I think working from a cognitive perspective back to evolutionary theory will ultimately yield stronger results.
That's interesting. Can you describe more about how that would work?
I'm of fot bed, will catch up tomorrow.
Evolutionary psychology?
by Laika 22 Replies latest jw friends
-
cofty
-
Oubliette
Cofty, you are right of course. This is the problem with my making a few brief comments on such a huge topic. Thank you for offering some balance.
Your comment about necessary rigor really is the whole point of having a scientific approach to these types of problems. As a subfield of the larger field of psychology, evo psych (as you called it), tends to have an inherent bias in explaining observed and observable behaviors as having a particular evolutionary origin. And yet, even many evolutionary biologists agree that not everything about who and what we are is hard-wired or determined by our genes (Confer, et al, 2010).
For example, they have a hard time explaining certain human traits and behaviors such as same-sex attraction and suicide.
Nevertheless, it remains a fruitful field of investigation.
BOC, Thanks! I appreciate your contributions to this and related threads. I also want to hear more about your thoughts on working backwards from a cognitive perspective.
- - - - - - - - - -
References:
Confer, J., et al, (2010), Evolutionary psychology: controviersies, questions, prospects, and limitations. American Psychologist. 65, 110-126. (p. 144).
-
breakfast of champions
COFTY - No. I can't - but I'm working on it! The more I know, the more I'll share. Anyway, I've chosen cog sci as my field of study, thus my bias.
I don't think evo/psy is trying to or can explain the "how" of the mind. It may have some answers for the "whys" but I think the "hows" are far more interesting (since no one really knows!).
OUBLIETTE - thanks! See my answer to COFTY. I'm still a "newb" to cog sci, but I'm at a great school with some great minds in the field with whom I can talk to face to face whenever I want. Pretty damn cool. Not an expert on Phil of sci, but we did discuss it to some degree in one of my cog sci classes.
Off to bed myself.
-
cofty
Good luck with your studies BOC it sounds like a fascinating challenge.
-
Laika
Here are some articles that I think demonstrate some of the problems with evolutionary psychology:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/18/satoshi-kanazawa-black-women-psychology-today
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2011/01/darwins_rape_whistle.html
It would be unfair to tar all evolutionary psychologists with the same brush of course, but as a field it does seem to attract people who want to claim scientific support for their bigotry, unfortunately.
-
bohm
Evolutionary psychology boil down to the following idea: Some aspects of our behaviour is heavily influenced by our genes.
Since our behaviour is what the brain does, and since our brain is as determined by our genes as the layour of our limbs or organs, I dare say this is absolutely uncontroversially true.
Consider for instance the equivalent question applied to the great apes. Is some of the behaviour of apes (mating, behaviour in the group, dominance, eating habbits, agression, nurtering, cognetive abilities, sexual orientation) determined by the genes? what about the behaviour across species (compare chimpanzee, orangutans, gorillas and dogs)? A denial of evolutionary psychology for humans need to answer why the influence of our genes on behaviour suddenly changed dramatically the last 10 million years or so.
Most critisism to evolutinary psychology come in three forms. The scientific critisism, which is rare, revolve around the statement (in one way or the other) that what scientists feel fall within evolutionary psychology should really be considered individual adaptation to the enviroment (learning in some form). However how the brain can adapt, and to what extend is determined by the brain and therefore influenced by the genes. Clearly such an argument, being within the scope of evolutionary psychology from the get-go, cannot be used to dismiss evolutionary psychology and at any rate it only mean there are two types of explanation which should be taken into account. Nobody has ever denied that.
This bring us to the second sort of argument: generalization from poor science. Much crap has been made under the label "evolutionary psychology" but that is not an argument in itself. There is for instance a lot of crap science having to do with diets, some of it made by people with phds, but that is not an argument that can be employed to dismiss all biology that has to do with human metabolism and storage of fat.
Even granting the tin-foil-hat idea that *all* evolutionary psychology produced to this day is junk science. It would still not be an argument to dismiss evolutionary psychology as a research project.
The third form of critisism is the tactic to argue from consequence. Evolutionary psychology is used to support misogony, racism and so on and so forth, mainly with the implication a person supportive of evolutionary psychology is at the very least act as an useful idiot for the various racists and mysogonists in the world and therefore has a moral responsibility. I think I have heard this argument before somewhere.
Most critisism of evo psych is itself good examples of junk scientific reasoning made by people with little knowledge in the field and quite obviously motivated by non-scientific biases.
PZ Myers is a perfect example.
-
cofty
Bohm - that's helpful thanks.
-
Oubliette
bohm and Laika, thanks for sharing those points.
Even scientists are prone to the biases, prejudices and other foibles as are the rest of us.
I think it's important to remember that even a scientific study of how we came to be need not dictate how are or how we ought to be. The idea of genetic determinism is a kind of modern day pseudo-scientific version of fatalism.
I for one reject the idea that "we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do."
Throughout our history, many people have used these ideas as justification for some of the worst atrocities committed by humans against other humans.
-
Laika
Oubliette, I agree, thanks.
Bohm, I admitted in my op I didn't know much about the field, which is why I asked the question, I don't think I had a bias. Thanks for your post.
Some incident in a lift at a conference led to a huge online battle that became farcical.
I think I found this story, couldn't work out the fuss at all, but seems old news now.
-
Apognophos
I find this subject very interesting. It's in my reductionist nature to try to explain human behavior based on prehistoric life and gender differences in physiology. However it's true that it can be a very touchy subject. There's a lot of know-it-alls on the Internet who give it a bad name. Part of the problem is that the purpose of evo psych is simply to explain "why", but some people think that explaining and defending are the same thing. I'd be hesitant to work in the field just because people are so touchy these days.