# Is evolutionary psychology a pseudoscience?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [December 2, 2011, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873 "2011-12-02T19:13:52Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2011, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/41 "2011-12-03T04:38:48Z")
Let’s take a normal scientific question- at what temperature does water freeze. Even if we didn’t already know the temperature that water freezes at, we’d be able to figure it out without a lot of discuss. There would be no compelling argument for water freezing at -40, or at 88. We’d just bust out a thermometer, test it, and know.
The cutest explanation doesn’t win. Nor does the one that fits an agenda. It just is.
Let’s take an evolutionary psychology question. Why do men prefer virgins.
Wait a minute. If we didn’t already have this idea that men preferred virgins, would we even come up with this idea? I can think of some compelling reasons why men wouldn’t prefer virgins- what better sign of fertility than having already popped out a kid? And very young women are more likely to have problems in childbirth. Maybe we could test if men right now in the societies we have prefer virgins (in reality, culture vary widely on this one.) but we couldn’t ever test _why_. The just-so-story is that men prefer virgins so that they don’t waste their resources on someone else’s kid. A quick moment’s thought will reveal some complications behind that idea. If you played brainstorming, you can come up with a dozen equally as likely scenarios. Maybe men like virgins because younger bodies remind them of the lithe deer they are hunting…or maybe they are just easier to catch and force into sex. Maybe virgins were often sent to go pick far away berries, so men realized they were an easy chance for sex. We could play this game all day.
The point is. it’s not science. It’s baseless speculation, with the only difference between a “good” theory and a bad one being how cute’n’clever it seems and if it fits your particular worldview.
---
### Author:  [@Two\_Many\_Cats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_Many_Cats)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2011, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/42 "2011-12-03T05:39:11Z")
Sure, evolutionary theory is used to promote mysogynistic viewpoints. They used to use the same methods to “prove” racist viewpoints, but you’ll notice that doing that has fallen out of favor recently. Mysogyny, not so much.
---
### Author:  [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2011, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/43 "2011-12-03T22:49:28Z")
> [@Voyager](#):
>
> You seem to be confusing psychology with psychiatry, and the subset of psychologist doing therapy with the entire field. Whatever you think of that, much of psychology is experiment driven and as rigorous as you can get when dealing with people. If you want to get published in most journals you had better have statistically significant results.
I should have stipulated that my example was drawn from one part of the field,
and that it has no more than suggestive application to the entire field.
However, the entire field has produced little if any more of practical utility
than the psychiatric subset. Masses of data, yes. Personal and public policy
guidelines, no. The study of intelligence and the various tools used for testing
intelligence would be another example of value non-added which completely
envelops a completely different subset. There we are no closer to resolution
than we were ~100 years ago, and there is no hope of obtaining resolution any
time in the foreseeable future.
So, I doubt there has been any development worth bragging about since the
word “psychology” was coined in 1748. If anyone can provide citation establishing
otherwise I would really like to have a look at it, and I do not consider speculation
about why old men prefer young women to constitute such a development.
---
### Author:  [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2011, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/44 "2011-12-04T14:10:20Z")
> [@colonial](#):
>
> I should have stipulated that my example was drawn from one part of the field,
> and that it has no more than suggestive application to the entire field.
>
> However, the entire field has produced little if any more of practical utility
> than the psychiatric subset. Masses of data, yes. Personal and public policy
> guidelines, no. The study of intelligence and the various tools used for testing
> intelligence would be another example of value non-added which completely
> envelops a completely different subset. There we are no closer to resolution
> than we were ~100 years ago, and there is no hope of obtaining resolution any
> time in the foreseeable future.
>
> So, I doubt there has been any development worth bragging about since the
> word “psychology” was coined in 1748. If anyone can provide citation establishing
> otherwise I would really like to have a look at it, and I do not consider speculation
> about why old men prefer young women to constitute such a development.
