Critiques on the theories of evolutionary psychology?

[dominick]

I've done a great deal of reading recently on the subject of evolutionary psychology. It's a fascinating field and has helped me understand a lot about myself.

In particular it help me come to the grips with having feelings of immense love and affection for my significant other while at the same time having strong physical feelings of desire for others. Prior to reading about evo psych those feelings would have made me doubt my relationship or judge my partner negatively. Now I understand that those feelings are actually a very normal product of evolutionary development. I can enjoy them without feeling threatened.

What I wanted to ask here was whether people have come across intelligent critiques on the theories of evo psych. I always like to get "the other side" when I start learning about something so I can come to my own conclusions. Most of the reading I've done in the field of evo psych seem largely to agree and so I'd be interested to read something that disputes some of the writing of people in the field. Any suggestions?

[MyEyeIsOpen]

Well, evo psych is a useful tool and is self evidently true in theory. The major problem with it is that explanations based on it are "just so"--they provide a convincing narrative, but those narratives are untested and often untestable.

[Liz Caitlin]

The best critiques I've seen don't discard evolutionary theory as a whole but do point out that a lot of evolutionary psychology theories are just flimsy excuses to make modern norms okay.

My favorite example of this is just a casual observance someone made on another site I like about the theory of men needing to spread their seed:

The thing is - if you accept the argument that men are biologically programmed to spread their seed as much as possible you also have to accept the argument that women are biologically programmed to seek out the most genetically advantageous sperm possible.

Since there will almost always be some dude who has a genetic advantage over the woman's current partner, then you have to accept that women have just as much of a biological imperative to cheat as dudes do.

In fact, since men can ejaculate many times in a day and keep doing so into their 90s but women can only have a limited number of children, there is actually more incentive for women to cheat then for men because every time they choose the "weaker" sperm provider they are taking themselves out of the genetic competition for nine to 12 months on what is already a more limited fertility time line then the one men have.

You probably won't see this as particularly controversial or surprising, but a TON of people out there cite "evolutionary psychology" as the reason men want to sleep around a ton and women just want monogamy. It's not true. And of course, genetic evidence has shown that our species grew stronger because of "promiscuous" women, and that in some ancient cultures as many as 1 out of 4 children were being raised by a man who was not actually their father.

So I believe in evolutionary psychology, but I try to avoid misapplications of it and not blindly accept everything I read.

[Jaiysun4]

The problem with evolutionary psychology, or the application of evolutionary patterns to human behaviour, is that humans have the capacity to override or alter their drives and instincts. So the overall pattern is one of loose correlation or explanation, but consciousness has become too complex and affected more by other things. This is my uneducated and quickly conceived explanation!

[180]

While on these forums I seem to be the biggest EP whore, toting as it's the end all be all explanation for everything, it does have one huge hole that I can't seem to explain in relationships.

EP seems to explain mate selection rather closely, but if you see.... in reality it seems that most of us, tend to settle down with someone we have a close relationship with emotionally. Does this make any sense in EP terms? Slightly, but according to EP we should be trying to catch those who best fit our mold for genetic success .

But why is it, for most of us, we want someone we have a connection with? Someone who loves us and we love back? She/He doesn't have to be the best looking or the smartest... or whatever! We basically choose someone who we have the most in common with. We also have a tendency to choose someone who looks like the most like us (ie. father/mother)

I guess EP can explain it like... we're looking for someone closest to our genetic factors... but not too close. But there a still a lot of holes in the theory. Or we're just not at that point we can explain it.

We still can't explain what beauty EXACTLY is... is it fertility? Is it intelligence? is it good genes? we don't know yet....

[Brutha]

Evolutionary psychology gives you stories. Sometimes those stories are helpful and sometimes they aren't.

There are three big forces in human evolution: Natural selection, Gene drift and mutations.
Evolutionary psychology asserts that any phenotype we see exists primarily because of natural selection.

Evolutionary psychology doesn't take into account that there is natural selection of genes instead of natural selection of behavior.
One gene can create many different behaviors and some of those might be evolutionary advantageous while others might be evolutionary disadvantageous.

Pop evolutionary psychology doesn't take into account the massive differences between the environment in which we evolved for millions of years and todays environment.

Well, evo psych is a useful tool and is self evidently true in theory.

No, it isn't.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, just as good theory would predict.

[Criseyde]

Evolutionary psychology and neuroscience together constitute the modern set of Just So Stories for human behavior. The main problem I see with it is that we don't know nearly as much as we think we know about evolution and the human brain. It's fascinating, but highly incomplete and ought not be used as the sole means of analysis/justification of human behavior -- especially since human behavior contains SO MUCH variation, so there's always a huge amount of unexplained deviance.

