Evolutionary Psychology

Branching off from this tangent in another thread, I figured it may be worthwhile having a new thread to discuss evolutionary psychology.

Frankly, I get the impression that popular opinion tends to be unreasonably dismissive of it. People often equate it with certain ideas it is associated with rather than trying to refute those ideas from within evolutionary reasoning. If it's really that shaky, it shouldn't be too hard to refute it.

Also, something strikes me as especially selective about equating it with certain ideas, and then assuming it reflects poorly on the method rather than reflecting well on those ideas.

Technically speaking, I'm not too sour on evolutionary psychology itself in the way most other feminists are (although I certainly know why they want to jab toothpicks into the eyes of every evo-psych proponent). The idea that certain behaviors popped up and stuck around because they were and/or are beneficial and adaptive is an idea that I'm generally chill with. I do have some issues with some of the conclusions drawn in some evo-psych studies (there's one particular study that illustrates my issues, where researchers had an attractive stranger approach subjects, tell them that they've been seeing them around for awhile and think they're hot, and want to go on a date/invite them to their house/have a one night stand. Women's likelihood to agree decreased as the invitations became more forward/obviously sexual, while men went in the opposite direction. The researchers insisted that this illustrated biological sex differences in partner selection — The fact that the women might have that ever-so-pervasive "one in four women will deal with sexual assault during their lifetime" stat in their head when some strange bloke comes fuck out of nowhere and tells them he's been watching them might be a confounding variable seems to be something the researchers failed to consider), but I'm not entirely knee-jerk about the research, even if some of the conclusions drawn from it make me raise an eyebrow. I'm studying to go into social psychology research — It's in all likelihood that it's gonna be my job to critique, address, and confirm or refute this sort of thing.

My beef is with typical evo-psych proponents, who seem to latch onto some of the research done on human sex differences and go "See!? See!? Women and men are different. This justifies gender policing/double standards/slut shaming/gender inequality, and those feminist are being stupid!" even though just about everything they know about that sort of research comes from reading a few articles in Scientific American. After dealing with those assholes enough times, I'm not surprised why most feminist want to go "You know what? Fuck it. Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies" when it comes to evo-psych research.

edited 26th Feb '11 1:00:39 PM by Sparkysharps

I don't really have a problem with evo-psych per se, but I am bugged that so many of its proponents use it to justify 1950s gender roles.

What Sparkysharps said, pretty much. The problem isn't that evolutionary psychology as a field exists, it's that it's so badly handled. A lot of the studies that get huge press are riddled with bad science—insufficient sample sizes, confirmation bias, failure to separate variables, lack of controls, jumping to unfounded conclusions, etc. And no matter what the findings are, they always, always, always seem to be spun in such a way as to promote the status quo...from the middle of the last century. The real marvel is that I haven't written off the entire concept as complete hooey.

I'm trying to think of how to put this (sounds good in my head anyway...)

In these kind of debates, pro evolutionary psychology people bring up the fact that opponents are criticizing it because they don't like the social implications of the conclusions  ^*

Maybe I'm against evo-psych because I have certain biases/don't like it's social conclusions, but conversely, defenders of evo-psych all seem to like it's social conclusions.

So, the way I see it, there is a potential problem in my not being receptive to its strengths, but at the same time, there is a factor that makes defenders not willing to examine its faults.

Two points.

One, like all psychology today, ev psych suffers from pervasive sampling bias. The standard sample for university researchers is undergrads, who are very WEIRD.

Two, the feminist criticism that we know a priori that any evidence that males and females have psychological differences is wrong is the worst possible criticism of any scientific endeavor. The scientific method doesn't work if all evidence at variance with dogma is thrown out.

edited 26th Feb '11 1:09:51 PM by Rottweiler

And I'd say that conversely, evolutionary psychologists go into their work with prejudices that they want to be born out, which is also bad for scientific endeavor.

Edit- Not quite evolutionary psychology (but definitely related), but correct me if I'm wrong, but Rottweiler, I believe you've previously hinted that you pretty much endorse the Bell Curve idea that some races are less intelligent than others.

So, with that example, yeah my prejudices predispose me to not accepting the conclusions, but it also seems to me that the researchers were quite hindered by prejudices themselves (since the idea of whether or not you'd take social class into account cuts both ways). Did those tests consider people of different races and the same socioeconomic class?

edited 26th Feb '11 1:20:38 PM by Jordan

Nobody's posted this yet, eh?

Also I find it amusing that Jordan posted about how the anti side tends to argue about how they don't like the stereotypical roles it tends to come up with, while the other side argues that they just don't like the conclusions it comes to; and then that exact argument was played out in the posts immediately above and below him.

I'd pretty much go with what Sparky said, it's basically too easy to get it to lie for you, and then go on to use it to reinforce your preexisting beliefs. Needs more rigorousness/discipline to be taken seriously.

Yeah, it's a pot and kettle/mote and beam kind of situation.

Also, regarding my above post about the racial differences thing, am I correct that the best study would examine people of same class and different race and compare them, or am I failing statistics forever?

the feminist criticism that we know a priori that any evidence that males and females have psychological differences is wrong

Funny, I've never seen anyone actually make such a statement. The statement I have seen—and made myself—is that any study purporting to "prove" that males and females have innate, inborn, immutable psychological differences is automatically suspect, because the effects of culture on the development of the human psyche begin at birth (if not sooner) and cannot be handily removed. And because it would be mighty convenient for those in power if such a "natural" gulf between men and women—or between different races, for that matter—existed.