Bullshit. Psychological testing disovered CBT, a methodology that psychiatrists to this day measure against. On the other hand, psychiatrists overstated the effectiveness of SSRIs for a long time without getting caught because the sale of the medication was so lucrative that covering up results was justified.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the word “psychology” means the same thing as “evolutionary psychology.”
---
### Author:  [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2011, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/45 "2011-12-04T14:35:08Z")
I would just say that what some dismissively call “just so stories” I would call logical, but untestable hypotheses. Yes, it’s a problem that these hypotheses (often) cannot be tested, but I don’t think that means there is no value in thinking about them.
---
### Author:  [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2011, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/46 "2011-12-04T14:38:07Z")
Coincidentally, here’s some evolutionary psychology in the news: [Why We Invented Monsters](http://www.salon.com/2011/12/03/the_evolution_of_monsters/singleton/).
(Actually having read that, parts of it are pretty good examples of why evolutionary psychology gets criticized as “just so stories.” Particularly the bit about dragons.)
---
### Author:  [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2011, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/47 "2011-12-04T15:07:06Z")
> [@Spoke](#):
>
> I would just say that what some dismissively call “just so stories” I would call logical, but untestable hypotheses. Yes, it’s a problem that these hypotheses (often) cannot be tested, but I don’t think that means there is no value in thinking about them.
In science, if it’s untestable, it’s not real. So while these conjectures may be a fun little thought experiment, there is no real practical application. They do not prove anything, and should not be used as proof.
---
### Author:  [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2011, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/48 "2011-12-04T15:15:39Z")
> [@even\_sven](#):
>
> Let’s take a normal scientific question- at what temperature does water freeze. Even if we didn’t already know the temperature that water freezes at, we’d be able to figure it out without a lot of discuss. There would be no compelling argument for water freezing at -40, or at 88. We’d just bust out a thermometer, test it, and know.
>
> The cutest explanation doesn’t win. Nor does the one that fits an agenda. It just is.
Water freezing at 0C is an _observation_.
Though it _could_ have been a prediction, and therefore part of a theory or explanation, what you have described, alone, is just a raw observation.
> [@](#):
>
> Let’s take an evolutionary psychology question. Why do men prefer virgins.
>
> Wait a minute. If we didn’t already have this idea that men preferred virgins, would we even come up with this idea?
No, but you can verify that that observation is valid. Like you measure the temperature at which water freezes.
_Then_ you can do the science. You can hypothesize why you think men prefer virgins, and then use those hypotheses to make predictions about an experiment.
I’m not saying that everything that gets labelled under EP is valid science. An innate desire for virgins is on the more dubious side IMO.
But plainly, yes, _of course_ we can test hyptheses that certain behaviours or predispositions are innate.
The only people arguing otherwise are those that are uncomfortable with the idea that such behaviours exist.
---
### Author:  [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2011, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/49 "2011-12-04T15:45:28Z")
Well yeah, you could test the observation in a given population. You could definitely say “the group of middle class white Americans in Detroit that we tested showed a preference for virgins.”
But that, on it’s own, is just plain psychology. Yes, we are able to make testable observations about human behavior. When tested across cultures in different situations (something that is almost never done) or by backing up our experiments with physical evidence, such as MRI scans, we can come up with some useful and well supported theories of how the human brain works. This is what research psychologists do, and they do it pretty well.
What we cannot do, however, is tie a modern day behavior to pre-historic times. We cannot say “Population X likes virgins, so we can assume ALL men like virgins, and this shows cavemen liked virgins, and this is because (insert story whose only merit is its cuteness).” That’s a just-so-story designed to explain the unexplainable, which is just the hip new version of the myth making process that humans have done forever.
The bingo chart had one thing exactly right- it’s kind of funny how evolutionary psychology always seems to support an “innate” gender relation that resembles 1950s America, isn’t it? Somehow, across the vast richness of human gender relations- from Tibetan polyandrists, modern female-dominated universities with their hook-up culture, the Woodabe male beauty pageants, Islamic fundamentalist extreme female opporession…somehow mid-century Americans just happen to be the one situation where our natural caveman tendencies are just perfectly expressed, free from environmental or economic factors.
