Evolutionary Psychology

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5402
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby mosc » Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:36 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Asserting this as fact is, of course, equally bad science. However, in the absence of proof one way or the other, it's the much safer assumption.

Declaring something unscientific simply because we lack the resources to analyze it in a proper controlled study is also bad.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby Belial » Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:49 pm UTC

Something isn't declared unscientific because we lack the resources to study it. Something is declared unproven because we lack the resources to study it. Claims that it is proven (or true) are unscientific.

In other words.....

What?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby Indon » Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:01 pm UTC

mosc wrote:Declaring something unscientific simply because we lack the resources to analyze it in a proper controlled study is also bad.


Looking at the evolutionary psychology papers on the subject, lack of resources seems unlikely to be the problem. The methodology is simply poor. I'd noted ways in which changes in methodology could have improved a couple of the studies, at least.

And it's not as if evolutionary psychology is incapable of it as a field - they clearly are. One of the articles I go over is actually pretty good science (it's roughly written, but that's a stylistic problem, not one with methodology).
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

Robin S
Posts: 3579
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:02 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby Robin S » Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:03 pm UTC

What about the known effects of (for example) testosterone on the brain? Surely it stands to reason that if males are known to have (for genetic reasons) more testosterone in the brain than women, and testosterone has a known effect on the brain, then men will be different in some ways from women even without cultural influences?
This is a placeholder until I think of something more creative to put here.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby Indon » Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:12 pm UTC

Robin S wrote:What about the known effects of (for example) testosterone on the brain? Surely it stands to reason that if males are known to have (for genetic reasons) more testosterone in the brain than women, and testosterone has a known effect on the brain, then men will be different in some ways from women even without cultural influences?


This came up earlier in the thread, actually. According to wikipedia, and the article seems relatively well-cited, females get less testosterone but are more sensitive to many of its' effects.

Furthermore, behavioral changes have been documented, but only for unusually high or low amounts of testosterone (with increased aggression being linked to lower levels of testosterone, in fact).

So while that's a good thought, it's clearly more complicated than that.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

Robin S
Posts: 3579
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:02 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby Robin S » Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:18 pm UTC

I'm not trying to say that it's simple, but as other people have said the idea that (for example) women's increased sensitivity to testosterone exactly cancels out the reduced amounts to which they're exposed, and overall there are no differences whatsoever, seems hard to believe.
This is a placeholder until I think of something more creative to put here.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby Indon » Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:21 pm UTC

Robin S wrote:I'm not trying to say that it's simple, but as other people have said the idea that (for example) women's increased sensitivity to testosterone exactly cancels out the reduced amounts to which they're exposed, and overall there are no differences whatsoever, seems hard to believe.


Nobody is saying that there's absolutely no differences in behavior between genders. Only that the people who have tried to talk about those differences are, blatantly and as far as I can tell, universally, pseudoscientists who should not be taken seriously.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:23 pm UTC

Belial wrote:In other words, you still need to prove it.


But isn't there an ample body of proof indicating some of these behavioral trends exist? The canonical step fathers being aggressive towards step children, or women being more likely to have orgasms with men who have symmetrical faces?

But what about the burden of disproving it? Like Indon said, bad science doesn't necessarily mean false, and what of all the theories that are sound but not yet proven?

Belial wrote:Asserting this as fact is, of course, equally bad science. However, in the absence of proof one way or the other, it's the much safer assumption.


Sorry, you think it's safer to assume there is NO link between sex and behavior then assume there may be a link? I think your assumption is the less supported version. Like I said, just because we don't find life spontaneously generating in peanut butter jars doesn't mean life has not spontaneously generated.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5402
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby mosc » Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:27 pm UTC

Indon understood me perfectly Belial ;)

Yeah, I agree that the links are clearly there, we just haven't done the GOOD science enough yet to really find out what they are and how significant they are.

I think a lot of this stems from Psychology as a field in general. My exposure to the "science" of psychology at the collegiate level was fairly depressing. The behavioral studies they do in general have the same issues you already brought up even without trying to bring in genes. Sorry if that's a dig to y'all in the psych field but there's scary little well supported and well studied information coming out of the field. I think it just shows the complexity involved. It's impossible to isolate factors sufficiently.

