of paleobotanical, paleoclimatic, and paleontogic evidence that inform us of past environments.

If you'll note, what I actually said was "We know some of this stuff, but not anything close to the total picture." I stand by that statement.

We only have the barest knowledge, for example, of the type of sociocultural environment our hominid ancestors lived in, which would have had as significant an impact on their evolutionary development as anything else. There is also still some debate regarding pre-humans' primary means of subsistence (although a general consensus seems to be it was a combination of hunting, gathering, and scavenging --- but to what degree is unknown), as well as other variables.

But, the point remains we don't know if any given adaptation was the result of natural selection or some other evolutionary mechanism (the use of natural selection, for example, to explain cultural evolution is very, very weak), and we certainly have no way of testing or falsifying any of the claims made about them.

However, other animal minds, especially simpler ones that use the same physical processes that ours uses can be experimented upon. Comparitive anatomy has a lot to say about how brains develop as the environment changes. For instance, it is well established that planaria develop cup shaped light receptors in order to detect light and that the development of these light receptors caused a reciprocal development of the brain. Why would humans be any different?

Well, there are three problems with that assessment:

1) The generalization of animal psychology to human psychology is ultimately what brought down behaviorism. Evolutionary psychology, in fact, bears many resemblences to behaviorism in regards to its methodology and the claims that it makes regarding how it will "change" psychology.

2) We still don't know if the mechanism by which these structures evolved was natural selection or something else. Assuming a priori via the paradigm of Universal Darwinism that it "had to have been" is more akin to philosophy than science.

3) You're still just left with a big "maybe" in the end, with a general lack of direct data concerning human beings. This isn't particularly strong scientific foundations.

Sure, we are much more complex, but whether we are talking about planaria, fish, or gnats, our brains basically function the same.

It depends which structures you're talking about. All of those organism have a neural system of some kind, so in that sense you are correct.

Much of the evidence in evolutionary psychology comes from outside the fields of psychology. Zoology and comparitive anatomy provide mucho insights into the general evolution of brains and these insights are extrapolated to humans.

Sure. But, that still doesn't tell us which of all that was or was not a product of natural selection.

The basic assumption is that we are animals and we function similarly. I don't see any reason to doubt this assumption.

You might want to research some of the historical debates between behaviorists and cognitivists. Humans function similarly to other animals up to a point. Language has a big part to do with it.

Regarding the replacement of psychologic fields, I think that it will never totally erase people's work.

Unless they start presenting falsifiable claims, they're not going to be taken seriously outside of their own circles, let alone replace anyone's work.

It will just be looked at through a new lense as more evidence is presented and people learn to look at fields outside psychology for input.

I'd suggest actually doing a little bit more research concerning psychology.

Depending on the particular sub-discipline, they already rely on fields outside their own for information. Evolutionary psychology is not the first psychological school to look at the neurological structure of the brain. Not by a long shot. Hell, even cognitive psychology relies largely on models from computer programming to explain encoding and memory. Social psychology borrows as much from sociology as it does from psychology.

EP has a point and I think that it needs to be blended into our curret understanding of the brain.

Well, it'd help if some more concrete data was accumulated outside of "its a product of natural selection", which itself is debatable.

Personally, I think the closest thing to a solid "unified" psychological theory right now might be Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences theory. He bases his arguments on Piagetian principles, social-learning theory, neurological development structures, and evolutionary historical principles.

I don't want to poo-poo all of the arguments against EP, but some of it seems like turf war.

Make no mistake, some of it is.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[arnisador]

Turf war? Definitely. It's the old battle of natural science vs. social science. The EP folks see themselves of a type with biologists, whereas they see other psychologists as of a type with sociologists. The reasoning is, the closer I am to the natural sciences, the more respect my work will get.

I like the ideas of EP. But it's true that testing it is an issue.

 

[heretic888]

Turf war? Definitely. It's the old battle of natural science vs. social science. The EP folks see themselves of a type with biologists, whereas they see other psychologists as of a type with sociologists.