Indeed, looking at how quickly gender norms have changed in the last few decades, for clearly and obviously economic/social/environmental reasons, it’s really ballsy of anyone to make a blanket assertion about gender relations. We’ve gone from “women are grudgingly accepted into select female fields at school, and are expected to marry in their late teens or early twenties” to “women dominate pretty much all higher education and are increasingly not really seeing the point of getting married at all” within two generations. My life looks like _nothing_ that was even possible in my grandmother’s day. Such rapid, massive change would be impossible if our gender behavior was so directly related to innate tendencies.
---
### Author:  [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2011, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/50 "2011-12-04T15:52:11Z")
And that is not to say there are not innate tendencies- there are. But these fundamental urges are expressed in complex ways as they interact with individuals, cultures, and social organizations.
Women, for example, may have a desire for security. There have been times where that drive for security steered us towards finding protective men to take care of us. But these days, that drive for security is steering us towards going to school and getting a decent job, and without the need for men to provide security we are getting married later and marriages have less stability.
The drive is there, but how this drive is expressed is complex, making it hard to universalize.
---
### Author:  [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2011, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/51 "2011-12-04T16:34:44Z")
> [@even\_sven](#):
>
> The bingo chart had one thing exactly right- it’s kind of funny how evolutionary psychology always seems to support an “innate” gender relation that resembles 1950s America, isn’t it?
No it doesn’t. I have seen evolutionary psychology used to explain female sexual behaviors, including taking a mate while at the same time secretly seeking other sexual partners outside that relationship. That doesn’t exactly conform to idealized 1950s norms.
---
### Author:  [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2011, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/52 "2011-12-04T18:28:05Z")
> [@BigT](#):
>
> Bullshit. Psychological testing disovered CBT, a methodology that psychiatrists to this day measure against. On the other hand, psychiatrists overstated the effectiveness of SSRIs for a long time without getting caught because the sale of the medication was so lucrative that covering up results was justified.
Bullshit yourself. The Wiki article, as usual the most detailed in the 1st two pages
of Googling, is nothing but cheerleading boilerplate, for the most part obviously
composed by CBT therapists. Only the brief final section presents anything in the way of rebuttal.
Here is the abstract for the article’s footnote #2:
[Efficacy of CBT](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735805001005)
(from link):
> [@](#):
>
> …Our review focuses on effect sizes that contrast outcomes for CBT with outcomes for various control groups for each disorder, which provides an overview of the effectiveness of cognitive therapy as quantified by meta-analysis. Large effect sizes were found for CBT for unipolar depression, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, social phobia, posttraumatic stress disorder, and childhood depressive and anxiety disorders. Effect sizes for CBT of marital distress, anger, childhood somatic disorders, and chronic pain were in the moderate range. CBT was somewhat superior to antidepressants in the treatment of adult depression. CBT was equally effective as behavior therapy in the treatment of adult depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Unless the control groups include patients untreated by any form of therapy
then my ealier textbook-sourced objection remains unaddressed.
Here is the article for footnote #74 questioning whether CBT is any better than
any other therapy:
[Crticism of CBT](http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2008/july/CBT+superiority+questioned+at+conference)
(from link):
> [@](#):
>
> "The government, the public and even many health officials have been sold a version of the scientific evidence that is not based in fact, but is instead based on a logical error. This is how it works: 1) More academic researchers subscribe to a CBT approach than any other. 2) These researchers get more research grants and publish more studies on the effectiveness of CBT. 3) This greater number of studies is used to imply that CBT is more effective.
>
> "This is a classic example of the **logical fallacy** known as ‘argument from ignorance’ ie the absence of evidence is taken as evidence of absence.
>
> "Although CBT advocates rarely make this claim so boldly, their continual emphasis on the amount of evidence is misunderstood by the public, other health care workers, and government officials, a misunderstanding that they allow to stand without correction. The result is a widespread belief that no one takes responsibility for. In other words, a **myth**.
So, here we have one faction accusing another faction of being party to not only
massive _logical fallacy_ but also _myth_!!! These vitriolic charges should be addressed
at length before CBT gets credit for being a majot scinetific advance.
In the interest of transparency I also provide this citation from footnote #74:
> [@](#):
>
> …The accumulated scientific evidence clearly points to three facts: 1) People show large changes over the course of psychotherapy, changes that are generally maintained after the end of therapy. 2) People who get therapy show substantially more change than people who don’t get therapy, regardless of the type of therapy they get. 3) When established therapies are compared to one another in scientifically valid studies, the most common result is that both therapies are equally effective…
Immunization, cure and survival rates have been improving all my life for numerous
illnesses, including the most common life-threating ones. It should have been big
news if inroad has likewise been made against mental illness. Have I missed it?
Can the psychological sciences point to improvement in our national mental health
remotely approaching improvement in cardiovascular and oncological outcomes?
---
### Author:  [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2011, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/53 "2011-12-04T19:32:10Z")
> [@colonial](#):
>
> Bullshit yourself. The Wiki article, as usual the most detailed in the 1st two pages
> of Googling, is nothing but cheerleading boilerplate, for the most part obviously
> composed by CBT therapists. Only the brief final section presents anything in the way of rebuttal.
>
> Here is the abstract for the article’s footnote #2:
>
> [Efficacy of CBT](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735805001005)
>
> (from link):
>
> Unless the control groups include patients untreated by any form of therapy
> then my ealier textbook-sourced objection remains unaddressed.
>
> Here is the article for footnote #74 questioning whether CBT is any better than
> any other therapy:
>
> [Crticism of CBT](http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2008/july/CBT+superiority+questioned+at+conference)
>
> (from link):
>
> So, here we have one faction accusing another faction of being party to not only
> massive _logical fallacy_ but also _myth_!!! These vitriolic charges should be addressed
> at length before CBT gets credit for being a majot scinetific advance.
>
> In the interest of transparency I also provide this citation from footnote #74:
>
> Immunization, cure and survival rates have been improving all my life for numerous
> illnesses, including the most common life-threating ones. It should have been big
> news if inroad has likewise been made against mental illness. Have I missed it?
> Can the psychological sciences point to improvement in our national mental health
> remotely approaching improvement in cardiovascular and oncological outcomes?
The fact that people with mental illnesses are even given therapy seems to be an improvement that is completely lost on you.
The positive challenging, normalizing, approach we now take with developmentally delayed individuals, such as those with autism or Down Syndrome, is a result of psychology.
Learning and memory tools developed from cognitive psychology are used everyday.
You know that neuroscience is a branch of experimental psychology right? I’m sure you could find some useful information from that field.
What it comes down to is your first post. Your awareness is old, your old knowledge is from a specific branch of psychology, and although I mentioned 3 functional improvements from psychology research and theorizing, many millions find benefits in learning more about themselves. Maybe you shouldn’t discount knowledge for knowledge’s sake.
---
### Author:  [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2011, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/54 "2011-12-04T20:32:43Z")
> [@Spoke](#):
>
> Coincidentally, here’s some evolutionary psychology in the news: [Why We Invented Monsters](http://www.salon.com/2011/12/03/the_evolution_of_monsters/singleton/).
>
> (Actually having read that, parts of it are pretty good examples of why evolutionary psychology gets criticized as “just so stories.” Particularly the bit about dragons.)
You often see dragons and other scary monsters trying to eat you when you’re tripping on LSD.
But why don’t we use the term “instinct”?
---
### Author:  [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2011, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/55 "2011-12-04T20:41:26Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#):
>
> The fact that people with mental illnesses are even given therapy seems to be an improvement that is completely lost on you.
The fact that therapy itself is not an improvement unless it produces results
seems to be lost on you.
Sticking a needle in someone is not an “improvement” unless it provides immunity
or cure. Cutting open someones chest is not an “improvement” unless to cure
something, such as a faulty heart valve.
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#):
>
> The positive challenging, normalizing, approach we now take with developmentally delayed individuals, such as those with autism or Down Syndrome, is a result of psychology.
Recall that I specified remission. Down is not susceptible to remission. Is autism?
I would hope that after all the money and effort _some_ patents’ lives might be made easier,
even if they are not cured. However, the explosion in autism diagnosis makes me wonder
if what is happening now in that area may be considered a form of progress, and whether
some gaming and a spoils system are at work. Furthermore efficacy of present treatment
cannot be measured until much later outcomes are known, for example, the number of autism
patients obtaining advanced academic degrees, or their income levels, or other revealing data.
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#):
>
> Learning and memory tools developed from cognitive psychology are used everyday.
Oh? Like what, and why are they not leading to greatly improved US acheivement test scores?
Have East Asians and Finns adopted these tools for the last several decades but the US has not?
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#):
>
> You know that neuroscience is a branch of experimental psychology right? I’m sure you could find some useful information from that field.
It most certainly is not!
Neuroscience is the biological study of the entire nervous system. For psychology
to attempt to usurp credit for neurological advance is typical of its more devious apologists.
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#):
>
> What it comes down to is your first post. Your awareness is old, your old knowledge is from a specific branch of psychology, and although I mentioned 3 functional improvements from psychology research and theorizing,
You have fallen far short of making a case for any functional improvement,
and you have done nothing to bring my “old awareness” up to date.
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#):
>
> many millions find benefits in learning more about themselves. Maybe you shouldn’t discount knowledge for knowledge’s sake.
Anyone who wants to shell out ~$200 per hour for knowledge for knowledge’s sake
is welcome as long as _none_ of it comes out of my $300 per month health insurance
premiums ($5000 copay per year).
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2011, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/56 "2011-12-04T21:00:16Z")
> [@sqweels](#):
>
> But why don’t we use the term “instinct”?
Because most of the non-religiously motivated people who hate evolutionary psychology also hate admitting that humans have instincts. After all, once you admit humans have instincts you’ve practically admitted the validity of evolutionary psychology; where else would those instincts come from? The religious types will just say “God did it” of course, but someone who isn’t willing to do that is left with “evolution” as the answer. And hostility to admitting that we aren’t _special_, that we are just another species of animal is at the core of the opposition to evolutionary psychology.
---
### Author:  [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2011, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/57 "2011-12-04T21:27:56Z")
> [@colonial](#):
>
> The fact that therapy …
I feel there is little purpose in continuing this conversation, but you might want to look up Behavioral Neuroscience, Cognitive Psychology, Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Developmental Psychology, and Social Psychology.
---
### Author:  [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2011, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/58 "2011-12-04T21:42:13Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#):
>
> I feel there is little purpose in continuing this conversation, but you might want to look up Behavioral Neuroscience, Cognitive Psychology, Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Developmental Psychology, and Social Psychology.
Ha ha- you sure did rise to the challenge, didn’t you?
Go find some easier pickings.
---
### Author:  [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2011, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/59 "2011-12-04T22:36:09Z")
> [@sqweels](#):
>
> You often see dragons and other scary monsters trying to eat you when you’re tripping on LSD.
No, you don’t.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2011, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/60 "2011-12-04T22:36:52Z")
> [@colonial](#):
>
> So, I doubt there has been any development worth bragging about since the
> word “psychology” was coined in 1748. If anyone can provide citation establishing
> otherwise I would really like to have a look at it, and I do not consider speculation
> about why old men prefer young women to constitute such a development.
Try reading Kahnemann’s work. My interaction with psychology is only in that area. I know of one professor who has made a whole bunch of money applying some of these principles to the market, if you want a really measurable result. I don’t know what you’d call significant - I’d think the combination of psychology and studies of the brain would count.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873.md?page=4)