Michael Britt wrote, "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." You have one thing completely wrong, Michael. Evolution by natural selection has nothing to do "increasing species' survival." Natural selection acts to increase or decrease the frequency of genes. It does so by acting on the survival and reproduction of individuals and their close kin. A minority opinion suggests it act on groups of unrelated kin. But to my knowledge, no one seriously suggests that natural selection acts on species. Besides, "species" is a somewhat arbitrary concept, a scientific attempt to use a binomial system to describe a continuous world. This notion of natural selection favoring "survival of the species" is, IMO, one of the most ubiquitous and persistent misconceptions in the modern history of science. (The best treatment of this topic I've ever seen is Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene.") Another frequent complaint/misconception of anti-evolutionary psychology types is that if a trait is heritable it is immutable. This, of course, is utter nonsense. There is a large number of examples of the members of numerous species altering their behavior (and even of their basic social structure) in response to altered environmental conditions. Just as the ability to learn a specific thing is a heritable trait (ala Garcia), so too is the ability to alter other behaviors (e.g., reproductive strategy) in response to environmental changes. Humans are not unique in this regard. Ed Edward I. Pollak, Ph.D. Department of Psychology West Chester University of Pennsylvania http://home.comcast.net/~epollak ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Husband, father, grandfather, biopsychologist, bluegrass fiddler and herpetoculturist...... in approximate order of importance. Subject: From: Michael Britt <michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com> Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:21:20 -0400 X-Message-Number: 12
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)? --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