See, that's why I was trying to bring up other animals in this. Humans are just not that different I feel and it's far easier to do controlled studies on an animal you can actually isolate from environmental factors. I suppose you'd question the results application to humans but I think it shows that even if we can't pin down SPECIFICS, it's likely that we have large and complex behavioral dispositions from our Genes.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby Belial » Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:34 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:But isn't there an ample body of proof indicating some of these behavioral trends exist?


Of course there is. Now show me the ample body of proof that these behavioural trends have a genetic basis.

Izawwlgood wrote:Sorry, you think it's safer to assume there is NO link between sex and behavior then assume there may be a link?


Incorrect. I think it's safer to assume there is no link between sex and behaviour than to assume there is a link between sex and behaviour. The semantic differences in the things we just said are important.

Assuming that there is or isn't a link doesn't tell us anything useful. Even if the answer is "yes", then which behaviours are linked to sex and which aren't? If I give you behaviours 1, 2, and 3, can you tell me which ones are genetically based and which ones are cultural, just based on your vague assumption that there's probably a link between sex and some behaviour somewhere? How certain are you of your answers?

So up until we can say which behaviours are genetic, and to what extent, with any certainty, then we are left taking shots in the dark. And if we're going to go around just making baseless assumptions about individual behaviours, it's probably best to assume they're cultural, because assuming otherwise breeds complacency on a number of fronts unrelated to science, and risks enshrining as "innate" inequalities that it is entirely in our power to change.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:50 pm UTC

Then:

Why is it a fallacious assumption that behavior is genetically linked? Or, more roundaboutly, why is it safer to assume that behavior is NOT genetically linked then to assume that some is?

You're still outlining an absolute, and if even a single shred of evidence surfaces that 'inheritors of gene m are statistically more likely to be aggressive' hasn't your entire assumption unraveled?

I recognize that much of the 'science' involved in this field must be around separating the culture and economic influences, but if 9 of every 10 people surveyed who test positive for, say, an excess of testosterone, exhibit signs of higher aggression, then wouldn't that be a link between sex and behavior?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby Belial » Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:57 pm UTC

You're still outlining an absolute, and if even a single shred of evidence surfaces that 'inheritors of gene m are statistically more likely to be aggressive' hasn't your entire assumption unraveled?


A) Not really, as we've just proven a correlation, not a causation, at that point. For all we know, gene m just causes people to have a slightly angrier-looking eye-shape, which in turn causes people to expect them to act more aggressively, which in turn often causes them to act more aggressively. Until you can actually trace *how* the genes cause the behaviour, all you have is correlations that might mean something, or might not.

B) Even if you deal with the problem outlined in A, you've just proven that one behaviour is genetically linked. For all other behaviours, it remains safer to assume that each one is cultural until proven otherwise.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby Indon » Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:45 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:But isn't there an ample body of proof indicating some of these behavioral trends exist? The canonical step fathers being aggressive towards step children, or women being more likely to have orgasms with men who have symmetrical faces?

These aren't proof of anything. These are phenomenon, which would be explained by a theory - not proof of a theory.

Making up a theory and using the phenomenon you want to explain with the theory as evidence of the theory is one of the many errors these very studies have committed.

Izawwlgood wrote:But what about the burden of disproving it? Like Indon said, bad science doesn't necessarily mean false, and what of all the theories that are sound but not yet proven?


They aren't necessarily true, either, and just because a theory sounds nice doesn't make it any more likely to be true - in fact, sometimes the facts are outright counterintuitive (physical science example: non-determinism).

In fact, there might even be a part of our mindset which is genetically inclined to look for that kind of innate explanation for behavior (I actually half-jokingly brought this point up earlier in the thread - while it was in a humorous format, it's just as valid as any other 'sound theory' in evo psych) that might be biasing us all.

mosc wrote:Yeah, I agree that the links are clearly there, we just haven't done the GOOD science enough yet to really find out what they are and how significant they are.


I don't think anything's clear about this - if it were, it wouldn't be so easy to screw it up like others have done.

