Hi But another part of the "just so" story would be the failure to offer mechanistic explanations for the operation of evolutionary processes. Genes can account for transmission of biochemical information from one generation to next (and later) generation(s), but we are far from translating those processes into mechanistic psychological models. To take just one of Buss's examples, consider the preference for low waist-to-hip ratios. A complete explanation for this preference must somehow come up with a mechanism by which evolution could attach a preference to our perception of the complex human figure. Are we anywhere close to understanding what that model might be like (or innumerable other mechanistic models for evolutionary phenomena)? Until we can envision such a model, don't evolutionary explanations remain "just so" speculations?
I do not attribute this lack to evolutionary psychology per se (which I generally favour), but rather to the lack of mechanistic models for many psychological phenomena. Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [email protected] Department of Psychology University of Winnipeg Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 CANADA >>> "Paul Okami" <[email protected]> 26-Apr-09 1:27 PM >>> 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]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