In reality, psychology is a very complex field and it doesn't get broken down that easily or simply.

If you're looking at social psychology, cultural psychology, and specifically at social learning theorists like Vygotsky and Bandura, then its true that actual biology and data from the natural sciences is generally avoided or ignored. This isn't to say these schools deny the claims of biology and evolutionary theory, only that isn't the principal emphasis of their studies. Traditional cognitive-structuralists (re: Piaget and Kohlberg), psychonanalysts (re: Erikson and Freud), and humanists (re: Maslow and Rogers) typically don't focus too strongly on biological concepts, either.

Then, of course, there are the behaviorists, cognitivists, biopsychologists, and cognitive scientists --- all of whom rely heavily on a knowledge of the biological structures of the brain. Eclectic theorists, like Gardner, also tend to draw upon a combination of approaches (evolutionary psych, social learning, cognitive-structuralism, and neuropsychology).

In other words, there are a number of approaches besides evolutionary psych that base themselves on biology. And, regarding sociology, only social psychology, cultural psychology, and social learning theory really lean closely in that direction. Psychoanalysis, humanistic psych, cognitive psych, and developmental-structuralism are all pretty far off from using sociological explanations.

In summation, it ain't that simple.

The reasoning is, the closer I am to the natural sciences, the more respect my work will get.

The irony being that evolutionary psych isn't the psychological discipline closes to the natural sciences. Cognitive science, biopsychology, and even behaviorist psych are all closer equivalents.

I like the ideas of EP. But it's true that testing it is an issue.

That and the traditional neo-Darwinian paradigm is perhaps in for a major change in the next 10 to 20 years.

This kind of ties in with the evolutionary theory thread that this thread split from, but I really feel that evolutionary psychology won't reach its full maturity until it begins to incorporate more post-Darwinian principles and explanations. As it is, it largely draws upon the "Universal Darwinism" of sociobiologists like Dawkins, and attempts to use natural selection as a catchall explanation for basically everything.

Research from post-Darwinists, which has only really come out since the mid-80's (Dawkins published The Selfish Gene in 1976, before the advent of post-Darwinism), is changing a lot of traditional assumptions about evolution (such as seemingly non-random mutations, long-term directional patterns of development, self-organization paradigms, genetic hybridization via retroviruses, and complexity hierarchies). As our understanding of evolution evolves (hah, a pun!) so to will the paradigms and explanations within evolutionary psychology itself.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[arnisador]

My point wasn't who uses biology and sociology in particular, but who sees themselves as a natural scientist (I've heard 'psychological scientist' used by academic psychologists to distinguish themselves from psychotherapists and, more generally, counselors of all stripes) and who sees themselves as a social scientist. As with several other social sciences, some psychologists see themselves as natural scientists, others as social scientists. It's a philosophical issue! Is behaviour applied biology, which is applied chemistry, which is applied physics, or is there something more?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Turf war? Definitely. It's the old battle of natural science vs. social science. The EP folks see themselves of a type with biologists, whereas they see other psychologists as of a type with sociologists. The reasoning is, the closer I am to the natural sciences, the more respect my work will get.

I like the ideas of EP. But it's true that testing it is an issue.

As with any theory of any phenomenon that exists on a macro-scale. Of course it is the large scale phenomenon that we have left to explore, the phenomenon not easily squeezed in to a test tube.

As for evolutionary psychology, it's good to see that genetic explainations for behavior have moved beyond the post WWII knee jerk, hysterical reactions that caused many to shun genetics as "fascist" and allowed sociologists to dominate the next several decades, to the detriment of many.

For decades it was impossible to even suggest genetic causes for behavior, without being stuck with the stigma of "Eugenics". In fact, many paranoid acolytes of sociology have even whispered hush accusations of eugenics against evolutionary psychology.

Of course, the vanguard of old scientific thought often guards the gates against any real innovation. It's what happens when scientific theory becomes dogma.

Sociology theories have their role, but they don't come close to explaining the corner stones of behavior without an understanding of genetic causes of behavior.