That experiment could tell you about the differences between races, but it wouldn't tell you if those differences were because of the race itself, or because of how people treat people of that race. Correlation=/=causation, and all that.

Even if you were talking about something like IQ rather than financial stats, people maintain that IQ tests aren't necessarily culture-neutral.

True. There's a lot of problems that come into that kind of study. I'm more getting at the minimum thing I think you need. I mean it's stupid (and my understanding is that the Bell Curve basically did this) to not consider class at all.

@Jordan:

Edit- Not quite evolutionary psychology (but definitely related), but correct me if I'm wrong, but Rottweiler, I believe you've previously hinted that you pretty much endorse the Bell Curve idea that some races are less intelligent than others.

Um, no. That's precisely the sort of modern error I will have no part of.

I believe in the life-saving power of religious obscurantism: we should focus on people's souls, which not being measurable can always be said to be equal, over their brains, which scientists can find inequalities in.

The reason I find ev psych interesting rather than ominous is that whenever the empirical data is unpleasant to us Westerners, then, if the methodology was rigorous, I can say "Well, so we have a biological predisposition to commit a particular sin." Unpleasant empirical data is only socially dangerous if you believe it is for the natural sciences to teach us how to behave (the naturalistic fallacy).

@Karalora:

Funny, I've never seen anyone actually make such a statement. The statement I have seen—and made myself—is that any study purporting to "prove" that males and females have innate, inborn, immutable psychological differences is automatically suspect, because the effects of culture on the development of the human psyche begin at birth (if not sooner) and cannot be handily removed.

That's why you need to collect data sets from many cultures and see what the constants are.

However, this could still produce evidence contrary to the Testimony of Equality.

edited 26th Feb '11 1:37:34 PM by Rottweiler

I'm not sure you quite answered my question, although I apologize to the extent I misunderstood your position. You refer to spiritual equality (nice enough), but then you refer to inequalities scientists might find. Do you think those scientific findings are credible?

edited 26th Feb '11 1:45:33 PM by Jordan

Let me open a "Scientific racism" topic. I don't want Madrugada to start thumping us.

I don't think you need to create a new topic (although if our posts get thumped, please go ahead and do). I don't really think the debate over race is all that different than the debate over gender in terms of what proponents and opponents argue.

Edit- I think original post came across more hostile than I intended.

Edit2- oops, see a new thread was already created. Not sure whether I have more to add.

edited 26th Feb '11 1:53:24 PM by Jordan

My beef is with typical evo-psych proponents, who seem to latch onto some of the research done on human sex differences and go "See!? See!? Women and men are different. This justifies gender policing/double standards/slut shaming/gender inequality, and those feminist are being stupid!"

Agreed with the second half of your beef; people who twist science around to justify their irrational prejudices are being dumb, no matter how many letters they have past their name.

However, men and women are different, and I take issue with people who try and view men and women through the same lens.

I think the problem results when people assign moral values to certain trends, or extrapolate too far.

Example: there's a study (I'll find it if I can and link it later) that claims (In General) men are better at focusing on single tasks, whereas women are superior at multitasking. The theory is that child-rearing and such required multitasking, whereas primitive male tasks like hunting required a more singular focus. Neither side is better, just specialized at different things.

Pretty neutral, right? Except that there are misogynist assholes who extrapolate one step further and say women should be stuck in the home because they're better at it, and men should be earning the money because they're better at that. Big leap, irrational leap, and it leaves a sour taste in everyone's mouth.

Evo-psych could teach us a lot, if certain people would stop misusing it.

There does seem to be something of an issue in separating out culture as a variable.

That's a really good example. Also might be a case where the science isn't the best either.

I'm not sure their hypothesis on the reason for the difference really holds up, because IIRC, early women participated in hunting and gathering- people always seem to forget the hunting part of that.

As far as I've heard, most hunter-gatherer societies have male hunters and female gatherers, actually. Of course, this means women are bringing home the food most days, since hunting gets you large supplies at intervals, not enough for continual consumption.

From what I've learned in paleoanthropology, there's archaeological evidence for sexual division of labor in H.s.s. very early, while neanderthalensis men and women hunted and gathered (mostly hunted, given climactic conditions) equally.

edited 26th Feb '11 1:59:20 PM by Rottweiler

Example: there's a study (I'll find it if I can and link it later) that claims (In General) men are better at focusing on single tasks, whereas women are superior at multitasking. The theory is that child-rearing and such required multitasking, whereas primitive male tasks like hunting required a more singular focus. Neither side is better, just specialized at different things.

Did no one think to ask whether existing gender roles have the effect of training men and women to be good at single-task focusing and multitasking, respectively? This is exactly the sort of shoddy methodology I'm talking about.

hunting gets you large supplies at intervals, not enough for continual consumption.

Correction: Big game hunting gets you large supplies at intervals. Small game hunting is much like gathering in that it provides a steadier supply of smaller amounts. But small game hunting usually involves setting snares and/or waiting at burrow entrances, which women can do just as well as men, so anthropologists like to ignore it. It's not as sexy as running down antelope on the savannah.

edited 26th Feb '11 2:11:10 PM by Karalora

It just seems like it would be nearly impossible to separate out the social conditioning from any inherent psychological differences. You'd need an entirely different society for anything even approaching a control.

And if you can't rule out societal conditioning as the cause, then you can't point to any particular psychological difference and claim it's inherent.

@Karalora: They did. What you're talking about is a "chicken-eg" argument and you can't prove it either way. They found data and were attempting to explain it. Yours was one of the theories brought forth, sorry I didn't mention that.

Karalora: Oh, you're right, sorry.