Kate Clancy tackles Evolutionary Psychology

[ismnotwasm]

Evolutionary psychology, the study of human psychological adaptations, does not have a popular or scientific reputation for being rigorous, even though there are rigorous, thoughtful scientists in the field. The field is trying to take on an incredibly challenging task: understand what of human behavior is adaptive and why. We can better circumvent the conditions that lead to violence, war, and hatred if we know as much as we can about why we are the way we are. What motivates us, excites us, angers us, and how can evolutionary theory help us understand it all?
Because of this, there are consequences to a bad evolutionary psychology interpretation of the world. The biggest problem, to my mind, is that so often the conclusions of the bad sort of evolutionary psychology match the stereotypes and cultural expectations we already hold about the world: more feminine women are more beautiful, more masculine men more handsome; appearance is important to men while wealth is important to women; women are prone to flighty changes in political and partner preference depending on the phase of their menstrual cycles. Rather than clue people in to problems with research design or interpretation, this alignment with stereotype further confirms the study. Variation gets erased: in bad evolutionary psychology, there are only straight people, and everyone wants the same things in life. Our brains are iPhones, each app designed for its own special adaptive purpose.
I’ve still got plans to post more on this subject, but an unfortunate event has blocked me. I was going to make my next post on evolutionary psychology one that focused on some of the papers, and in particular, I wanted to discuss a good paper or two, so that I could start off on the right tone. And people sent me links and papers.
Only problem: they were all awful. Every one. I couldn’t believe that even these papers that some people were telling me were the best of the bunch were so lacking in rigor and so rife with unjustified assumptions. I read through about a dozen before I gave up in disgust and decided that there were better things to do in my time.
I’d ask again, but I was burned so badly on that last go-round that I’d have a jaundiced view of any recommendation now.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/02/11/kate-clancy-tackles-evolutionary-psychology/


Some of the comments are hilarious, one or two point out to different papers.

[Warpy]

1. The comments section was one of the more hilarious things

I've ever read on EvoPsych, well, except the papers and articles themselves.

The hilarious comment by David Gerard, #20, tells you the state of that particular "discipline" in one concise paragraph.

[ismnotwasm]

2. That one is too funny

That jump from red berries and leaves to red faced babies--lol


"Now go on and make me a cuppa"

[redqueen]

5. #20 is brilliantly funny...

Almost too realistic though... and the things these theories are attempting to rationalize...

[seabeyond]

3. Only problem: they were all awful. Every one.

Only problem: they were all awful. Every one. I couldn’t believe that even these papers that some people were telling me were the best of the bunch were so lacking in rigor and so rife with unjustified assumptions. I read through about a dozen before I gave up in disgust and decided that there were better things to do in my time.

i. too. have found this to be so. every. single. one.

and that is what we were saying in the other thread.

[ismnotwasm]

4. Yup

That's the issue with it. It's difficult to set up a valid study that means anything. And if you can, I doubt the goal would be to reinforce gender stereotypes, but look at other behaviors.

The subtext of too much evo-psych is gendered or sexual in nature.