Why evolutionary psychology is teh suxx0rs

[sabotabby]

Does evolutionary psychology even exist as a discipline outside of the interblahgs? I don't think it does. realcdaae did a good post awhile back where she referred to it as Social Darwinism for the 21st century—pseudo-science used to justify essentialist gender roles distilled from an idealized version of 1950s America. Which it is, of course, but my explanation was less charitable: It's a pseudo-science invented by dorky first-year college students to explain why they can't get dates.

As far as I can tell from reading posts by evo-trolls on feminist blogs, the logic goes something like this: Men and women are locked into gender roles established back when we lived in caves and men hunted and women gathered. Those who get their anthropological knowledge from somewhere other than the Flintstones will immediately see the problem with this basic assumption.


Earliest evidence of useless lug managing to get with a hot chick.

But let's assume they're right for a moment, and every modern discrepancy between men and women (there are only two genders in evolutionary psychology) can be traced back to something perfectly logical in human evolution. My personal favourite is the argument that men don't clean as often because they evolved with less of an ability to see dirt. This makes sense, because sharper vision is necessary for raising babies but not for hunting.

It seems, though, that belief in evo-psych is directly proportionate to one's inability to attract an appropriate "female mate" (evo-psych proponents never fail to describe women as such). It's a problem closely related to Nice Guyism^TM; this belief system maintains that men are naturally attracted to conventionally attractive women (with symmetrical features! that indicate health for making babies!) and women look for qualities such as stability and financial security (geeky but nice! to support the babies!). This has everything to do with science, and nothing to do with popular culture memes that insist that the dirty, uncouth, beer-swilling schtub is always entitled to a hot chick. (It's been like this throughout human history. See illustration of cave-people, above.)

Evo-psych, despite pseudo-scientific pretensions, is closely linked to the fundangelical religious notion of man-as-beast, requiring the civilizing influence of a woman to be complete (but, of course, men instinctively need to spread their seed as far as possible, so they can't help cheating. Once they manage to get dates, that is.).

Finally, it's related to libertarianism (as is Social Darwinism), which is, interestingly enough, also related to an inability to get dates. Possibly because no one wants to date a guy who will kill and eat you if his trust fund runs out.

Feel free to spout off with your favourite evo-psych links and theories in the comments.

Comments

[frandroid.livejournal.com]

Evolutionary psychology is taught in introductory psychology classes as one of the contemporary subdisciplines of psychology, on the same level as cognitive psychology. It's also somewhat discussed in biology due to its basis in genetics and evolutionary theory.

[sabotabby]

That would explain its popularity amongst first-years.

[northbard.livejournal.com]

please to keep from causing the outwards directed laughter of loudness whilst I am working, thankyoumuchlyok?

Seriously though, even if there are some evolutionary bases for some of the societally dictated ghender-disparities, so the fuck what? We don't pre-masticate the food for our kids anymore either, or eat our dead rather than waste protein while painting cave-pictures. Whether something had a purpose 50k years ago, I can't imagine that somehow having any bearing on now.

[sabotabby]

I'm sort of in favour of eating the dead and painting cave pictures, mind you.

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

Yes! My friend insists to me that the skinny blonde bemakeuped symmetrical ideal of female beauty isn't at all socially constructed, because we just know they're the best mates evolutionarily! That's right: blondness is good for the babies too. As is makeup, which is totally related to genetics! And the ideal is different in different cultures and different times because, what, Americans are just smarter and have the "correct" ideal? Arghwtf.

[sabotabby]

Skinny is better than "child-bearing hips" (I have them, and I hate that term) for bearing babies. Everyone knows that!

1

[apperception.livejournal.com]

First, for your readers, the review I linked to earlier in which Louis Menand conclusively demonstrates that Steven Pinker is a moron.

Second, evo-psych (I like that abbreviation) is a bad understanding of science, but it's also a bad understanding of action. Here are some knock-down arguments:

1. Traits are not fixed and determinate, because the same dispositions can yield different actions depending on the context. For example, my hardwired, masculine imperative to be jealous of my "mate" can lead me to murder my beloved (a la Othello) or to fill her room with flowers. There's nothing about jealousy or even the disposition to it that necessarily leads to murder and other domestic violence activities than the opposite. The only way evo-psych enthusiasts can claim otherwise is if they've sheltered themselves all their lives from reading so much as one piece of literature.



2. Dispositions are general properties (of the self or of the organism), and so they can never yield to particularity. But at least some of our actions are uniquely particular. Some people kill just anyone. Most people don't. Usually, if I want to kill someone, I want to kill this particular bastard for this particular reason. If that person didn't exist, I wouldn't kill.
   