Human behavior is not an easy or simple subject, and it is certainly not one that we can or should rely on our intuition to assist us with.

But I'm sick of talking about how easy it is to screw this up! Let's talk about how to do it right, for God's sake!

So I'll get the ball rolling.

I propose this requirement that an evolutionary psychology paper should meet before it should be published.

Make (at least) one prediction based on the hypothesis and test it, demonstrating the test data in the paper:

When you throw together some studies, you're demonstrating a phenomenon - this is not evidence for your hypothesis, this is what you want to explain with your hypothesis. You must, with your hypothesis, make a prediction based on it, test it, and provide that as evidence.

Preferably, pick a prediction that a major competing theory wouldn't also make, so you can distinguish your theories and your hypothesis doesn't look like a String Theory.

Example -

Hypothesis: That men, genetically, manifest riskier behavior than women as a mating display.
Observed data: Men manifest riskier behavior when women are present, but not when other men are present.
Prediction: That homosexual men would manifest riskier behavior when other men are present, and not when women are present.
You could also make a similar prediction about bisexual men - and if data on both were consistent with your hypothesis, then it just became a theory worthy of ink.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
random_kitty
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:02 am UTC

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby random_kitty » Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:19 am UTC

I just wanted to repeat - Evolutionary Psychology is not solely focused on biological evolution.

It focuses on biology, learning, and culture ALL as tools of human evolution.

Biologically - you can examine the gender differences in birds if you want to remove or minimise the effects of culture.

Learning - this is limited by the biologically evolved senses and information processing centres, comes in many forms, some are seen as more advanced forms of learning than others.

Culture - this often involved religion (moreso in the past) and is a substantial feature of evolution as it reduces the amount of knowledge each individual is required to have while allowing for large group work dependant actions to succeed such as crop growing.
"Love is an ugly business my friend - yet we live for it" Se04Ep02 Boston Legal

@trophy wrote:"Confidence" is just waiting to experience negative outcomes in real life instead of rehearsing them in your head beforehand.

User avatar
william
Not a Raptor. Honest.
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Contact:

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby william » Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:06 am UTC

random_kitty wrote:I just wanted to repeat - Evolutionary Psychology is not solely focused on biological evolution.

It focuses on biology, learning, and culture ALL as tools of human evolution.

Biologically - you can examine the gender differences in birds if you want to remove or minimise the effects of culture.

Learning - this is limited by the biologically evolved senses and information processing centres, comes in many forms, some are seen as more advanced forms of learning than others.

Culture - this often involved religion (moreso in the past) and is a substantial feature of evolution as it reduces the amount of knowledge each individual is required to have while allowing for large group work dependant actions to succeed such as crop growing.
Sadly, your analysis isn't true when you look at the actual corpus of evopsych articles.

Most of them are bullshit about sexual dimorphism.
SecondTalon wrote:A pile of shit can call itself a delicious pie, but that doesn't make it true.

User avatar
random_kitty
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:02 am UTC

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby random_kitty » Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:11 am UTC

As I have already mentioned in this thread - but perceptive is entirely based on studying a third-year university paper on Evolutionary Psychology. I acknowledge the bias this may have but also acknowledge that current academic journals do not always accurately reflect the discipline as a whole.
"Love is an ugly business my friend - yet we live for it" Se04Ep02 Boston Legal

@trophy wrote:"Confidence" is just waiting to experience negative outcomes in real life instead of rehearsing them in your head beforehand.

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby Griffin » Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:34 am UTC

It seems to me that while there IS good ev psych science out there... it suffers from the same problems psychology does as a field, except moreso. There's just exceptionally low standards on a whole, and thus too much potential for those seeking merely to support their prejudices or ideas to gain sway, and I honestly don't what would need to be done to fix that.

Some of the stuff mentioned in this thread, like the guy studying the interplay of learning and genetics in birds, is really interesting, and sounds scientific (though I'm by no means a great judge of these things). The question is, are there any journals out there that limit themselves to high quality, rigorous, scientific and meaningful ev psych articles?
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby Indon » Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:00 am UTC

random_kitty wrote:As I have already mentioned in this thread - but perceptive is entirely based on studying a third-year university paper on Evolutionary Psychology. I acknowledge the bias this may have but also acknowledge that current academic journals do not always accurately reflect the discipline as a whole.


