Although there may have been a certain amount of this going on in the 1960s
and early 1970s, evolutionary theory in psychology has become quite
sophisticated over the past three or four decades, and criteria for
distinguishing adaptations from by-products of adaptations or random noise
are an established part of evolutionary psychology. "Just-so-stories" is an
outmoded criticism of evolutionary psychology often leveled by people have
political opposition (for some strange reason) to the theories or who simply
don't know very much about them.
Paul Okami
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Steele" <[email protected]>
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [tips] Uneasiness with Evolutionary Psychology
Hi Michael:
One common concern is that some accounts of behavior may be described as
"just so" stories, named after a group of stories by Rudyard Kipling
(e.g., "How the lepoard got its spots").
The concern it this: If the behavior is present then the investigator
assumes it is there for an evolutionary reason. The investigator then
makes an attempt to describe a plausible basis for its existence as a
response to some speculative set of selection pressures. Generating
hypotheses is just part of the game. The issue is that the hypothesis
must be falsifiable just like any other scientific hypothesis. If the
hypothesis can't be falsified or otherwise empirically investigated then
it becomes a just-so story.
Ken
Michael Britt wrote:
David Buss wrote a very good summary of the main ideas and some of the
recent research in the area of evolutionary psychology in the most recent
edition of American Psychologist (The Great Struggles of Life,
February-March 2009). It's really quite an interesting article and since
I've received a number of emails asking me about evolutionary psychology
I thought I would discuss the article in an upcoming podcast. In doing
this I don't really want to enter into the debate over religion vs.
science (though in some ways I guess it's going to be unavoidable). I
do, however, want to make sure I understand the
concerns/criticisms/uneasiness some people have with this area of
psychology. If I understand it right, some people are concerned about
this perspective because, for example, even though animals demonstrate a
behavior that is in some way similar to what humans do doesn't mean that
the reason animals show this behavior (which is probably related to
increasing species' survival) is the same reason humans do it. We
shouldn't jump to an evolutionary psychology explanation for every
behavior we see. Also, even if the behavior can be shown to evolutionary
roots, there may be a concern that some people might use this as an
"excuse" to continue doing something that we, as intelligent and caring
beings, should be able to discipline ourselves not to do. If I understand
these two positions correctly then I think these are valid points. Feel
free to expand on this if I'm not getting it correctly.
What are some of the other reasons people criticize, or are
uncomfortable, with this perspective (aside from the religious issue)?
Thanks,
Michael
Michael Britt
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
www.thepsychfiles.com <http://www.thepsychfiles.com>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D. [email protected]
Professor and Assistant Chairperson
Department of Psychology http://www.psych.appstate.edu
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608
USA
---------------------------------------------------------------
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
