Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Popular Evolutionary Psychology is Mostly Bunk
How reliable is this stuff?
The majority of studies that I have seen classified as Evolutionary Psychology that are widely publicized by the media seem to be predominantly concerned with telling the public, in simplified "scientific" terms what it already believes about the true natures of men and women. I have run across very few of these studies that actually provide anything close to convincing or conclusive evidence and seem to be mainly drawing conclusions without regard for any number of compounding factors. The problem in my eyes is that they take data from these tests (such as, for example, 60% more women chose the red object than men did or something like that) and make this wild jump in logic to use this data to make the claim "Women like pink because they are reminded of babies and therefore are hardwired to search out pink things and therefore should have lots of babies" Now this is an exaggeration, but I feel that similar leaps are made when interpreting the data in these "evolutionary psychology" research experiments. I feel like this term adds an air of legitimacy to a rather flimsy and incomplete pseudo-science, a scientific field made infamous by the way it was used in the past to rationalize discrimination against women and minorities. I feel like these experiments takes the blame off societal influences and says "see, that's just the way they are, nothing to be done." This is by no means all the scientists working within the field, but I feel that the presence of these numerous bogus and agenda-driven studies has cast doubt into many minds about how solid of a science this really is.
Actually, Whaleshark, you are the primary person I am selling the fight to. As I biologist, you like to bring up Man/women E.P. a lot, and it always bothered me for this reason. How do you tell a solid study from one of those turn of the century "oh yes, of course women/blacks/asians etc. are evolutionarily inferior because........." (Watson is scientist but he says all kinds of this stupid stuff.) How do you tell the truth from the bigot propaganda in E.P.?
(a quote)
"Their belief in the power of biology to control human behavior is so reflexive that they can't be bothered to consider even the most glaringly obvious cultural factors impacting their claims."
The majority of studies that I have seen classified as Evolutionary Psychology that are widely publicized by the media seem to be predominantly concerned with telling the public, in simplified "scientific" terms what it already believes about the true natures of men and women. I have run across very few of these studies that actually provide anything close to convincing or conclusive evidence and seem to be mainly drawing conclusions without regard for any number of compounding factors. The problem in my eyes is that they take data from these tests (such as, for example, 60% more women chose the red object than men did or something like that) and make this wild jump in logic to use this data to make the claim "Women like pink because they are reminded of babies and therefore are hardwired to search out pink things and therefore should have lots of babies" Now this is an exaggeration, but I feel that similar leaps are made when interpreting the data in these "evolutionary psychology" research experiments. I feel like this term adds an air of legitimacy to a rather flimsy and incomplete pseudo-science, a scientific field made infamous by the way it was used in the past to rationalize discrimination against women and minorities. I feel like these experiments takes the blame off societal influences and says "see, that's just the way they are, nothing to be done." This is by no means all the scientists working within the field, but I feel that the presence of these numerous bogus and agenda-driven studies has cast doubt into many minds about how solid of a science this really is.
Actually, Whaleshark, you are the primary person I am selling the fight to. As I biologist, you like to bring up Man/women E.P. a lot, and it always bothered me for this reason. How do you tell a solid study from one of those turn of the century "oh yes, of course women/blacks/asians etc. are evolutionarily inferior because........." (Watson is scientist but he says all kinds of this stupid stuff.) How do you tell the truth from the bigot propaganda in E.P.?
(a quote)
"Their belief in the power of biology to control human behavior is so reflexive that they can't be bothered to consider even the most glaringly obvious cultural factors impacting their claims."
Comments
Still, I'll chip in my perspective, since, y'know, we consist solely of BIOLOGY and nothing else.
As a biologist, I make a lot of statements about the way things are; this is how good science works. You formulate a hypothesis, test is, draw conclusions, and repeat. At no point does good science make a statement about what ought to be. This is the fundamental problem that non-scientists have in understanding scientific research; most people think that research may "beg the question" on certain controversial issues, but it's really people who jump to those conclusions. Scientific data does not beg any questions; it simply answers the question about the stated hypothesis.
