PurplePillDebate, what are your thoughts on Evolutionary Psychology?

[deleted] · 2014-04-30T15:09:29+00:00

Well first off,

Some feminists and blue pillers think it's a wishy washy pseudoscience.

Some BP do think that, as some RP do, but most call evo psych pseudoscience because there is a huge issue of pseudoscience in the field.

Some feminists and blue pillers think it's a wishy washy pseudoscience.

Most of what RP uses in the name of evolutionary psychology to support their views IS pseudoscience.

As someone who has studied evolutionary psychology more extensively than the average college educated individual or even psych major, I find the field incredibly illuminating and insightful. The field is primarily preoccupied with studying how different skills/features found in human behavior (language, navigation abilities, empathy) evolved over time, and over species.

However, evolutionary psychology single-handedly DOES have the biggest pseudoscience problem probably in all fields of psychology, and maybe even science. There are several reasons for this. Aside from being interesting enough for even laypeople to discuss, a lot of the issues currently in the field stem from the overzealousness of the late 80's and 90's.

Prior to that, biologists were really resistant to consider psychology as a "biological science," so early evolutionary psychologists often went overboard in trying to prove that psychology can be studied from a biological perspective. It isn't until the last decade that we actually went back and evaluated some of those earlier claims and found biases and errors with better research methods, or simply failed to reproduce the results. So there is a lot of outdated research floating around that is still being touted as valid.

Another issue is this mentality that I can best describe as, "society vs our inner animal urges." A lot of people who are interested in evolutionary psychology like to equate human beings to literally animals, and not as a species with both common characteristics with animals but also our own evolutionary adaptations, of which society is a byproduct or sideeffect. We are not a species of brawn or speed or agility, we are a species of thought and partnership and tool-making, abilities housed in the frontal cortex which should never be underestimated as an influencer of behavior, usually a much stronger and much more accurate predictor of survival than the midbrain can ever hope to be. And the frontal cortex is neurologically wired to be the primary determinant of behavior.

Lastly, there is also a common problem of attributing behavior or phenomena to biological/evolutionary causes when it can better be explained by psychological or social perspectives. A lot of that comes from the above (neglecting the purpose and function of higher thinking). Not everything is nor has to be explained by biology, but many individuals, especially many Red Pillers, seem to find it necessary to explain EVERYTHING in biological terms while completely ignoring the much more likely explanations of psychology. For whatever reason, they abstractly decided biology had more authority and thus refuse to recognize psychological influences, even though every psychological process is reflected biologically anyway.

So, TLDR: When it's used correctly, it's legitimate, insightful, and very interesting. But it seems to be going through it's science adolescence and there is currently a lot of problems and a lot of pseudoscience that surrounds it.

fiftyshadesofred · 2014-04-30T14:06:40+00:00

Like any other social science, there are some people who will use it to prop up their preconceived notions and others who are genuinely trying to advance the field regardless of the outcome. Unfortunately the shittier evopsychologists tend to be more well known, like Satoshi Kanazawa, who has been renounced by his field but still has his ridiculous articles published in Psychology Today. That's another problem with pop-science in general: most people aren't scientifically literate, and those that are aren't citing sources from PT. The problem with legit sources is that they're often difficult for the layman to understand, so they latch on to the PT bullshit and dissiminate it.

[deleted] · 2014-04-30T16:21:58+00:00

I picture an actual evolutionary psychologist out there, tears of frustration running down his face as he watches TRP drag his field of expertise through the mud.

tubefox · 2014-04-30T14:07:58+00:00

Evo Psych is roughly as scientific as a good chunk of sociology. They look at trends, data, whatever, and come up with explanations that kinda sound like they could be true. I wouldn't call it a hard science, let me put it that way.

mrsamsa · 2014-04-30T22:42:09+00:00

The problem with these kinds of discussions is that you tend to get a group of (well-intentioned) laymen trying to discuss a field which is actually incredibly nebulous and complex. So I think a couple of things need to be cleared up before any real discussion can take place:

1) The difference between the field itself and its subject matter: there's a common bait-and-switch manoeuvre that overly keen evo psych supporters use, and that is to try to redefine evo psych the field as purely being its subject matter. That is, they say something like: "Evolutionary psychology is just the idea that the brain evolved and behaviors come from the brain so some of them must have evolved too".

The problem with this reasoning is that this is a point that can be completely accepted (and usually is) without accepting evolutionary psychology has any validity at all. That's because evo psych is an attempt at approaching that subject matter in a scientific way, meaning that evo psych is the methodology, practices and conclusions regarding the evolution of the brain and behavior.

2) Different approaches within evolutionary psychology: To complicate matters further, there isn't even really a single field of evolutionary psychology and instead there are numerous 'factions' within the broad umbrella term. The most visible approach is sometimes denoted as "Evolutionary Psychology" (with capitalisation) and this is the type practiced by people like Cosmides, Tooby, Pinker, Buss, etc.

Interestingly, many evolutionary psychologists in the field also refer to this approach as the "Santa Barbara Church of Psychology" and this is basically because their approach requires us to accept a couple of dubious assumptions. Namely, the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, massive modularity, and adaptationism. All of which have been severely criticised over the decades and, at the very least, it has to be agreed that they aren't uncontroversial assumptions to base the entire foundation of your field on.

The opposing approach is usually denoted with the lower case 'evolutionary psychology' and this generally just refers to the researchers who treat questions of evo psych like any other question in evolutionary biology, using the same assumptions, methods, and practices as we would to determine whether a wing or claw was an adaptation.

3) The idea that if we accept the validity of evolutionary psychology then we have to accept that all behaviors must have an evolutionary cause: This one is common misconception but it disrupts any real discussion of these topics. The obvious problem with the claim is that if we accept that evo psych is a valid scientific approach, it doesn't follow that all behaviors are evolved - in the same way that accepting that learning theory is a valid scientific approach, it doesn't follow that all behaviors are learnt.

It may seem like an obvious point to make but I feel like discussions of this type tend to result in people who admit that evo psych has some validity into being cajoled into admitting that that must mean you accept that women have evolved to like the colour pink, or whatever.

4) Overestimating what we've learnt from evolutionary psychology: Another problem I've noticed from laymen is an overestimation of just how sure we are of specific conclusions within evolutionary psychology. This is a problem I'd personally argue is caused by careless pop-science writers like Pinker who don't properly qualify their claims but the fact remains that the problem now exists. In reality, whilst there can be a lot of good research in the field (along with the bad), we still don't really know much with any degree of certainty. Even things like incest avoidance, which is arguably one of the strongest evo psych conclusions, has some contradictory evidence (at least in some species). When we start talking about humans, and complex social behaviors, it's safe to say that any position based on our current evolutionary understanding is at best premature and most likely just wrong.

With all of the above in mind, my answer to the question is that it's obviously the case that there are huge problems within evolutionary psychology as a scientific field. I really don't think any evolutionary psychologist would disagree with that. One of the main problems is that researchers from the Santa Barbara Church of Psychology tend to skip a lot of the hard work to try to fast track the conclusion they want, and a common example of this is to do research to determine that a behavior is culturally universal and then stop there, as if that demonstrates or supports an innate explanation. Obviously it doesn't as it's just the first step that is taken to ensure that an evolutionary research program is worthwhile and the next step is to rule out forms of learning that can produce the same results.

For anyone interested in more information, I recommend the collection of works "From Mating to Mentality: Evaluating Evolutionary Psychology", particularly the last chapter: "Evolutionary Psychology and the Challenge of Adaptive Explanation".

Human_v2 · 2014-04-30T14:57:18+00:00

I see no reason why there cannot be some basis of truth to it, it makes sense that humans evolved certain behavioural traits which could be based on physical things such as hormonal responses to stress and so on. It stands to reason that certain thing like the fight or flight response has an evolutionary advantage so why not other situations.

I also don't subscribe 100% to it, I am acutely aware of how easy it is to lie to yourself and so I am very critical of my own opinions on things and even more so my emotional reaction to things.

What I don't like is the hardliners on either side of this debate we have cherry pick what they want; for example:

Red Pill is convinced of biotruths, yet also constantly mentions the social conditioning which led to 'Blue Pill' opinions. They often denounce a social aspect of one thing while being convinced of the social aspect of another.

Simlarly for feminists, they are convinced that being homosexual is purely biological and people are 'born that way' saying things like 'when did you decide you were straight?' etc. yet completely reject the idea of biological gender saying it is a social construct.

People of all beliefs frequently indulge in this kind of thinking without even realising they are doing so. I think this is the single most important thing to having a realistic attitude on this topic or any other, not being ego invested in your belief and being able to agree with something that makes you 'feel' bad when presented with signifcant evidence of its truth.

ElderSign · 2014-04-30T15:48:32+00:00

I'm sure there's a nugget of truth in legit evolutionary psychology. We're still animals with instincts.

I also believe the current "evopsych" consists chiefly of bad science, pseudoscience, armchair speculation and making excuses for personal failings.

Additionally, I think using it for justifications and guides kind of misses the point, which IMHO should be to learn about those animal instincts to transcend them. To use another sci-fi metaphor, become a rogue AI, ignore our programming to pursue genuine fulfillment. Not try to use the "knowledge" (see above for my opinion of its current status) to "win" at being animals.

strangestdude · 2014-04-30T17:08:48+00:00

I think it's pseudoscience, and is actually social philosophy.

I think it's post-hoc explanations of behavior... Nothing scientific (meaning the method) about it. It only explains, but doesn't predict.

For the record... I don't think social philosophy is useless or worthless, however I think it's misleading to try to pass it off as science.

roe_ · 2014-04-30T17:56:56+00:00

Evo psych is just the assertion that the human brain is a product of evolution.

This is so obvious as to be trivial, but the implications - what it means for the brain to be a product of evolution - is going to prove to be hugely controversial and fraught with ideological baggage.

Evo psych is obviously a valid subject for research, but it's a) a new field and b) takes as it's subject the most complicated thing in the universe. So... ya. It's plagued by shoddy research, over-reaching conclusions, but also has some very good and illuminated material to offer.

I think that people will put either no stock in evo psych, or too much stock in it, based on their ideological leanings. I mean, you can basically split pro- and con- evo-psych exactly along redpill/bluepill lines, which is just a sign to me that everyone involved is exercising motivated cognition.

Evo psych studies need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with the understanding that there's a high probability that many priors will have to be updated as new research is conducted.

[deleted] · 2014-05-02T07:33:38+00:00

Actual evo-psy like Haidt is cool, unfortunately there are 10 times more bullshit ideas kicked around that sound like evo-psy pseudoscience.

Title	PurplePillDebate, what are your thoughts on Evolutionary Psychology?
Author	SlippyToadsWildRide
Upvotes	10
Comments	13
Date	April 30, 2014 1:57 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/24d84s/purplepilldebate_what_are_your_thoughts_on/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/purplepilldebate-what-are-your-thoughts-on.285805 https://theredarchive.com/post/285805

Comments