I should think that current academic journals exactly reflect a discipline in its' current state.

What they don't do, is tell us what a field's potential is. I feel the field of evolutionary psychology has significant potential, as I'm sure you do as well, and many others in this thread.

But there also seem to be significant barriers to reaching that potential. Griffin, perhaps, has a point - it may simply be that access to the field is too easy, and people who should not be publishing papers are doing so.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

qetzal
Posts: 862
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 12:54 pm UTC

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby qetzal » Fri Aug 08, 2008 4:11 am UTC

I thought people might be interested to know of a new blog on Evolutionary Psychology, by Prof. Allen MacNeill of Cornell U. See here: http://evolpsychology.blogspot.com/.

I'm not endorsing it, mind you, just pointing it out for those who may be interested. In fact, Dr. Larry Moran of Sandwalk is rather critical of MacNeill's inaugural post (see here: http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/08/evolutionary-psychology-capacity-for.html).

Enjoy!

deanboyj
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:51 am UTC

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby deanboyj » Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:50 am UTC

First time poster here. Also sorry for the necro but I thought I would chime in here.
I feel that this thread is addressing issues within evolutionary psychology that are the main arguments the field itself having. It is heterogenous; in fact many of the arguments presented that evo-psych is pseudo-scientific and unprovable come from the very people in this field.
However, methodological breakthroughs, especially concerning learning and behavioral patters of pigeons, chimpanzees, mice, bees, ants, and many many more species, have been identifying common patterns of learning and cognition in these species.
No responsible evolutionary psychologist will ever make the claim that "we act this way because of our genes" on any level, or even that "there is a definite genetic basis for X behavior." The field is far too young for this. Especially regarding sexual dimoprhic behaviors; in the psychology of women and gender, we find that the rule is similarity, as opposed to differences, in the biological/neruobiological realm. Gender-differentiated behavior as a function of evolution is mostly bunk; cultural and social influences are much more prevalent and have alot more theoretical basis.

That brings me to my next point; we shouldn't discount evolutionary psychology as a field of study just as we shouldn't discount psychology itself as a field of study. True psychology, with a focus on the use of the scientific method and empiricism, is less than a century old. It has taken the field many years to climb out of the mentalistic roots of Freud and his ilk, but with the advent of more more comprehensive methods of research, the field has found patterns of behavior again and again, easily replicable, and across many different contexts. It is much more difficult to prove things in psychology, but not impossible. Give us some time, be rigorous with your criticisms and analysis (the first week of my evolutionary psychology course is devoted to critisising the major findings and pointing out how they could be the previously identified 'just so' stories of evolution), and don't discount significant patterns of behavior simply because "psychology" is a bad word in science.


Rip me apart now.


Edit: also the majority of any meaningful research into evolutionary psychology is done with animals anyway; humans are waaaaay to complex to derive meaningful behavior patterns from except for some extreme examples of unique methodology.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5402
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby mosc » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:43 pm UTC

deanboyj wrote:Edit: also the majority of any meaningful research into evolutionary psychology is done with animals anyway; humans are waaaaay to complex to derive meaningful behavior patterns from except for some extreme examples of unique methodology.

And this is the key point. You find patters in less complex places and if they're widespread enough, it allows you to project those same patters on humanity. Granted we may bury them under more layers of complexity but the predisposition is still there.

There needs to be a separation in criticisms of human psychology (evolutionary or otherwise) which are inherently flawed due to being unable to isolate variables, vs general evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary Psychology is not really human focused. It can be completely scientific, just not in situations with tangled variables. That holds true for most any science, really.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby Belial » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:50 pm UTC

deanboyj wrote:Edit: also the majority of any meaningful research into evolutionary psychology is done with animals anyway; humans are waaaaay to complex to derive meaningful behavior patterns from except for some extreme examples of unique methodology.