 

[heretic888]

My point wasn't who uses biology and sociology in particular, but who sees themselves as a natural scientist (I've heard 'psychological scientist' used by academic psychologists to distinguish themselves from psychotherapists and, more generally, counselors of all stripes) and who sees themselves as a social scientist.

While I think the term 'psychological scientist' is pretty silly (and redundant), the distinction between research psychologists (including meta-analysts), psychiatrists, and psychotherapists (including psychopathologists) is very important, in my opinion.

However, as with other things in the field, this distinction is sometimes a little fuzzy.

Regarding evolutionary psychologists themselves, the majority of them are research psychologists. Evolutionary psychology hasn't yet matured to the point that any of its specifics can be applied as some sort of treatment methodology.

As with several other social sciences, some psychologists see themselves as natural scientists, others as social scientists. It's a philosophical issue!

Perhaps, but it could also be that the delineation between a "natural scientist" and a "social scientist" isn't all that clear-cut to begin with. In my opinion, these are moreso differences of degree and emphasis than they are differences of kind.

Regarding such categorizations within psychology itself, it largely depends on what school the individual belongs to. Social psychologists probably prefer to see themselves as social scientists, but a behaviorist or biopsychologist would likely object to such a categorization.

Is behaviour applied biology, which is applied chemistry, which is applied physics, or is there something more?

There is a brief article criticizing 'reductionism' in science at talkorigins.org entitled Evolution and Philosophy: Reductionism and Evolution.

On a personal note, I think such reductionism is, by and large, examples of self-confirming biases and academic narcissism. The going assumption is that some field (usually physics) is THE science, and everything else is just commentary or addendums to that field. This is a pretty good scholastic example of what Derrida called the "zero point", an illusory eternal standard by which all other truth or knowledge is to be rated by.

The question is whether biological principles and theories can be reduced to physics without remainder. If there is some non-physicist remainder left over, then it ain't a true reduction. And, as such, this leaves the reductionists in something of a bind --- because the cold, hard truth is that there is plenty of remainder left over in biology that cannot be derived from physics. Likewise with psychology.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[heretic888]

As with any theory of any phenomenon that exists on a macro-scale.

Not necessarily. There are some pretty "macro-scale" meta-theories in psychology that have pretty well-supported by modern research and testing. Piaget's stages of cognitive reasoning and Erikson's stages of psychosocial conflicts are two such examples.

Evolutionary psychology by and large falls into the same category as traditional Freudian theory, in that it is very difficult (if not impossible) to directly test most of its central claims. Of course, a central difference is that many of the specifics of Freud's theory were subject to falsifiability (and were for the most part rejected) whereas most EP theories are not.

As for evolutionary psychology, it's good to see that genetic explainations for behavior have moved beyond the post WWII knee jerk, hysterical reactions that caused many to shun genetics as "fascist" and allowed sociologists to dominate the next several decades, to the detriment of many.

For decades it was impossible to even suggest genetic causes for behavior, without being stuck with the stigma of "Eugenics". In fact, many paranoid acolytes of sociology have even whispered hush accusations of eugenics against evolutionary psychology.[/quote]

You must have been living in a different America than the rest of us, then.

From where I'm standing, behaviorism (which presumes pregiven reflexes and instinctual responses rooted in biology) has been the dominant school in psychology up until the late 1960's or so. Everything else in the field took a backseat.

Of course, the vanguard of old scientific thought often guards the gates against any real innovation. It's what happens when scientific theory becomes dogma.

It doesn't help when most of the "innovation" isn't subject to scientific testing.

Sociology theories have their role, but they don't come close to explaining the corner stones of behavior without an understanding of genetic causes of behavior.

Genetic theories also have their role, but they don't come close to explaining the corner stones of behavior without an understanding of social causes of behavior.

Actually, the whole 'nature' vs 'nurture' thing is pretty stupid in light of modern research. They don't compartmentalize that easily or simply.

Laterz. :asian: