Hi Michael:
One common concern is that some accounts of behavior may be
described as "just so" stories, named after a group of stories by
Rudyard Kipling (e.g., "How the lepoard got its spots").
The concern it this: If the behavior is present then the
investigator assumes it is there for an evolutionary reason. The
investigator then makes an attempt to describe a plausible basis
for its existence as a response to some speculative set of
selection pressures. Generating hypotheses is just part of the
game. The issue is that the hypothesis must be falsifiable just
like any other scientific hypothesis. If the hypothesis can't be
falsified or otherwise empirically investigated then it becomes a
just-so story.
Ken
Michael Britt wrote:
David Buss wrote a very good summary of the main ideas and some of the
recent research in the area of evolutionary psychology in the most
recent edition of American Psychologist (The Great Struggles of Life,
February-March 2009). It's really quite an interesting article and
since I've received a number of emails asking me about evolutionary
psychology I thought I would discuss the article in an upcoming podcast.
In doing this I don't really want to enter into the debate over
religion vs. science (though in some ways I guess it's going to
be unavoidable). I do, however, want to make sure I understand the
concerns/criticisms/uneasiness some people have with this area of
psychology.
If I understand it right, some people are concerned about this
perspective because, for example, even though animals demonstrate a
behavior that is in some way similar to what humans do doesn't mean that
the reason animals show this behavior (which is probably related to
increasing species' survival) is the same reason humans do it. We
shouldn't jump to an evolutionary psychology explanation for every
behavior we see. Also, even if the behavior can be shown to
evolutionary roots, there may be a concern that some people might use
this as an "excuse" to continue doing something that we, as intelligent
and caring beings, should be able to discipline ourselves not to do.
If I understand these two positions correctly then I think these are
valid points. Feel free to expand on this if I'm not getting it correctly.
What are some of the other reasons people criticize, or are
uncomfortable, with this perspective (aside from the religious issue)?
Thanks,
Michael
Michael Britt
mich...@thepsychfiles.com <mailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.com>
www.thepsychfiles.com <http://www.thepsychfiles.com>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D. steel...@appstate.edu
Professor and Assistant Chairperson
Department of Psychology http://www.psych.appstate.edu
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608
USA
---------------------------------------------------------------
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
