# Is evolutionary psychology a pseudoscience? **URL:** \ **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:** 5
**Author:** ![Naxos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Naxos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naxos)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/81 "2011-12-10T09:23:48Z")
> [@Scathach](#): > > (Breaking News! Men programmed to cheat in order to “spread their seed”) or is there some real science behind the more sensationalist claims? Your question is fodder for the sensationalism you claim to question. The term “cheat” is a social norm, a superficial term that refers to flagged social behavior, not unnatural behavior. Marriage and monogamy have nothing to do with biology and evolution. ---
**Author:** ![pragmatic55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bc8723/32.png) [@pragmatic55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pragmatic55)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/82 "2011-12-10T09:29:26Z")
Look - this is a full of myself post - but the point of the brains reward profile ‘circuitries’ is to get the organism to go after things important for survival (food sex novelty, whatever it is) - the means of sexual reproduction per organism is different, food wise it is different as well - the methods are so various in so many varities of species it is impossible to say Nature… on her tally of evolutionary psychology chalk board of most favored organismal psychologies… favors the said human method (women want a male with high testosterone, women want a man who makes money, men want a woman whose attractive because it reflects hiddem clues to immune system health… if you think deeply about any of these… you realize the current population would already be run amok with whatever proposition your debater is propagating. you only have to think a little more consequentially to show its impossible ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/83 "2011-12-10T13:43:58Z")
> [@pragmatic55](#): > > 1. Evolution is based on natural selection. > 2. Natural selection is based on _Nature_ selecting > 3. There is no rational ultimate ‘logical’ basis for what Nature chooses. > 4. A hidden ultimate idea the human brain works according to some view misinterprets rule #3 > 5. Let the 40 years of non-scientific illiterate gentlemen, papers and theories, arguments and strife begin. Your argument boils down to “evolution works in mysterious ways”. I guess we should also take theories like common descent off the table. Since when it comes to evolution, all bets are off? I have a simpler logic: A. Science can be done wherever testable claims (that we would not otherwise expect to be true) are made _Of course_ EP can be used to make testable claims. In practice it can be hard to verify a hypothesis of our evolutionary past. However, this is often not necessary. Innate drives / dispositions is a subject that for some reason many find distasteful. They have a high bias towards “blank slate” theories of the mind. Therefore EP can be considered the theory which postulates that we have innate drives / dispositions. Showing experimentally that a given drive is innate is trivial in many cases. Getting people to accept such conclusions when they go against what they want to believe is another matter. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/84 "2011-12-10T18:00:28Z")
> [@olivesmarch4th](#): > > The field of clinical psychology has changed dramatically since the 1950s, particularly in the last ten or 20 years as the emphasis has shifted to empirical results. While a large number of lisenced psychologists are happily practicing useless bullshit, there is a growing movement of empirically-based psychologists who focus on scientifically supported treatments such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Cognitive Therapy, Interpersonaly Therapy, ACT and more. These have relatively robust treatment outcomes in comparison to other treatments, like say (_grinds axe_) psychodynamic therapy. It has been increasingly difficult for the woo-woo crowd to gain respect within the field. The next generation of psychologists are firmly in the science camp. > > From my own perspective we are embroiled in something of a culture war between the snake-oil peddlers and the scientisits. Long-time practitioners who regard themselves as experts while using no evidence-based treatments are very, very reluctant to let go of old ways of practice. They also hate the fact that most research indicates you could train a person with a Bachelor’s degree to do the same job with equally effective results. Hell, one Behavioral Activation workbook I know of has been shown to improve clients WITHOUT any therapist at all. How threatening is that? Many are entitled to use methods that in my opinion are completely unethical. Clients generally assume that therapists know what they’re doing but that’s not true at least half the time. It’s not wrong to say that there are some major problems in the field. > > However, when you look at the relatively dismal rates of recovery for clients, consider also that the problem is not the lack of empiricism but the lack of proper implementation. Generally the more structured and rigorous the intervention framework, and the better trained the clinician, the better the outcome. That’s why at a research clinic you are going to see far better results than a community health clinic, even if the treatment framework is the same. For example, at a research clinic where I received treatment for an anxiety disorder, meaningful symptom reduction occurred in about 