And as long as it sticks to animals until it actually has a solid grounding in knowing-what-the-fuck-it's-talking-about, I'm a-okay. My problem is in the pseudo-scientific "evolutionary psychology" that surfaces in publications....often, and purports to explain human culture (especially as relates to gender) using some post-hoc extrapolated form of our prehistory, or maybe chimpanzees.

First, because it's just bad science, and second, because it is nearly always followed by some form of the naturalist fallacy. It makes me want to beat people with a rock (which I clearly should, after all, chimps....)

mosc wrote:And this is the key point. You find patters in less complex places and if they're widespread enough, it allows you to project those same patters on humanity


For example!
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby Spuddly » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:01 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:what other reasonable explanation can be given for the imbalance in violence you mentioned?


Error. One doesn't have to be able to provide an alternate explanation in order to say that your explanation is wrong or not even wrong.

That said, you could just use plain old regular psychology, and assume that the step-children are reminders of an earlier lifestage of parent1, of which parent2 was not a part, a constant reminder of parent1's ex, which, under our culture's ownership paradigm, can be galling and cause resentment that is displaced onto the child as a symbol.

Or you could even go with a more genetics-based argument and assume that children who share genes with their parents are more likely to share similar personalities as well, and therefore are less likely to anger said parents.

Edit: Ooo, or you could assume that the physical resemblance between parent and child causes the mind to associate the child more strongly with one's own identity, making violence against it more difficult.


I've always thought that the strongest explanation for the evil step-mother/father was biological. All the reasons you give don't hint at the ultimate purpose of the behavior. It's like I'm asking why we have teeth, and you explain what they're used for. Golly gee, I know what they're used for. Evolutionary psychology is looking at WHY step-children are at higher risk, not what mumbo-jumbo is popular in psychology this week.

The blank slate hypothesis is weak, considering how similar we are to everything else, genetically, and how many behavioral traits we share with other animals, and the similarity of evolutionary pressures. Blank slate proponents are asking me to forget everything I learned about how evolution works because 1) Hitler is a bad person and 2) we can learn stuff. Sorry, but I don't find that very convincing. It seems entirely reasonable that we are still animals, with animal brains, animal thoughts, and animal behaviors. To disregard the fact the evolution acted on our ancestors, and continues to act on us, because it makes you feel bad, is a worse scientific method than thought experiments based on known evolutionary principles. Evolutionary psychology is a small step in the right direction for a largely bullshit discipline. At least they're starting to use evidence.
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby Belial » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:03 pm UTC

When it comes to humans, no, they really aren't. They're using post-hoc rationalizations and just-so stories.

And largely?

Just telling people what they want to hear, and labelling it "SCIENCE".
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5402
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby mosc » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:52 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
mosc wrote:And this is the key point. You find patters in less complex places and if they're widespread enough, it allows you to project those same patters on humanity
For example!
The ONLY example I would draw is that the premise exists at all. Evolutionary Psychological factors govern behavior in a variety of animals. That implies the science is sound and that research is not a waste of time. Beyond that implying something specific about humanity? Not yet. I agree that virtually every human psychology paper is bunk. I was involved with some "scientific research" from my college's Psychology department. It was eye opening. Humans are too complex with too many variables to do virtually anything scientific at that level.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby Spuddly » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:06 pm UTC

Belial wrote:When it comes to humans, no, they really aren't. They're using post-hoc rationalizations and just-so stories.

And largely?

Just telling people what they want to hear, and labelling it "SCIENCE".


Psychologists aren't using evidence for people? Sure they are. Compare the state of psychology today with that in Freud's time. At least their are p-values. Take bullying. The common explanation is that bullies bully because of low self esteem, despite a total lack of evidence.

Alternative cultural hypothesis also have similar levels of evidence, yet use outdated and wrong ways to view human behavior.
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby Belial » Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:23 am UTC

I was referring to evo-psych.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

sakeniwefu
Posts: 170
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 8:36 pm UTC

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby sakeniwefu » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:55 am UTC

I am sorry but even casual observation indicates a hard biological pressure on our behavior.
Hormones affect behavior. You just have to go to a High School to learn that.