Let's break down your example: This is an example of the results in an experiment. I'm not sure what the hypothesis could have been, but if it was an investigation into, say, color preferences in clothing based on sex, and the hypothesis is that women innately prefer pink, then it's reasonable to say a valid conclusion of this experiment could be something like: "These data show that women have an innate preference for red objects, and could possibly explain why a disproportionate number of females prefer the color pink when compared to males," assuming of course that you had a study showing that, indeed, a greater proportion of females prefer pink when compared to males. There's no data here to support this particular conclusion, but it shows an avenue of research that one could pursue. This could be the foundation of a hypothesis for further experimentation. However, this statement hasn't been tested by the color choice experiment, so it's not exactly supported. It's a conjecture verging on a hypothesis. I would say that a more reasonable hypothesis is more like "women are hardwired to be attracted to pink things, because babies are pink, and the attraction serves to keep the woman's attention focused on the baby and consequently its survival."
Note that in these two preceding cases, there is NO value judgment. Never once has it been said that "women should do X BECAUSE of Y." These two sections have thus far been assessments of fact, and possible avenues of experimentation beyond those current assessments. This is where we hit our problem with "popular" conceptions of things. This is a value judgment, a statement of what should be rather than what is. Good science, even "soft" science, does not do this. People make these claims, because they see facts that they can twist to support their preconceived notions.
I can talk for hours about specific topics in evolutionary psychology, but as a scientist, I try not to hold generalized opinions. I address each specific topic by itself, and use what I know about biology to come to what seems to be a reasonable conclusion, based on studies. For example, I can say something like "the female brain tends to operate in a more detail-oriented fashion than the male brain; the male brain tends to operate in a more object-oriented fashion than the female brain" (which is backed up by lots of data, actually, but I don't have any of the studies handy), and that's all well and good. I've made no value judgment, as you can see. It's a statement of fact that's backed up by numerous studies (you'll have to take my word on that one in this case, but even still, just play along long enough for me to make my point). Now, I can make numerous other statements based on this. You could reasonably conclude that this brain difference accounts for the difference in navigational methods between men and women: women use signs and landmarks to navigate, while men have a sort of innate sense of direction, based on their ability to visualize where they are in relation to where they've been (this is a documented difference, by the way). Right at this point, most people would jump to a value judgment, and that's the problem.
So far, we've only discussed facts. The only conclusion past this that I could see being reasonable to draw based on the information is that men and women navigate differently, and one method could be more or less useful depending on a particular situation. This is still not a value judgment; it's a utility assessment, depending on the specifics of a situation. Most people, probably men (that's a gross and unfair generalization, but meh), would use this to say something like "men are better navigators than women," or some similar load of bull.
The problem is that even the most logical and rational non-scientist doesn't really have the level of specific thinking that a scientist does. Hell, even many scientists don't always have that level of specific thinking, much like we've seen with James Watson.
Science is inherently reductionist; it sort of has to be in order to do its thing. The problem is that once you hit a conclusion, the non-scientist applies it where it doesn't belong, and takes too many leaps of logic. Part of scientific reasoning is that you can't go too far without needing more data and more explanations, hence a further need for reductionism. Most people don't do that; they'll get the answer they want and just run with it. This is why, as a scientist, I'll make statements that are CLOSE to being that same kind of crap, but really aren't; a scientific statement means exactly what it says, and no more.
So, basically, in order to figure out the validity of a conclusion, you should look to see what's a value judgment and what's not. Does the conclusion necessarily follow from the data? If not, more research is needed. That's the biggest secret of scientific research; if you've done your experiment properly, you cannot draw any conclusions save for the ones you've drawn. They'll virtually draw themselves. This is my biggest point of contention with the softer sciences, though. If culture is not a result of biology, than what is it a result of? Something outside of biology? Remember, people are made of biology, through and through. That's why I've always balked at the idea of separating biology and culture.
EDIT: Wall of Text crits for 9001 damage
Great post by the way.
Thanks, by the way, for the compliment.
The thing that gets me about culture and what have you is that, while it's not dictated by our genes per se, it's sort of implied by them. Humans are social animals, and a family structure of some kind is necessary for the survival of the species. Think about a human baby. Human babies are among the least survivable creatures to exist; they are 100% incapable of surviving on their own for the first full year of their existence, so SOME other creature must tend to them and teach them how to survive on their own. Thus, while not directly spelled out genetically, a family structure developed out of biological reality. All human culture, I would contend, is a response to biological fact. Of course, developing culture also subsequently influences biological development, and biological development further influences said culture.
In other words, culture and biology are interrelated, as humans are necessarily social animals. Hence, I'm of the mind that a lot of social oddities are, in fact, based on biology, and were probably once a necessity. I'm sure at some point way back in biology, women HAD to be the caretakers, or else things would've fallen apart. As we've mitigated selection pressures over time, it's no longer necessary to respond to those same biological facts in the same way, but culture evolved around those facts just the same.