90% of clients. That is very high even for an evidence-based intervention. The best a good therapist might hope for is about 1/3 in the real world. Yeah, it’s not perfect, but we haven’t exactly cured cancer yet either. Doesn’t mean that chemo is worthless. Thank you for the informative post. You seem to be finding significant relief, and I hope that continues. If psychology is truly evolving into a generally useful field so much the better. I do prefer to withold judgement until I hear of many more decisively positive outcomes such as the 90% experienced at your clinic. As for the 1/3 real world improvement rate, the field must narrow the gap to the point where real-world outcomes approach research clinic outcomes if it is to considered truly effective. Your mention of chemotherapy made me decide to google “cancer remission rate” The third hit cited a study claiming a suprisingly high possible rate of remission in untreated breast cancer of about 25%. [Norwegian Study: Breast Cancer Occurrence/Remission](http://dartmed.dartmouth.edu/spring09/html/disc_remission.php) If “remission” is taken to mean “without symptoms” and if the remission rate for psychological discorder is also 25% then that would compare well with a 1/3 improvement rate, if “imorovement” is taken to mean symptoms are reduced but not necessarily eliminated. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/85 "2011-12-10T20:09:23Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > [Norwegian Study: Breast Cancer Occurrence/Remission](http://dartmed.dartmouth.edu/spring09/html/disc_remission.php) > > If “remission” is taken to mean “without symptoms” and if the remission rate for > psychological discorder is also 25% then that would compare well with a 1/3 > improvement rate, if “imorovement” is taken to mean symptoms are reduced but > not necessarily eliminated. Why do you think cancer, the highly variable disease of unregulated cell growth, is comparable to the even larger variability in mental illness, with diseases stemming from poor synaptic regulation, degenerating neurons, missing or underdeveloped structures in the brain, lifetime of interactions with the environment. etc? Why did you link to a study that is relatively new, with findings questioned by others, and so far unreplicated? Why did you believe this study enough to report on it, yet completely dismiss replicable work from psychology? When you seem to place neuroscience above psychology, how do you think neuroscientists know how to measure behavior in a valid and reliable fashion? ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2011, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/86 "2011-12-11T17:18:46Z")
> [@Inbred Mm domesticus](#): > > Why do you think cancer, the highly variable disease of unregulated cell growth, is comparable to the even larger variability in mental illness, with diseases stemming from (1) poor synaptic regulation, (2) degenerating neurons, (3) missing or (4) underdeveloped structures in the brain, (5) lifetime of interactions with the environment. etc? I reject your unsupported premise that comparison should not be made between subjects of differing variability. Furthermore, I was comparing only one form of cancer (breast cancer) with only one form of psychological illness (over-anxiety), so I am not sure your premise would be violated, even if it were accurate. > [@Inbred Mm domesticus](#): > > Why did you link to a study that is relatively new, with findings questioned by others, and so far unreplicated? Why did you believe this study enough to report on it, yet completely dismiss replicable work from psychology? Your suggestion that it might be improper to cite a professionally vetted scientific paper is astonishing. I believe the study enough to report it because of the unusually large sample size, and because its critics praise it as having noteworthy strengths. Note well that even if the study I cite is falsified that would do nothing to rescue psychology from any of the charges I have made against it. > [@Inbred Mm domesticus](#): > > When you seem to place neuroscience above psychology, how do you think neuroscientists know how to measure behavior in a valid and reliable fashion? If the best psychology can do is keep tallies for neuroscience then psychology does not deserve equal billing. Furthermore, measurement and diagnosis are not the issue. My contention is not that psychology is unable to diagnose and measure problems, it is that psychology has been unable to do much if anything to _solve_ the problems. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2011, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/87 "2011-12-11T17:55:15Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > I reject your unsupported premise that comparison should not be made > between subjects of differing variability. > > Furthermore, I was comparing only one form of cancer (breast cancer) > with only one form of psychological illness (over-anxiety), so I am not > sure your premise would be violated, even if it were accurate. Which type of breast cancer are you referring to? Which form of anxiety is caused by uncontrolled cell growth? If you answer none of them since that isn’t what causes anxiety, then you can probably see why your comparison is completely invalid. > [@colonial](#): > > Your suggestion that it might be improper to cite a professionally vetted scientific paper is astonishing. > > I believe the study enough to report it because of the unusually large sample > size, and because its critics praise it as having noteworthy strengths. Note > well that even