Isn't Evolutionary Psychology just pseudoscience?

dakru · 2016-08-05T23:26:02+00:00

If you're interested in evolutionary psychology as an actual academic discipline, you could look at Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind by David Buss.

ifelsedowhile · 2016-08-05T23:57:18+00:00

if you assume that evo psych is 100% or mostly pseudo science then you should assume that everything or most of what we do is because of socialization. we prefer sugars over broccoli because of socialization, we pull out our hand from fire because of socialization and not instinct and so on.

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2016-08-05T23:37:26+00:00

i dont understand this charge. here is the wiki for ev psych. obviously there are criticisms that can be made of it, like any field. but NO WHERE do i see the allegation that it is just "pseudo science".

we are animals. every aspect of us that you see RIGHT now evolved or is in the process of evolving. there is nothing else, just evolutionary pressures acting on animal populations.

could some SPECIFIC ev psych statements be pushing it or be "just so stories"? sure. but SOME EVOLUTIONARY PRESSURE led to the development and prevalence of blondness in populations that display it. god didnt put the blondness there, neither did magic. blondness was SELECTED for in a population in isolation. thats a very plausible explanation. sure, it could have been something else. early scandinavian populations could have accidentally developed a belief that blonde wives or children were good luck. the specific hypothesis you look at may be wrong, but that makes that hypothesis unfalsifiable, not the entire field

betterdeadthanbeta · 2016-08-06T12:17:30+00:00

Short of inventing a time machine, then we will never have a scientific answer to questions which relate to Evolutionary Biology.

You shifted from talking about evo psych to evolutionary biology. Which means no more scientific study of the divergence and descent of species.

Would you also be in favor of ejecting paleontologists from your list of accepted sciences?

If we accept your definition of science - only having to do with the directly observable - then scientists must be forever forbidden from talking about prehistory, ie, 99.9999999999999999% of the history of life on earth.

For example, I read a hypothesis from supposed ''scientists'' that suggested that the ancestors of the Scandinavians developed blonde hair because it made them stand out from the crowd in cold, white environments, when they were covered in black/Brown animal skin coats.

This ''hypothesis'' is clearly something which they pulled out of their arse. What evidence could support the claim? What evidence could falsify it?

Use a shitty example, come to a shitty conclusion. How about the hypothesis about Africans being more susceptible to sickle cell anemia because of having a mutated gene which also happened to make them more resistant to malaria? A theory with sound evidentiary backing which you can only really find creationists attempting to refute.

gasparddelanuit · 2016-08-05T23:52:28+00:00

No, it's a legitimate field of inquiry.

whyyoureadmyusername · 2016-08-06T01:21:59+00:00

I don't know much about the sciences, but I don't think claiming our 'psychology' is effected by certain evolutionary pressures and then studying these effects is pseudoscience.

I'm sure it has its problem, but from what what I know about the sciences, isn't every discipline that involves a significant amount of speculation controversial?

I've skimmed through only several academic sources and none of the studies claim anything that crazy.

I think the better explanation is that the way TRP tends to apply 'evolutionary psychology' is pseudosciencey.

I can guarantee you that if you showed an evolutionary psychologist any RP 'theory', they'd laugh you out of the room.

Sepean · 2016-08-06T06:51:32+00:00

TRP was not developed from evo psych findings; it is based on what works out in the real world and has been through plenty of testing.

That being said, for me evo psych is a good framework for my mental model of human behavior. It is just easier to understand women when you think of their behavior as optimized to pass on genes in a hunter-gatherer environment. I'm pretty sure that someone could make a convincing-sounding evo psych argument that wouldn't hold up in the real world so you need the real world testing before you begin thinking evo psych.

alreadyredschool · 2016-08-05T23:23:41+00:00

Evolutionary biology is the subfield of biology that studies the evolutionary processes that produced the diversity of life on Earth starting from a single origin of life. These processes include the descent of species, and the origin of new species. - Wikipedia

Either it was god or we study the processes scientifically. A third option would be to philosophize about it like Epicurus (his atom theory) and come up with rational explanations. I see no other options.

This ''hypothesis'' is clearly something which they pulled out of their arse. What evidence could support the claim? What evidence could falsify it?

Don't judge based on one hypothesis, judge by how well bullshit is received by other scientists. Judge by how they change their ideas based on new facts. Imagine evolution gets completely disproven by some stuff, scientists would change their mind. Imagine it gets completely proven - Christians would still believe that god did it.

gavinok · 2016-08-06T06:37:19+00:00

Your confusing a lot of terms here.

A hypothesis, is a conjecture or statement based on observations and questions one raises. It's the basis for developing scientific tests to see if that hypothesis holds. You do not need any evidence to make an hypothesis, as you are not asserting anything about a hypothesis to be true.

It's impossible for a hypothesis to become a scientific theory, and any falsifiability depends upon someone ''disproving'' speculation with slightly less unprovable mental masturbation.

Theories are not conjectures to reality or facts. They are sets of abstract thinking. Like how computer scientists thought of things like google before they actually existed.

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

adrixshadow · 2016-08-06T08:10:22+00:00

Do you know why The Red Pill exist in the first place?

Because Evo Psychology can be tested in real life.

No need for bullshit studies. Either things work or they don't. If things work then they have to work for a reason.

Everything in evolution happens for a reason and can be traced back to the source. This means it is completely predictable, the history that come to past cannot change.

FaxCruise · 2016-08-06T09:02:35+00:00

I don't see the point of this. It's pretty clear we are evolved aardvarks.

chris3721 · 2016-08-06T12:12:03+00:00

Game theory and computer simulations testing the generational success of different strategies or adaptations can test a lot of these theories.

Biology and genetics can also test a lot of these theories as well. For instance, a hypothesis about the sexual behaviour of early humans can be tested by looking at the adaptations for sperm competition in human DNA for instance by looking at the section of DNA that codes for spermatogenesis and how it compares to derived genes and genes from current apes (compared with their mating behaviours) and the ancestor of all apes.

i.e. https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/sperm-competition/

*I would also like to add that all the criticisms you supplied above pretty much apply to all the social sciences.

Leeloooooooooooooooo · 2016-08-05T23:29:14+00:00

Evolutionary Psychology has more evidence than Social Science so evopsych is more relevant than feminism.

UA_Hammer · 2016-08-06T00:00:22+00:00

It is possible to test Evo psych hypotheses but the resources needed for that far exceed that of the average alpha hoodie merchant.

deskgrunt88 · 2016-08-06T03:00:35+00:00

The only psychology that isn't bullshit is evolutionary psychology.

dejour · 2016-08-06T03:08:42+00:00

Maybe I'm wrong, but the example you cited seems almost more like just general evolution than evolutionary psychology.

Does it mean that evolution is pseudoscience?

Anyways, I'd say that evolutionary psychology is a soft science and that it's hard to test the hypotheses.

But it's nevertheless possible.

Take your example. Figure out what areas had cold, white environments. Figure out what areas had people with black and brown animal skin coats.

Is blonde hair more prevalent in areas where people had white environments and black animal skins than areas with just one or the other?

Take people out into snow in large co-ed groups and dress them in black. Ask them to rate their companions for attractiveness.

Do the same with groups in the jungle/prairie/forest. Dress them in black/brown/yellow/red/blue/white. Use every combination.

Were the blondes in the snow-black clothes combination seen as particularly attractive (in comparison to the blondes in the other scenarios)? If they aren't, the hypothesis seems suspect.

Anyways, I suspect this hypothesis would be rejected but if not and you start to build a body of 5 or more experiments that all support the hypothesis - then you have some evidence that it's true.

meh613 · 2016-08-06T03:35:41+00:00

I think that evolutionary psychology is real, but it's applied in more places than it should be. TRP results from being genetically inclined to extremes coupled with isolation and rejection. Practitioners get online, do a Google search and find the sub where they read that women are this way or that way, these posts getting 1000s of upvotes leading them to think this is true.

Gigamon2014 · 2016-08-07T01:17:36+00:00

Meh, I am beginning to notice much of the hate for EP is based on post-modern liberal ideals which dont conform very much with the raw cruelty of mother nature and the relatively comical ideas of equality and egalitarianism. An erroneous idea of egalitarianism that wants to sell to you the silly idea that women are both endlessly oppressed but also completely equal to a man in every way. Problem is equality and egalitarianism are two things which have far more to do with sociological and cultural opportunity than they do with any scientific imperative. The same crew who says "race is a social construct" or that "men and women are not different at all"...except, they are. They may not be diametrically opposed, but the certainly react in different ways due to their traits passed down from their ancestors.

Despite whatever the athiest morons want to believe, our society is still heavily influenced by judeo-christian dogma, hence why we believe in "just-world" theories, the inherently "good" nature of women and still fear female sexuality despite our claiming that we're "tolerant", you only need to venture to mainland europe to realize anglo-american culture is in no way comfortable with female sexuality.

Much of evolution is chaotic, violent, unforgiving. The reason redpillers use it because its pretty accurate when describing female sexuality. Often chaotic, violent and unforgiving. JUST like men. You know, what they do to EP is the same thing they do to Freud and psychoanalysis. But you ask any psychologist and they tell you that there is still a sizeable chunk of the community which attests to the validity of Freuds work. You only have to look at the influence of American PR, advertising and consumerist culture to understand how powerful his teachings were.

One of Freud's fundamental "beliefs" was that humanity used civilization to paste over violent and chaotic natures. A nature which our complex thought and ability to become "civilized" allowed us to placate. I think EP is no different. The institutions and cultural requirements of said religious dogma have fallen, female sexuality has been unshackled once again...we can see its unforgiving beauty. EP is more relevant than ever when it comes to understanding sexual decision making in a society where there is a fair degree of behavioral autonomy.

AutoModerator · 2016-08-05T23:10:33+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair, just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

monkeysinmypocket · 2016-08-06T05:18:02+00:00

I'm no scientist, but that thing about blond hair sounds like crap. What I suspect might be true is that blond hair is simply genetically related to pale skin and Nordic types were selected for less and less melanin in their skins as they live in places that are likely to be darker than others and having less melanin makes it easier to absorb vitamin D from the sun?

despisedlove2 · 2016-08-06T08:18:28+00:00

What you are missing is that scientific methods do not lend themselves easily or even at all to the study of sentient beings that can and do lie.

Most social sciences research is questionnaire driven. When you can't even believe in the data, what kind of information can you expect to derive from it?

That is a big part of the reason why most social sciences research is often useless outside of studying group dynamics, or other data that can be averaged meaningfully, and even there, the possibility of bias shifting the response in a person and question dependent manner remains. Pollsters see this all the time in the way questions are framed about others. When a human being is being asked to answer questions about themselves or their own attitudes, they are going to provide biased answers.

Basically, the utility of statistical inference falls apart. So, things like evolutionary psychology become one of the many next best things. No choice.

yo_radical_one · 2016-08-06T19:22:45+00:00

Even if TRP is wrong on the statements it makes regarding the nature of humanity, what is truly pseudo-scientific is people who refuse to acknowledge that as animals humans have nature.

People who say ev-psych is a pseudo science are like creationists.

TheSonofLiberty · 2016-08-06T21:23:12+00:00

Why don't you read this as a primer and tell me what you think about it?

It is quite short (just 17 pgs), but longer than reddit comments will have to offer you in terms of actually going into detail.

http://www.davidmglewis.com/Evolutionary%20Psychology.pdf

From his website: http://www.davidmglewis.com/research-publications.html

aanarchist · 2016-08-07T02:21:04+00:00

no it's actual science.

play_time_is_over · 2016-08-09T13:52:59+00:00

Evi-psyche may be crap, but evolutionary biology is not.

czerdec · 2016-08-05T23:22:36+00:00

It's basically speculation. Tries to be informed speculation, but it doesn't have a shining rep for falsifiable hypotheses. It's a young field, maybe they'll get there. We were doing physics for a long time before we figured relativity.

We need to start isolating specific gene sequences for more traits, enabling risky predictions to be made by theory as a proving ground for new hypotheses.

Marowak22 · 2016-08-05T23:36:24+00:00

Just because something isn't fasifiable doesn't mean its not science or reasonable. By your logic evolution itself isn't science since it isn't falsifiable. Its unanimously agreed upon that humans share a close common ancestor with chimps, even though there's no way to prove it, short of a time machine.

Even outside of evolution this is true. Look at the big bang theory, can't be proven, but doesn't mean there's no evidence for it. Or the event horizon in a black hole, can't possibly be tested, but still a lot of evidence to suggest it.

You only need a falsifiable hypothesis to run an experiment.

Apexk9 · 2016-08-06T16:47:11+00:00

No you see the reason they got blonde hair is probably due to genetics.

They have blonde hair because the sun reflects of snow at a higher rate and sun will blonde hair (go to cali for a week and look at your arm hair)this constant exposure kept bonding hair and the hair genetics evolved to just be blonde.

In dogs people will selective breed for traits and their physical appearance alters over time as a result.

There was a scientist who domesticated foxes by breeding foxes who were not afraid of people and over time they changed their physical appearance because he was targeting a specific trait.

Title	Isn't Evolutionary Psychology just pseudoscience?
Author	BoiledSpinachLeaves
Upvotes	9
Comments	123
Date	August 5, 2016 11:10 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/4wd86k/isnt_evolutionary_psychology_just_pseudoscience/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/isnt-evolutionary-psychology-just-pseudoscience.273720 https://theredarchive.com/post/273720

Comments