An example: the biological sciences and the health care professions have a large population of females, and in fact, I believe they are the majority in these fields. I would contend, in part, that the biological imperatives of the female brain (detail oriented thinking and empathy) give them a natural inclination towards health care and the biological sciences, as dealing with other living creatures requires both a strong attention to detail and a good bit of empathy. Historically, of course, one of the aspects of the classic female gender role was that of the caretaker, so it's been reinforced by culture. However, that aspect of the culture is in turn reinforced by the biology. By no means am I saying that it HAS to be this way; I'm merely pointing out that a particular aspect of culture has some biology behind it. Women probably have a natural advantage in care-taking applications, but that doesn't mean that's all you can, or should, do.
Does that make sense? Essentially, I see most human culture as a byproduct of our biology. Some of our biology, subsequently, is a byproduct of our culture, and thus the evolutionary dynamic continues indefinitely. A social animal requires its culture to survive, and as such its culture will, in part, drive its development, much as its development drives its culture. They're really not separate things in my mind; it's all biology, really.
It comes down to tendencies; biology is sloppy, and expression of characteristics is never 100% consistent. Different cultures have evolved, and some of those may value some characteristics over others, so those characteristics will be developed more.
In your case, though, that culture doesn't sound too off. Men are usually associated with logic, but they're also associated with aggressive and somewhat rash behavior, a byproduct of testosterone. Women being reserved and composed sounds more like a male-dominant society in which women are supposed to do as they're told and so forth. I'd have to know the specifics, though, to really assess it.
Also, I strongly agree with your explanation of the over-interpretation of experimental results, whaleShark. I've been researching a large body of literature on aggressive effects of video games research and found one of the greatest flaws to be leaps of logic that many of these experimenters take.
Cultures modify cultures when the contact each other, much as the intrusion of one organism into another's territory triggers a response. Generally, either one organism kills the other (the usual response), or they find some way to coexist (less typical, but it happens). Historically, it's been this way with culture, as well. Cultures are tied to an organism's survival, so an idea that is a threat to the stability of the culture is likewise a threat to the survival of the organisms comprising said culture; thus, we've had war when cultures with competing ideas came into contact with each other. You'd hope that after thousands of years we could move past that, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Cultural evolution is complicated stuff. The real sticky part is that there's a lot of the cultural equivalent of genetic drift these days. There's not a lot of selection pressure on most cultures these days, so you see intense variability in everybody's culture. Increasingly, we see people just arbitrarily picking a culture with which to identify. Interesting stuff. I'm curious to see where it'll go, though I have my hypotheses.
Has the US ever been a true melting pot or is that just a popular myth? If it has been what effect has the hypen-American movement had on the melting pot?
Is it good for America that people are not assimilating when they move to the US? Is it bad? Is it even a real issue?
I look forward to your educated response.
Preview: the Internet makes this all irrelevant.
As for national cultures, it seems a lot of mixing occurs in institutional situations. There are definite housing communities in LA so that most of that actual interaction and sharing occurs in educational, commercial, and work environments--which can be sadly limited in scope.
I'm not using biology as an analogy for culture; I'm saying that the biology has a DIRECT influence on the development of culture. It's not that they're analogous; it's that they're tied together.
I suppose the example I gave wasn't totally clear, but the intention there was to demonstrate that the cultural aspect of a social animal is an outgrowth of its survival instincts; hence, an attack on culture is effectively the same as an attack on the organism itself.
EDIT: HOLD ON. I think I got what you're trying to get at here. Let me re-re-clarify, and hopefully I won't confuse the issue more.
I am NOT saying that a biological response and a cultural response occur in EXACTLY the same fashion. I am saying that the same machinery produces both reactions. The reactions are analogous because the machinery that produces them is the same or largely the same. The end products are not identical; they're similar, but they took pretty much the same pathway to get there. Does that make any more sense, or am I getting more off the mark here?
Basically, there is enough of a difference to separate biology from culture, but the underlying mechanics are largely the same. Hence, understanding the biology will lead you to understand the culture, and the end product of the culture may be mostly a result of the biology and not a result of, say, a "conscious" decision.
If it helps to clarify things, from an intellectual standpoint, I don't believe in "free will." We're the emergent behavior of a complex system of chemical interactions, and the things we think of as being "decisions" are just reactions to stimuli. I'm looking at human culture in pretty much the same way that people study ant behavior.
Read The Prince of Nothing series. That'll help you see what I mean, at least I hope.