if the study I cite is falsified that would do nothing to rescue > psychology from any of the charges I have made against it. The point, again, is: Why are you willing to cite this study when it is the only one of its type while ignoring all the great, highly replicated research from psychology? (Why are you ignoring the point to attempt to argue this detail? It does not change the point made and does not answer why you accept some information but not others, despite the fact that the information is collected, reviewed and shared publicly in the exact same way?) > [@colonial](#): > > If the best psychology can do is keep tallies for neuroscience then psychology does not deserve equal billing. Assuming that neuroscience isn’t just one branch of experimental psychology which is one of many branches of psychology. You really need to accept what the rest of the world accepts in this classification scheme. Go look up any department in any university and you will see what I am saying. Here’s Harvard for instance: [Harvard’s department of psychology has a neuroscience (really just experimental), developmental, industrial/organizational, and clinical subsection.](http://www.isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k3007&pageid=icb.page19733) I don’t accept your classification scheme because it is simply made up for your argument. Why don’t you accept what is readily accepted by every professional in the field? > [@colonial](#): > > Furthermore, measurement and diagnosis are not the issue. My contention is not that psychology is unable to diagnose and measure problems, it is that psychology has been unable to do much if anything to _solve_ the problems. Measurement and diagnosis are integral to solving problems. The advances in cancer treatment are aided by the recognition of the various types, first at the anatomical level and then at the molecular level. Finally, I guess I have to repeat yet again: Psychology isn’t all clinical. Why don’t you examine that Harvard website for a bit. Clicking on each of the department’s subsections will get you faculty names on the main part of the page. Clicking on a faculty name will get you a brief description of their research. You’ll see that only one branch is doing research on the psychology you are talking about: Clinical. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/88 "2011-12-11T20:06:24Z")
> [@Inbred Mm domesticus](#): > > Which type of breast cancer are you referring to? The study I cited did not differentiate types of breast cancer. I assume it referred to all types.So what? > [@Inbred Mm domesticus](#): > > Which form of anxiety is caused by uncontrolled cell growth? If you answer none of them since that isn’t what causes anxiety, then you can probably see why your comparison is completely invalid. I was not making a biological comparison. I was comparing the results of treatment for two different forms of illness. Am I not permitted, to say that treatment has been discovered for measles which is much more effective than treatment so far employed against Alzheimer’s? > [@Inbred Mm domesticus](#): > > The point, again, is: Why are you willing to cite this study when it is the only one of its type while ignoring all the great, highly replicated research from psychology? > > (Why are you ignoring the point to attempt to argue this detail? It does not change the point made and does not answer why you accept some information but not others, despite the fact that the information is collected, reviewed and shared publicly in the exact same way?) I do not need to add to my prior explanation for the cite. I am not ignoring psychological research, replicated or unreplicated. I am questioning the utility of all. The only research I have specifically commented on was in post #52 to this thread where I drew attention to the unseemly and vitriolic war of words now in progress between professional supporters and opponents of CBT. Where experts disagree with such vehemence one is entitled to claim the issue is in doubt. > [@Inbred Mm domesticus](#): > > Assuming that neuroscience isn’t just one branch of experimental psychology which is one of many branches of psychology. You really need to accept what the rest of the world accepts in this classification scheme. Go look up any department in any university and you will see what I am saying. Here’s Harvard for instance: Harvard’s department of psychology has a neuroscience (really just experimental), developmental, industrial/organizational, and clinical subsection. > > I don’t accept your classification scheme because it is simply made up for your argument. Why don’t you accept what is readily accepted by every professional in the field? I am sure you do not mean that neuroscience is classified by Harvard as a subdisipline of psychology, do you? If not then its use of the word above goes no deeper than a mere matter of labeling. Psychology is of course entitled to attmpt make use of neuroscience it its endeavors, and I hearnestly hope those endeavors bear fruit some day. I see Harvard has something it calls calls “industrial/organizational” psychology. N.B the staggering loss of market share suffered by US manufacturers in competion with East Asians. That might be the biggest ongoing industrial story of the post-WW2 era. Did psychology have _anything_ to do with the East Asian success? > [@Inbred Mm domesticus](#): > > Measurement and diagnosis are integral to solving problems. The advances in cancer treatment are aided by the recognition of the various types, first at the anatomical level and then at the molecular level. Unresponsive. > [@Inbred Mm domesticus](#): > > Finally, I guess I have to repeat yet again: Psychology isn’t all clinical. Clinical or not show me some results. > [@Inbred Mm domesticus](#): > > Why don’t you examine that Harvard website for a bit. Clicking on each of the department’s subsections will get you faculty names on the main part of the page. Clicking on a faculty name will get you a brief description of their research. You’ll see that only one branch is doing research on the psychology you are talking about: Clinical. You are the cheerleader. Why don’t you take a bit more imitative to steer me toward exactly what you are cheering about? I am especially interested in that “industrial/organizational” stuff. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2011, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/89 "2011-12-11T20:21:08Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > …your argument is not much different than **colonel** ’s which boils down to: It didn’t answer every question to everything I can think up, therefore it’s a failure! I missed this little jewel. You have created an utterly preposterous straw man. I have not demanded that psychology answer everything, I have asked that it answer _something_ and so far the best you have had to offer is say “Here, plow through the Harvard Psych department’s site.” Again: you are the cheerleader. Kindly pick something, anything, out of all that stuff you have to cheer about, and lead me to it. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2011, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/90 "2011-12-11T21:06:21Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > 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. During my life I have been to one psychologist and two psychiatrists. It was probably valuable for me to have someone to confide in during difficult periods of my life, but when I look back on those times I can think of things someone should of told me, and these doctors did not. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/91 "2011-12-12T03:02:34Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Irrelevant. The pro-EP side has seldom if ever\* claimed that everything people do is hardwired by evolution; that absolutism is a feature of the other side, who generally insist that everything is determined by culture. The point isn’t that they are acting according to economics; the point is _they don’t like it_. Why? Because it goes against their inborn human nature - and if that human nature doesn’t come from evolution, where doe it come from? And if you don’t buy EP, then what force or process is preventing it? EP should be true, going by everything we know about evolution. Claiming that EP isn’t real is claiming that humans have some sort of exception from evolution. To add to this: if EP is invalid, then it’d be really unlikely that anything would occur in every culture. And everything that occurred in all cultures ought to have such clear self-evident reasons for occurring that way that no culture decided to do things differently. [But there are a lot of things that occur in all cultures](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_universal): > [@sample from list](#): > > Logical notions of “and,” “not,” “opposite,” “equivalent,” “part/whole,” “general/particular” > Special speech for special occasions > Prestige from proficient use of language (e.g. poetry) > Distinguishing right and wrong, good and bad > Kin groups > Shame > Rape, but rape proscribed > Use of magic to increase life or win love > Feasting > Shelter Sure, if someone tries to tell me that men prefer blue because that means it’s a good day to hunt, I’ll think they’re an idiot (what, rainy days are the best berry-gathering days?). At the same time, if you tell me that all human cultures just agreed that the well-spoken ought to gain status, I’ll be a bit skeptical. Steven Pinker’s The Stuff of Thought has an intriguing approach to the matter: he examines linguistic universals, e.g., descriptions of three-dimensional objects in two-dimensional terms (most people will incorrectly describe the shape of a DVD as a circle instead of as a torus, for example), and proposes some hypotheses to account for these universals. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/92 "2011-12-12T05:38:04Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > As for the 1/3 real world > improvement rate, the field must narrow the gap to the point where real-world > outcomes approach research clinic outcomes if it is to considered truly effective. I completely agree with you and I hope it heartens you to know that there are psychologists out there whose research focuses on narrowing this gap. There isn’t a lot of research out there on translating clinical research to real-world outcomes, but my husband and his colleagues are doing it. One of the greatest obstacles is the prohibitive cost of replicating a psychological intervention exactly -training is very costly which makes it less likely to reach the general population. But we do have sufficient evidence at this point to say that in the real world, some treatment is better than no treatment at all, and evidence-based interventions are going to fare better than those without a solid research base. It might interest you to know that psychology isn’t alone in its research-real world gap. There are studies indicating that many physicians ignore the most current medical research in favor of their own instincts and experience. I don’t believe anyone is immune to over-reliance on their own professional expertise. As for the subject of