Here's an article I find compelling: The neuroscience delusion -- obviously it's about neuroscience, not evo psych, but it brings up evo psych and a lot of the criticisms apply to both.

Certainly it is interesting, but I would not and do not swallow it whole, especially since I've noticed that it tends to be used as justification for, well, bad behavior (especially cheating).

Oh, and studying primary texts from other cultures about sex and gender can also be enlightening about just how socially constructed our ideas are. Off the top of my head, Half Humankind by Katherine Henderson and Barbara McManus is really good if you're interested in examples of these documents from Early Modern England. An interesting thing about that is that, though they were concerned with how men and women ought to behave, they weren't concerned at all with equality the way we are now... the world was hierarchical and you just dealt with it. Their Just So Stories came from the Bible.

ETA: By the way, speaking of where these narratives come from, well, the ascension of science is a whole other fascinating topic in itself...

[Elrond]

What I'm wondering about evo psych is how much it is backed by scientific, empirical studies?

I'm wondering how much of evo psych is theory and how much is evidence. How much is it backed by science in biology and genetics? How much is it backed by studying human behaviour, rather than bahaviour in other primates or mammals that are closely related to us? Etc.

I've heard that up until very recently, our genes were thought to be set in stone. This was a hypothesis but was treated as dogma. Then along came the epigenetics theory and it seems that it has obliterated that former theory/dogma... or? Is evo psych perhaps a poorly investigated hypothesis, dressed as a proven model of behaviour?

[Brutha]

Here's an article I find compelling: The neuroscience delusion -- obviously it's about neuroscience, not evo psych, but it brings up evo psych and a lot of the criticisms apply to both.

It criticizes literature people who want to use neuroscience. The problem doesn't lie with neuroscience but with those literature people who don't understand neuroscience.
Literature theory is about just so stories about stories.

I'm wondering how much of evo psych is theory and how much is evidence.

Then how about reading evolutionary psychology articles?

I've heard that up until very recently, our genes were thought to be set in stone. This was a hypothesis but was treated as dogma. Then along came the epigenetics theory and it seems that it has obliterated that former theory/dogma... or?

Epigenetics isn't about change in genes but about change of gene expression.

It's also no new theory but it's older than natural selection. In general experiments haven't found much evidence of inheritable epigenetic factors.

[AaronA]

I think evo psych will expand to be more descriptive as new data comes to light. I regards to the mate selection idea, I thought this was interesting:

PLoS ONE: Do Ravens Show Consolation? Responses to Distressed Others

Basically, it talks about ravens consoling one another. I think that demonstrates just how deep a role emotions play in mammalian life. If you look at the history of psychology, these emotions were discounted during the time of the behavior theorists. It's evo psych that is bringing a closer look to the survival benefits conferred by emotions such as love and empathy. I find it pretty inspiring to think that these positive feelings aren't just social constructs, but are tied directly into our biology. That doesn't mean feelings can't be misled, but they aren't as airy as might be considered at first glance.

Aaron

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Brutha

It criticizes literature people who want to use neuroscience. The problem doesn't lie with neuroscience but with those literature people who don't understand neuroscience.
Literature theory is about just so stories about stories.

That's true, it is most directly criticizing literary theorists who want to use things they don't understand -- but I think this author's argument applies whenever you want to apply neuroscientific theories to actual human behavior in all its glorious variation, which is why I posted it.

[Brutha]

That's true, it is most directly criticizing literary theorists who want to use things they don't understand -- but I think this author's argument applies whenever you want to apply neuroscientific theories to actual human behavior in all its glorious variation, which is why I posted it.

The thing is that you always need mental frameworks.
Sometimes evolutionary, neuroscience or cognitive explanations can help understand behavior.

Even when neuro/cognitive narratives aren't perfect they are for example more accurate than the reductionist rational human being narrative that gets used in neoclassical economics.

It's helpful to be able to think about a given idea from different perspectives.

[Cochonette]

Read anything on polyamory, critique of monogamy/monoamory, you will probably come across a critique of the idea that we were meant to have one partner for life.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by 180

While on these forums I seem to be the biggest EP whore, toting as it's the end all be all explanation for everything, it does have one huge hole that I can't seem to explain in relationships.

EP seems to explain mate selection rather closely, but if you see.... in reality it seems that most of us, tend to settle down with someone we have a close relationship with emotionally. Does this make any sense in EP terms? Slightly, but according to EP we should be trying to catch those who best fit our mold for genetic success .

But why is it, for most of us, we want someone we have a connection with? Someone who loves us and we love back? She/He doesn't have to be the best looking or the smartest... or whatever! We basically choose someone who we have the most in common with. We also have a tendency to choose someone who looks like the most like us (ie. father/mother)

I guess EP can explain it like... we're looking for someone closest to our genetic factors... but not too close. But there a still a lot of holes in the theory. Or we're just not at that point we can explain it.

We still can't explain what beauty EXACTLY is... is it fertility? Is it intelligence? is it good genes? we don't know yet....

Why is it difficult to see the evolutionary advantage in pair bonding?

Bonds of friendship and love keep people alive. It's trust. The entire idea is that when hard times fall you'll have someone to depend on and trust. This is advantageous because survival is the #1 priority for your genes. If you want to reproduce, first you must survive.

Pain-bonding is about survival. This is why poor people stay in marriages longer than rich people.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The thing is that you always need mental frameworks.
Sometimes evolutionary, neuroscience or cognitive explanations can help understand behavior.

Even when neuro/cognitive narratives aren't perfect they are for example more accurate than the reductionist rational human being narrative that gets used in neoclassical economics.

It's helpful to be able to think about a given idea from different perspectives.

Again true -- I think it's interesting, the problem begins when people lose sight of the fact that it's a theoretical framework, not Absolute Truth. As always...

[Brutha]

Again true -- I think it's interesting, the problem begins when people lose sight of the fact that it's a theoretical framework, not Absolute Truth. As always...

Often it's also a problem of being able to only think in terms of one theoretical framework.

It's also a huge problem when people who have never read an article about evolutionary psychology or an article on neuroscience try to use it to justify their thoughts.

I think evo psych will expand to be more descriptive as new data comes to light.

How so? What kind of data are you thinking about?

[180]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Why is it difficult to see the evolutionary advantage in pair bonding?

Bonds of friendship and love keep people alive. It's trust. The entire idea is that when hard times fall you'll have someone to depend on and trust. This is advantageous because survival is the #1 priority for your genes. If you want to reproduce, first you must survive.

Pain-bonding is about survival. This is why poor people stay in marriages longer than rich people.

I guess EP theory would explain thusly... In the past, when humans weren't as witty or clever as they are now, we must have looked at pair bonding as necessary factors for mating. Without trust, as you said, people will not together help the survival of the child. Necessary is both the male and female.

However, when we put all the factors in perspective it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Look at the things women look for in a man the most. Humor, trust, confidence, and emotional connection.

According to EP theory these things should be bottom tier of concerns. A man who's handsome and rich yet serious and willing to give all to his child is a much more suitable choice. Yet when looking at women's criteria you see this sort of conflict of values.

EP Theory can still find ways to explain it but they fall pretty short the majority of times when explaining most things. Homosexuality, suicide... while CAN be explained by EP sometimes leaves people... grasping for more. (When I say this I'm being devil's advocate... actually I think EP can explain these quite well)

Although, I do put a lot of value into EP theory, sometimes I have to consider the possibility that EP theory might just be a logical convenience. Which means that it's sort of this nice theory that men love because it's so logical.

If I wanted, I could explain the world in terms of atoms, But it still falls short of explaining the whole picture. I could convince Sam who is sitting next to me right now, he is a composite of several carbon molecules and mostly comprised up hydrogen, oxygen, etc etc...

While the explanation is just as logical as EP, it may not grasp the whole reality.

Generally, EP is flipping awesome. What a comprehensive understanding of all human behavior wrapped up in our biology and primordial soup origins.

I do applaud the OP for at least considering conflicting points of view before... "coming into the dawkin's religion".

Welcome to the brotherhood.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by 180

However, when we put all the factors in perspective it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Look at the things women look for in a man the most. Humor, trust, confidence, and emotional connection.

Well the test of EP is if it's predictive.

It's definitely not a panacea but plenty of solid EP predictions can be made and then tested.

It would be a mistake to assume that EP is right and then back-rationalize reasons why. But if you use it from a predictive framework, the point is that it often really works.

I wouldn't say humour is one of them btw.

Trust is a consequence of observation. Women can trust men whom they are not attracted to. And they can be attracted to men who they don't trust.

Confidence is a bundle of things but yeah it definitely sparks attraction.

Emotional connection? All we really mean by "emotional connection" is the girl having warm feelings towards another person. You can almost define emotional connection AS attraction. Emotional connection + sexual polarity = sexual attraction.

Really what evopsych is saying is that "emotional connection" is triggered by evolutionary value. Evopsych states that women will experience emotional connection towards men who signal that they have evolutionary value to that woman. One aspect of evolutionary value is providing safety and companionship. Another aspect is providing genetic material.

[AaronA]

Originally Posted by Brutha

How so? What kind of data are you thinking about?

Data like was mentioned in the article I posted; in that particular case, animal behavior. Building on that would be the neurological structures that led to that behavior. Then would be corresponding behaviors and structures in other animals. This would form a neurological/psychological "fossil record" so to speak, where we can see how things evolved. Otherwise, there's the potential for evo psych to provide "just so" stories without the framework that evolutionary biology had.