The real crux comes back to what I said before: I cannot believe in "free will." However, this is not exactly a practical way to live, so I sort of accept that I'm at least partially lying to myself, and go from there. The "soft sciences" all accept that selfsame lie. The hard sciences have trained me to be aware of it, but as a person, I recognize that it's not very practical to live that way.
Rituals, traditions, and fad all stem from something. True, the interactions are most evident on the gross scale, where we talk about traditions and fads and the like. However, it seems to me that a lot of people eschew the root of all that. I'm not arguing for "nature" OVER "nurture;" I'm arguing that separating the two is next to pointless, as they influence each other in numerous ways.
This issue is a complex one, but I'd have to say it's mostly rooted in people's comfort levels. Humans are social animals, and we have this very strong urge to identify with groups. Groups provide support and security, and as I said, a threat to the group dynamic invokes the same response as a threat to the individual. People hold onto their cultures very tightly for this reason.
I should clarify an earlier statement, where I said that the Internet would make this all irrelevant. It won't, per se, but it will eventually eliminate the traditional cultures to which people cling. Eventually, and even now, people will pick their culture, rather than have one assigned to them; it'll be interesting to see what happens when all humans are connected and can communicate with each other. The connectedness of the Internet is already sort of breaking down the old cultural barriers; while this is resulting in a backlash in some places (especially from you old fogies), the backlash will eventually peter out, and we'll see all new sorts of cultures emerging.
As for people not assimilating, I have the same opinion I've always had: if you follow our laws, and pay our taxes, and don't demand any more special treatment than the law provides, then I don't care what you do. If, however, you see something that offends your cultural sensibilities, I see no reason for the rest of the nation to kowtow to your desires. I'm going to make a gross generalization, but once again, meh: I see most of that lack of assimilation being the result of strong religious beliefs. So, if you want to keep your own culture, that's all good and well, as long as you're not demanding something special. Do that and it's a non-issue. Anything else, you can go stuff it.
Mostly, I react strongly to a lot of "soft science" because it often carries this notion that people somehow transcend biology. It's nice to say to people that you can do anything you want to do if you put your mind to it, but I'm of the mind that that often results in quite a lot of deluded people.
I cannot believe in free will.
I want to, I'd really like to, but fundamentally, I see human behavior as being the result of complex chemical interactions. There's no room for something like a "decision" in there; there are sequences of actions and reactions, nothing more.
As I said, it's not very practical to live like that, so I accept the delusion and just carry on, though I always remember that I'm accepting a delusion.
It's very natural to not want to believe that you or I are biological machinery. Really, the implications of actually living like we're all just lumps of thinking meat are...frightening. We can imagine the horrors that a society run on the principles of eugenics could wreak, but I imagine the reality would be far worse. I imagine social order collapsing and the species dying out. Fortunately, we have this concept of "self-awareness," and chemical interactions that produce emotions, so that we all feel compelled in some way to participate in a society of some kind, so that the species can survive.
The realization that we're just a bunch of interactions, though, can really lead to increased understanding of interactions with people. Try analyzing people like Kellhus does; you won't be able to predict things perfectly (and you really can't, as biology is dynamic and, in many ways, unpredictable), but you'd amazed (and probably scared) as to the sheer amount you can predict. You can often push people's buttons like clockwork if you're paying enough attention. The fact that you can't do it 100% shouldn't sidetrack you from the gravity of the fact that it can be done at all.
That's what makes me think we're not as special as we think we are. I've always contended that if you could actually talk to a dog, you'd find that they're as aware as we are, possibly in a few different ways.
EDIT: Also, note that while I break things down to science at some point, you can also see that a lot of this is conjecture. I'm mostly putting a bunch of philosophy out there, because I have no facts to guide me otherwise. But that's what we do.
Evolutionary psychology is probably a field worth further study, but it sounds like a breeding ground for scientism.
One big problem is the standard caveat, "We're describing how things are, and are making no value judgments. How things are should not influence how things should be or how one should react to things." This caveat is a very tricky one to work with in practice, I think.
"We have concluded (hopefully taking into account the various forms of bias we are operating under, but maybe not) that women are happiest (not a value judgment) as housewives because (not a value judgment!) they are following their biological imperative, therefor you should ignore this information and certainly not use it as some sort of justification, or as a guide for influencing your future actions or those of your daughter who wants to be a chemist. I hope you as a journalist will consider my research and points carefully in your women's magazine article, 'Girls Gone Zen: 10 Ways to Simplify Your Life!'"