evolutionary psychology, I’ve long suspected that it’s a legitimate science ripped out of context by misogynists and newspapers. It’s been fascinating to read this pretty-well-informed discussion, though. I think my issue is that most people who do use these arguments to support traditional gender roles generally forget that just because something is a certain way, doesn’t mean it should be that way or that we don’t have the consciousness as a society to change it. If we know anything about humans it’s that we adapt and change in order to survive. I think survival has come to mean something very different in the modern age, but the simple fact is that we ARE different from other animals and I’d say it’s even arguable that the structural differences in our brains may affect how strongly we are driven by instinct vs. socialization. I don’t want to make a false dichotomy of it; we are made up of all these factors… but if we were as predictable as other animals I don’t think we’d be having this conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/93 "2011-12-12T08:00:10Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > I was not making a biological comparison. I was comparing the results of treatment for two different forms of illness. Am I not permitted, to say that treatment has been discovered for measles which is much more effective than treatment so far employed against Alzheimer’s? Of course you were making a biological comparison. What treatment for any disease does not interface with our biology? You of course can say measles treatment is much more effective than treatment for Alzheimer’s. You can also say that the biological basis for treating measles is pathetically simplistic relative to Alzheimer’s. Both statements would be accurate. You could then say that comparing effectiveness of treatment for wholly unrelated diseases is a pointless exercise that lends no greater understanding to the argument. That would also be a true statement. Such a comparison is about as useless as your breast cancer statistics. I do not need to add to my prior explanation for the cite. > [@colonial](#): > > I am not ignoring psychological research, replicated or unreplicated. > I am questioning the utility of all. … > > The only research I have specifically commented on was in post #52 > to this thread where I drew attention to the unseemly and vitriolic > war of words now in progress between professional supporters and > opponents of CBT. Where experts disagree with such vehemence one > is entitled to claim the issue is in doubt. So in one sentence (the first part of the quote) you question the “utility” of doing psychological research - this includes basic research and clinical research. Then you go right back to clinical practices. If you think the basic research that I am talking about is a waste of time then I don’t know what to say to you. If you find no utility in establishing the basic parameters of human functioning, which includes behavior, then I am truly at a loss. I can say that we know a hell of a lot more about the parameters of human learning thanks to cognitive psychology but you will turn around and say it has not been applied. I see value in being able to predict human behavior given a set of variables. I don’t know how it is applied because I don’t work in that end of psychology. I could talk about the application of basic research in behavioral neuroscience to Schizophrenia or something but you will not budge on your completely unsupported notion that neuroscience is not a part of psychology. > [@colonial](#): > > I am sure you do not mean that neuroscience is classified by Harvard as a subdisipline of psychology, do you? If not then its use of the word above goes no deeper than a mere matter of labeling. Psychology is > of course entitled to attmpt make use of neuroscience it its endeavors, > and I hearnestly hope those endeavors bear fruit some day. I would be surprised if you ever found a school that did not include neuroscience as a part of psychology, because it is. It’s the neural basis of our behavior. Psychology is of course interested in these questions. > [@colonial](#): > > I see Harvard has something it calls calls “industrial/organizational” psychology. > N.B the staggering loss of market share suffered by US manufacturers > in competion with East Asians. That might be the biggest ongoing industrial > story of the post-WW2 era. Did psychology have _anything_ to do with the > East Asian success? I get every indication that you have no interest in taking it seriously, but if you are honestly interested then go look it up yourself. I have no expertise in the field. But I think the absurdity of expectation revealed in this quote gets at the “little gem” I left before. > [@colonial](#): > > You are the cheerleader. Why don’t you take a bit more imitative to steer me toward exactly what you are cheering about? I am especially interested in that “industrial/organizational” stuff. I can tell you that I successfully applied some findings from cognitive psychology to my classroom and, perhaps more importantly, did not apply some teaching myths to my classroom - myths illuminated by psychological research, but anecdotes aren’t evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/94 "2011-12-12T08:04:46Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > If someone tells you that “posh” means “port outward, starboard inward” you can be pretty sure it is just something someone made up. And that they can’t spell. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/95 "2011-12-12T08:21:00Z")
