Is evolutionary psychology a pseudoscience?

Great Debates
1

Question as in title really. This may or may not be more suited to General Questions but it’s pretty debate worthy I think.

I was reading a thread about feminism on a different board, and some people mentioned how evolutionary psychology is often used to perpetuate misogynistic viewpoints. The prevailing viewpoint there seemed to be that evo-psych is all nonsense of the highest order. (Along with this rather amusing bingo chart http://i.imgur.com/KKle1.jpg)

Anyway, to me a lot of it has always seemed like just-so stories, but is that just a function of the media oversimplifying things too much (Breaking News! Men programmed to cheat in order to “spread their seed”) or is there some real science behind the more sensationalist claims?

2

It’s not exactly a pseudoscience, but it does attract a seemingly larger than average proportion of bullshit. I’m especially not a fan of massive modularity.

3

I don’t know much about it, to be frank, but it’s my understanding that it makes testable claims. My understanding could be wrong and I have no idea whether it passes those tests or not, but if my understanding is correct then it’s not pseudoscience.

It might be wrong, but then I think it would be falsified science.

4

It’s science, but in an early stage of development.

The unscientific ones are the people who insist as a matter of faith that humans alone of all creatures with a brain don’t have an evolutionary psychology. Denying that there is some kind of evolutionary psychology requires that you deny all sorts of known facts about human nature; we are not the infinitely malleable blanks slates so many people want us to be. Just look at all the tyrants and would-be utopia builders who have tried to reshape or ignore human nature in their plans; if there was no evolutionary psychology, no such thing as an innate human nature then those plans would work. Slaves still yearn for freedom even when taught from birth they are supposed to be slaves; parents and children still love each other no matter how much the State tells them to be loyal to it above all things; homosexuals remain homosexual no matter how much you try to torture it out of them.

5

If I was a feminist bothered by how evo-psych presents my sex I’d use it against men since it paints men in a far worse light. Men are violent rapists who subjugate women, build hierarchical group structures to spread their power and increase their wealth.

I don’t understand some of the bingo squares jokes. There are more male geniuses than female. If rape isn’t an adaption among other sexual strategies then what is it? Spreading your seed is a biological imperative. I guess we’re supposed to be picturing some pencil necked geek saying this so it’s comical because he can’t get laid?

6

Psychology is in general a pseudoscience, and the evolutionary brand is only
the latest fad.

Science is supposed to work, right?

Well, my Psych 101 text came right out and admitted that the rate of spontaneous
remission of psychological disorder was just as good as the rate of therapeutic recovery.
In other words if you go crazy chances are only 50-50 that a shrink will do better
for you than no shrink.

Now, in the interest of transparency my text was 1960s provenance, and the data
cited above was from an early 1950s study.

However, if the shrinks were dong any better now than they were in 1950 I think
we all would have heard about it, as in really loud and really clear. So I doubt there
has been any improvement worth bragging about, and if anyone can provide citation
claiming otherwise I would really like to have a look at it.

As it is the only significant advances have probably been attained through medication,
i.e. drugs, and there we have the biochemists to thank rather than anyone with a psych degree.

7

It can be quite difficult to falsify a claim so under a Popperian definition of science, it is a pseudoscience or at least most of it is.

Experiments are also out as a possibility. But then, the same can be said of large scale geology and astronomy yet those are undoubtedly scientific.
There’s lot of nonsense, it’s true. Yet I do think that some human behaviors can be explained through it. I can’t think of a better explanation of why we generally find poisons to be bad tasting/smelling or the fact that humans really like fatty meat. That’s exactly the sort of adaptation (don’t eat poison, binge on fatty meat when it’s available) that would have been very useful in prehistory.
I started a thread once that related evo psych to gaming, noticing the fact that mammal offspring’s play is often a way of practicing the skills which will be useful to them as adults:

In other words, some species evolved in such a way that the kids take pleasure in practicing what will make them evolutionarily fit.

8

Evolutionary Psychology has as much merit as any other prediction based on evolutionary patterns. It needs to be treaded lightly, it’s very prone to error, but it can be a very valuable source of information, and one of the best ways of figuring out why we act how we act.

9

The bingo board was specifically relating to feminism. It’s supposed to be funny in an almost depressing way, in that (for example) people bring up evopsych as an excuse for sexual harassment, as if men aren’t responsible for some things because “hey, it’s just natural”. Or as an excuse for ageism against older women because “fertility yada yada yada”. Obviously even if evopsych really is a science , this is just people misusing it.

