Thanks for all the thoughtful responses to my question about evolutionary psychology. Clearly it's a complex topic even without the religious overtones that makes some people uncomfortable.
As a result of your comments I decided that it would be better if instead of me summarizing David Buss' article it would be better if Dr. Buss summarized it himself. I contacted him and he has agreed to do an interview for the podcast. If you don't mind I'll share with him the comments I've received from the list. I'll ask him to respond to the issues raised here. Also if there is any other questions anyone would like me to ask him please let me know. I expect the interview will be in early May. Michael Michael Britt mich...@thepsychfiles.com www.thepsychfiles.com On Apr 27, 2009, at 1:28 AM, Sally Walters wrote: > > I agree with Ken's points. And I would add the following: > Some of the uneasiness comes from a misunderstanding about the > difference between ev psych and behavioural genetics. Ev psych seeks > to understand design features that are universal and therefore > genetically more-or-less 'fixed" in the human population (although > fixed does not necessarily mean environmentally unalterable!!) while > behav genetics seeks to understand how genetic differences affect > the phenotype in terms of behaviours, illness etc. Both are > obviously biological approaches but there is constant confusion > between the two. > > As well, there is often misunderstanding about the interplay between > genes and environment: ev psych is interested in how the same genes > can respond to different environments differently - e.g., an > adaptation has to respond to the environment in which it finds > itself, so you would not expect behaviours to be constant over > different environments. E.g., brain contains adaptations for > language acquisition and "sorting" sounds into grammar etc; brain > responds to the language it hears specifically and child learns any > language in pretty much the same way. > > Some people hold the notion that ev psych is measuring behaviour as > the 'only' evidence of psychological adaptation. This is a bit like > assuming that we measure how people feel and think only by looking > at the movement of their facial muscles. there was a big debate > about 20 years ago between "darwinian anthropology' and "ev psyc" if > you are interested - see some of the Cosmides and Tooby stuff from > the early 1990s. > > Some people don't like the fact that ev psyc compares humans to our > closest relatives. However a close read of some of these > comparisons, e,g frans de Waal's work with chimps and bonobos shows > a VERY careful analysis and comparison of species - just because > some people would like to believe that natural selection somehow > doesn't apply to humans because we're special is not a good enough > reason not to make those comparisons. Obviously though, they cannot > be made without much study and analysis - something that the critics > too frequently have not done. > > Finally, just because something evolved, does not give it any > inherent moral superiority, desirability or anything else. It means > that in the ancestral environment, that design worked the best in > terms of leaving offspring. Natural selection does not have a > purpose or a design - it responds to gene frequencies. So if we have > an evolved tendency towards some negative behaviour, no ev > psychologist is going to argue that that behaviour is 'good" just > because it evolved. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't examine it. > If we can understand it maybe we have a better chance of changing it. > > I did all of my graduate work in ev psyc and was often amazed by the > professors and graduate students who told me they didn't "believe in > ev psyc" or didn't think looking at the evolved design of the human > mind could tell us anything interesting about why people behave the > way they do - most often without any discernable knowledge of > evolutionary theory. So I would treat the misgivings carefully > because they are not always informed. And of course it's pretty hard > to generalize about an entire approach > > In my experience, ev psyc is an area that holds great fascination > for students. Unfortunately it's also sometimes the area with the > worst explanations and discussions in intro psyc textbooks. i think > that's because it's very difficult to lay out the logic of > essentially an entire field - evolutionary biology - succintly and > clearly. > > Sally Walters > capilano u > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Michael Britt > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 9:21 AM > Subject: [tips] Uneasiness with Evolutionary Psychology > > > > > 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 > www.thepsychfiles.com > > > > > > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