Our brain is hardwired on many things:
- Dead bodies stink. This has biological implications. If you live around dead bodies you will die soon either by infection or by the same danger that killed them.
- Children are less able to enjoy vegetables than adults. You can blame McDonalds and Cocacola all you want. However, kids not wanting to eat vegetables is something you see on any society where children do not starve. Meat is better for growing bodies than weeds.
I am sure many here can provide personal evidence that things that consistently tasted bad when they were young suddenly started tasting alright. It was like that for me. Seeing my parents enjoying vegetables and telling me they were so good and healthy (ie culture) did nothing for me until I stopped growing up. A coincidence? Very doubtful.
- Young males are more aggressive in general than regular humans. And males are slightly more aggressive than females. This is despite any attempt of society to hammer them down.
- Humans want to mate. Sure some want to mate plastic dolls, dead animals or imaginary anime characters, or even try to supress this instinct because some pasta monster, or culture(you need to be a career woman) told them it was wrong, but they still want to mate and have little copies of themselves spread.

Culture is about HOW we do things, biology is what tells us WHAT to do.

Sexual dimorphism exists, males are larger, stronger and have different hormones in their blood, and that likely affects behavior to some extent. This doesn't mean that males are better than females or that females should stay in the kitchen. If you look at our closest relatives, it seems that human biological evolution tended towards a minimal amount of sexual dimorphism precisely to allow members of society(which was significantly smaller at the time) to take over roles of lost members. So whatever the difference, is it is more like the small bump in our ass than our liver. After all, females have been out working and sharing work with males for most of our history.

This still doesn't mean that they sent their pregnant women to hunt down the mammoth if they could send a group of young men or that they should have. Now anyone can major in anything. Why is it that some degrees are now female dominated while others are still predominantly male? Should we kick the women from some degrees and shoehorn them into CS? If their biology tells them they "like" Biology and don't "like" CS, have you considered that their instincts are better at telling what's best for them than your narrow political views? If you are a female and like CS you shouldn't be kept from doing it. But if you don't like it you probably won't be a great Computer Scientist after all.

Let me repeat:
"Culture is about HOW we do things, biology is what tells us WHAT to do."

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby Jessica » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:13 pm UTC

And, again, the differences between the sexes are neither large, nor fixed in many instances.
- There is a cultural standard to be more lenient on boys who are aggressive. The amount of aggression a boy can use is different than the amount a girl can use (in that a girl would be punished first). Statements like "boys will be boys" are cultural, and environmental.
- TV, friends, the culture at large shows children not liking vegetables, and then children don't like vegetables. In fact, many children can be taught to like vegetables, and many others like them to start.
- There are a number of people who have no desire to spawn, and create little versions of themselves. There are some who have no desire to have sex. Just because you say everyone wants to create babies doesn't make it true. Whether you want to call that biological or social... Hell, even you say that there exist people who don't want to have kids, and that this is social. Thus there exist social effects which change people's desire to do BASIC THINGS LIKE BREED.
- The difference between the average of the sexes is smaller than the variation within a single sex.

Social dynamics have an effect on people. Claiming they don't is retarded. I'm not saying that biology has no effect. It just isn't necessarily as large of an effect as people make it out to be, especially for many of the social memes we have today.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby Indon » Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:30 pm UTC

Why are we still talking about evolutionary psychology as it applies to humans when, months ago, the last five pages were dedicated towards demonstrating why that's a waste of our time?

You can think all you want about how people have a genetic disposition towards beating their stepkids, or gender differences, or whatever. But until you find a legitimate study (and given evolutionary psychology's track record, you better give free access to the entirety of the study so we can check, 'cause nobody's going to believe you without it) about it, is it really worthy of posting space in Serious Business?

In fact, "Evolutionary links to human behavior (NO SCIENCE ALLOWED)" might make for an interesting thread in General. We could all posit our playful little crackpot evo psych theories in a safe, peer-review free sandbox format.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Evolutionary Psychology

Postby Azrael » Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:04 pm UTC

Cranky mod is cranky.

Plus, Indon has nicely summarized why the continuation of this thread is a waste of space.

PM me for an unlock if you manage to fulfill the scientific requirement mentioned above.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests