Sally, Thank you for your very interesting and thorough response to this question. It looks like this will be a challenging (or should I say difficult) task. I've been listening to some lectures Dacher Keltner from Berkeley (free on iTunes, search for Psychology 156: Human Emotion) which have been very informative. Tough topic to take up.
Michael Michael Britt [email protected] www.thepsychfiles.com On Apr 27, 2009, at 1:28 AM, Sally Walters wrote: > > I agree with Ken's points. And I would add the following: > Some of the uneasiness comes from a misunderstanding about the > difference between ev psych and behavioural genetics. Ev psych seeks > to understand design features that are universal and therefore > genetically more-or-less 'fixed" in the human population (although > fixed does not necessarily mean environmentally unalterable!!) while > behav genetics seeks to understand how genetic differences affect > the phenotype in terms of behaviours, illness etc. Both are > obviously biological approaches but there is constant confusion > between the two. > > As well, there is often misunderstanding about the interplay between > genes and environment: ev psych is interested in how the same genes > can respond to different environments differently - e.g., an > adaptation has to respond to the environment in which it finds > itself, so you would not expect behaviours to be constant over > different environments. E.g., brain contains adaptations for > language acquisition and "sorting" sounds into grammar etc; brain > responds to the language it hears specifically and child learns any > language in pretty much the same way. > > Some people hold the notion that ev psych is measuring behaviour as > the 'only' evidence of psychological adaptation. This is a bit like > assuming that we measure how people feel and think only by looking > at the movement of their facial muscles. there was a big debate > about 20 years ago between "darwinian anthropology' and "ev psyc" if > you are interested - see some of the Cosmides and Tooby stuff from > the early 1990s. > > Some people don't like the fact that ev psyc compares humans to our > closest relatives. However a close read of some of these > comparisons, e,g frans de Waal's work with chimps and bonobos shows > a VERY careful analysis and comparison of species - just because > some people would like to believe that natural selection somehow > doesn't apply to humans because we're special is not a good enough > reason not to make those comparisons. Obviously though, they cannot > be made without much study and analysis - something that the critics > too frequently have not done. > > Finally, just because something evolved, does not give it any > inherent moral superiority, desirability or anything else. It means > that in the ancestral environment, that design worked the best in > terms of leaving offspring. Natural selection does not have a > purpose or a design - it responds to gene frequencies. So if we have > an evolved tendency towards some negative behaviour, no ev > psychologist is going to argue that that behaviour is 'good" just > because it evolved. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't examine it. > If we can understand it maybe we have a better chance of changing it. > > I did all of my graduate work in ev psyc and was often amazed by the > professors and graduate students who told me they didn't "believe in > ev psyc" or didn't think looking at the evolved design of the human > mind could tell us anything interesting about why people behave the > way they do - most often without any discernable knowledge of > evolutionary theory. So I would treat the misgivings carefully > because they are not always informed. And of course it's pretty hard > to generalize about an entire approach > > In my experience, ev psyc is an area that holds great fascination > for students. Unfortunately it's also sometimes the area with the > worst explanations and discussions in intro psyc textbooks. i think > that's because it's very difficult to lay out the logic of > essentially an entire field - evolutionary biology - succintly and > clearly. > > Sally Walters > capilano u > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Michael Britt > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 9:21 AM > Subject: [tips] Uneasiness with Evolutionary Psychology > > > > > 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] > www.thepsychfiles.com > > > > > > > > --- > 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])