> [@Scathach](#): > > 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. Well do they or don’t they? What does the research say? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/96 "2011-12-12T16:15:58Z")
Evolutionary psychology seems to be a synonym for sociobiology. Harvard professor E.O. Wilson introduced the concept of sociobiology in 1975 with his book, Sociobiology: the New Synthesis." This is an effort to explain human behavior in terms of instincts shared with other animals, including insects, and which more recently enhanced human survival and reproduction. This book angered many on the left because it seemed to justify social characteristics they disliked, such as hierarchies, different roles for men and women, ethnocentrism, and so on. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/97 "2011-12-12T17:37:42Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > This book angered many on the left because it seemed to justify social characteristics they disliked, such as hierarchies, different roles for men and women, ethnocentrism, and so on. Why use the term ‘‘justify’’ and not ‘‘explain’’? If men and women don’t want to adhere to traditional gender roles or act like bigoted assholes, despite whatever social order their ancestors practiced, then why should they? Why do we confuse a description of behavior with a prescription for behavior? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/98 "2011-12-12T17:59:53Z")
> [@olivesmarch4th](#): > > Why use the term ‘‘justify’’ and not ‘‘explain’’? If men and women don’t want to adhere to traditional gender roles or act like bigoted assholes, despite whatever social order their ancestors practiced, then why should they? Why do we confuse a description of behavior with a prescription for behavior? Yeah–I think this is key. In the same way that Spencer fundamentally misunderstood evolution to think that it justified hypercompetitive behavior, many people misunderstand evolutionary psychology to justify various behaviors. Science doesn’t justify squat. It merely explains. Evolutionary psychology may therefore explain the prevalence of rape, for example, without being evil itself. Clearly rape has some cause, existing as it does within our causal universe (and if you want to show off your misunderstanding of quantum physics, here’s your chance!). Evolutionary psychology’s explanation of rape may be correct or it may be incorrect. But if it’s correct, that doesn’t mean rape is acceptable. Pinker makes a similar point with sociopaths. There may be a genetic cause of sociopathy. It may be that sociopaths’ condition is beyond their control and that it’s incurable. That doesn’t mean we have to throw up our hands and say, “Fine, you can’t help it, do what you gotta do.” On the contrary, it means that maybe our solution for sociopaths isn’t to waste time trying to cure them, but rather to control them–to make the consequences for their ill behavior so severe that they’d rather do the diffciult work of not committing the ill behavior. Same thing with rape. It may be that rape has a genetic cause, that some men are likelier to rape under certain circumstances. That does not mean that rape is okay (it also doesn’t mean rape is bad–we have to rely on mechanisms besides science to make this sort of value judgment). If we decide that rape is a horror that should be eliminated if at all possible, or at the very least minimized, then knowing its root causes will help us toward that goal. We might decide that we need to impose extremely strict penalties under certain circumstances to counteract genetic predispositions to the behavior. FWIW, I think the Bingo chart at the beginning was the worst sor tof sophomoric self-satisfied pseudointellectual humor. A superficial familiarity with the arguments of your opponents, to the extent that you can predict the arguments you’ll face, in no way represents a critique of those arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/99 "2011-12-12T19:06:28Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Well do they or don’t they? What does the research say? You can find a link to at least one article on the blondes in **ModernPsychologist** ’s blog. Just go there and do a control-F for “blonde”. I think it is either on the first or second page. You can also just go directly to the references on p.6. I didn’t get the popular interpretation from reading the abstract though. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873/100 "2011-12-12T20:04:26Z")
[Here’s an interesting article that shows how evolutionary psychology is testable](http://www.springerlink.com/content/766n130226m12n24/). The hypothesis is that blue-eyed men would prefer blue-eyed women as mates, because the color of their offspring’s eyes would provide a crude paternity test (since blue eyes are due to recessive genes). The test showed blue-eyed and brown-eyed men and women photographs whose eyes were digitally manipulated to be either blue or brown. Women showed no preference for eye color as a group, and brown-eyed men showed no preference; but blue-eyed men showed a marked preference for blue-eyed women. Isn’t that a pretty clear example of how science should work? You take your background knowledge, you form a hypothesis, and you design an experiment to falsify the hypothesis. If the hypothesis isn’t falsified, you’ve got a possible explanation for your facts, an explanation that survives until either a later experiment falsifies it or a later unfalsified hypothesis explains facts more elegantly/broadly/whatever. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-pseudoscience/604873.md?page=6)