[del]I’d like a bit of clarification on what you mean by " If rape isn’t an adaption among other sexual strategies then what is it? " What do you mean sexual strategy? Among humans, rape is a conscious decision. I haven’t ever seen anything to promote the idea that rapists are trying to impregnate their victims, which would be implied by any evolutionary theory.[/del] (Actually ignore this, it’s a hijack. If anything it’s a subject for another thread)

10

As far as I know, the main criticism is that it doesn’t make testable claims. Hence the “just-so stories” label.

11

FYI, earlier threads on this subject:

Why does evolutionary psychology get such a bum rap?

What are some criticisms of evolutionary psychology or left wing social and economic policy

Evolutionary Cognitive Neuroscience: The Revenge

12

The just so stories criticism is probably due to poor reporting in pop science. The published articles are entirely based on testable claims:

To give you an example of what I am talking about, I refer you to something I found in a Wikipedia article on massive modularity. I had heard the term modularity and wondered what the massive was about (thank-you MrDibble).

Here is the link to the pdf: The Mating Game Isn’t Over. I refer you to p.2 with the heading “Men Do Prefer Young Women”, and ask that you read to the end of the first paragraph on p.3. To summarize, it’s a response to criticism on some aspects of evolutionary psychology research. To summarize:

There is the observation that men tend to mate with younger women. Evolutionary psychologists say this is the case because of differences in life history strategies in males and females. Relative age is a simple cue to fertility. This is a widely studied topic in animal behavior and is so well-detailed that it is easily applicable to studying human behavior. The theory and its predictions are outlined in the 1st paragraph.

The article provides 3 tested predictions made from this life history strategy theory that predicts relative age would be a cue to fertility:

  1. Men will prefer younger women and the age discrepancy will increase as men grow older. Result: 2.5 year age difference on average, with men being older.
  2. Age disparity will increase as men age. Result: 20 year age difference in some island culture.
  3. Adolescent males will prefer older females because older females are at maximum fertility: they do though they understand they have little chance of tapping those wombs.

So the data is supporting the idea that males are most motivated to mate with women whose cues indicate maximal fertility.

That’s all there is to it from my perspective and I fail to see the issue. I can see how alternative theories might want to be tested against the model developed by evolutionary psychology, but “pseudoscience”? No way.

Evolutionary psychology is a victim of what it studies: the natural origins of human behavior:

(1) No behavior of any creature is more interesting to humans than ourselves. Consequently, journalists will report on it and pop science authors will write books about it.

(2) Now it is not just human behavior, it’s controversial and interesting human behavior: homicide, rape, parenting, sexual attraction, etc. Consequently, journalists will report on it and pop science authors will write books about it.

(3) Better yet, it’s about the natural origins of these interesting behavior and associated with natural origins is the naturalistic fallacy, making evo. psych. claims on controversial topics even more exciting and hopefully anger inducing! Consequently, journalists will report on it and pop science authors will write books about it.

(4) No group of people, otherthan the public at large, is more likely to misinterpret the data presented by any science than journalists and pop science authors. So you get a ton of garbage that actually does not represent the field. It represents the people profiting from the field.

The stuff I have read from the field seems pretty simplistic: (1) apply a widely used evolutionary model to collected data on some type of human behavior; (2) from that develop testable predictions concerning patterns expected in the behavior; (3) perform the studies, collect the data, report conclusions; (4) modify theories as required. This is also a description of any other scientific field in which I have had direct experience: neuroscience, behavioral ecology, molecular genetics, behavior genetics, biochemistry and so on.

13

I’ve made my opinion on the topic clear enough. See this thread, in which we rehashed the main arguments for and against. As I see it, a typical evolutionary psychology argument falls for this fallacy:

As in a thread this year started by Gozu where somebody (not Gozu) linked to an article which says “Numerous studies of symmetry in humans have shown that men especially are more attracted to women with symmetrical features. (One hypothesis suggests that women are not as concerned with symmetry because instead of breeding, they look for a mate that can provide food and protection for their offspring, i.e., money and power for humans.) In one recent study conducted by Randy Thornhill of the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, college males found symmetrical female faces more attractive than asymmetrical faces.” This is supposed to be proof of the genetic basis of sexual attraction, but it doesn’t mention anything about genes. Showing that some people behave in a certain way does not prove that they have a gene which makes them behave that way. If you’re trying to prove that “A causes B”, it not sufficient to prove “B”.

I had several objections, but the main one is that claims are testable, and moreover have been tested and found to be incorrect. Any trait that we inherited from our caveman ancestors must be in our DNA. If men inherited natural attraction to blondes because they’re more fertile, there must be a gene or genes which carries this trait. If some people are programmed by evolution t act as “sentries” who stay near the outsides of their group and give warning of attack, there must be a gene or genes which carries this trait. Anything that we got from our caveman ancestors must be in some gene. Thus far, of the many traits dreamed up by evolutionary psychologists, geneticists have not found a single one, and it’s not for lack of trying. While there may be reasons why genetic testing hasn’t located some traits, there’s no rational reason why genetic testing would fail to find any evolutionary psychology trait if they all exist.

14

Why does it have to be anything? Just because something exists doesn’t mean it was selected for.

15

The “men prefer blondes” one is the single most ridiculous claim I’ve ever heard made by proponents of evopsych. It’s so incredibly western/white centric it boggles the mind.

I pretty much agree completely with your post actually. In particular the “If you’re trying to prove that “A causes B”, it not sufficient to prove “B”.” line is the best way I’ve seen of putting it.

16

It does make one rather obvious one; that there are innate, inborn psychological qualities consistent across the human species. There are. People have tried to change human nature; to use the obvious example, the attempts to “cure” homosexuals. It doesn’t work. We have inborn psychological qualities, they originate from somewhere - and evolution is where species-wide inborn qualities come from.

Ultimately evolutionary psychology is simply claiming that we just like all other animals are subject to evolution. The people making the claim that lacks support are the ones claiming that we are special, unique. The people claiming that our minds are completely derived from culture or God, and just by chance they happen to look exactly like what you would expect from the product of evolution.

Also, if evolutionary psychology isn’t true, then what is stopping it? That requires an explanation; natural selection works just fine on brains, that’s where animals get their instincts from. “Evolutionary psychology” is the norm for every other species complicated enough to have a psychology. If EP isn’t true for us, something must be preventing it from occurring; what? And how are we functioning without it? A blank brain won’t work, it’ll just sit there.

17

I read the part of the article you pointed to. But my problem with evopsych is that it takes an observation (and the only thing with citations in the article is the observation itself) and then postulates a completely unprovable reason for it. And the reason itself is the “just-so story”.

18

I don’t disagree. I’m not a “blank slate” proponent or anything like that. But the specificity of some of the claims seems to overreach any possible evidence.

For example, I don’t think anyone disagree’s that we evolved to, for example, look after our young. But when you get to some of the more ridiculous claims, like “Women like pink because they gathered berries and berries are pink”?
http://theweek.com/article/index/214732/do-girls-like-pink-because-of-their-berry-gathering-female-ancestors
From the article:
"What is the deal with this study?
Researchers at China’s Zhejiang University asked 350 subjects to rank 11 colors in order of preference. They found that the women were drawn to pink, purple and white, and men to blue and green.

What does that have to do with berry gathering?
The scientists say the color findings support their “hunter-gatherer theory on sex difference.” They believe that a woman’s brain is more suited to “gathering-related tasks,” like identifying fruits and edible red leaves hidden in green foliage. Women’s preference for reds and pinks might also be related to finding a suitable mate, one with healthy pink cheeks, they say.

Why would men like blue and green then?
For their manly ancestors, that would mean good weather for hunting."

It just seems like such a clear case of finding evidence for something, then completely inventing a reason and calling it science.

19

They applied a theory that has successfully explained the evolution of male mating behavior in a huge number of articles from a wide variety of species to human male mating preferences.

They described tests of this theory in human males which shows a pattern of results supporting the hypothesis that males are utilizing age as a reproductive cue.

There is no “just-so” story. It’s just simple science performed in the exact same way in 100s of fields. But maybe I am not understanding and could you provide a citation from peer-reviewed or publishing researcher’s website that contains a just-so story so that I may understand what you are saying more easily?

(All the experimental results are cited. I suggest you look up these articles if you are interested and in those you will find a wealth of information. It’s typical for an author to use a cite as a catch-all for further cites and its expected that authors only cite from the works they read.)

20

I think this is the original paper
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(07)01559-X