   Another way to state this argument is: "There's nothing like family life." Eighty percent of murders occur in a domestic situation where a complete understanding of what took place requires an understanding of the particular situation and the particular context, not a general understanding of dispositions or alleged biological imperatives.



3. The specificity of our actions is determined by the specificity of our interpretations of our contexts, but interpretation is in part determined by history (the particular time and place we find ourselves in, our memory of what led up to this, what we bring to the situation, the person himself who I am about to murder, etc.). But none of this is the subject of evo-psych. It's only revealed by sitting down and talking to this particular person or examining this particular situation.



4. Actions are not temporally localizable. What counts as the beginning of an action and what counts as its end are not given in a mere physical movement, determined by a synapse firing or a hormone being released. Actions are things that necessarily have consequences that are integral to the meaning of the action, and those consequences can reverberate.
   
   For example, we can legitimately say that Luther putting the theses on the door to the church led to universal toleration, but the last thing he intended in all the world as for universal toleration. On the contrary, he wanted everyone to be a Protestant and for the Catholic Church to die. But we can't understand the meaning of the action unless we also understand the way the action got picked up afterward. We need to look at consequences. This means we can't understand the action just by looking at what is going on in the actor's consciousness or in his brain or his body. We can't understand the meaning of action through a scientific logic. We need something more like the logic of tragedy.

Re: 1

[seaya.livejournal.com]

That is a kick ass article. It reminds me of accounts I read of the latest kind of radio research in which people rate 7 secs of various songs and the radio stations come up with a playlist from that.

The result is a horrible radio station of mediocre crap.

The real truth is that people don't need to like everything they see or hear. Because giving people what "research" says they like in the aggregate becomes total shit.

Humans are interesting because we are different from each other and there are infinite things we could be. Fuck "human nature".

Re: 1

[bike4fish.livejournal.com]

New England intercollegiate snark:

How can you tell that Harvard isn't the intellectual bastion it used to be?

They hired Steven Pinker.

2

[apperception.livejournal.com]

Of course, none of these arguments are my own. Hegel made the arguments first. But he wasn't making them against brain science or evolutionary psychology. Obviously, those fields didn't exist yet. Though he was making these criticisms of the early 19th century theoretical equivalent of evolutionary psychology, the field in his time which systematically misunderstood action and human behavior by trying to understand it as caused by something material and underlying. He was making these criticisms against phrenology. Phrenology was the 19th century equivalent of taking a natural science and trying to understand a human science directly by means of it.

None of this is to say that brain science or evolution is wrong. Rather, it's a criticism of those who attempt to interpret human action and social relations in terms of it. It's an irrational and arbitrary interpretation of them. It's what philosophers call a "category mistake." A brain or a hormone burst is just not the kind of thing that a person or an actor can be. To say otherwise is simply to miss the thing you're attempting to explain in the fullness of its presence and being.

Re: 2

[apperception.livejournal.com]

...None of which is to deny anything you said. For some odd reason, evolutionary psychology is always used to justify whatever principles or behaviors are in vogue at the time. Gee, I wonder why that could be.

[cap-scaleman.livejournal.com]

It is interesting that hormones control the development of the brain.

[sabotabby]

My hormones certainly do.

[terry-terrible.livejournal.com]

My personal favourite is the argument that men don't clean as often because they evolved with less of an ability to see dirt.

I rather doubt that Neolithic caves and primitive living structures were all that clean. Atleast clean enough to justify a mad rush of feather dusting in case Betty came over for coffee. Besides, wouldn't have people had different priorities back then. Like trying to survive and not getting eaten by sabertooth tigers?

[sabotabby]

Not to mention avoiding having their stone SUVs trampled by dinosaurs.

[wlach.livejournal.com]

I think you're talking about "pop evolutionary psychology" rather than evolutionary psychology. You can read more about the real thing here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

As materialists, it just makes sense for us to come up with naturalistic explanations for human psychology. And it only makes sense that the fact of evolution would have something to do with these explanations.

Yes, evolutionary psychology has some serious methodological problems to deal with. But you could say the same for psychology in general.

[sabotabby]

Without having a background in psychology of any sort—I agree with a lot of the criticisms there. Something like sex-specific mating preferences can be much more immediately traced to specific cultural norms than to what might have been biologically efficient during the Stone Age.

But mostly, it just can't be tested.

[mistersmearcase.livejournal.com]

Your Flintstone reference made me laugh out loud, with the usual disclaimer that I do mean literally laugh out loud. And also the jab at libertarianism.

[sabotabby]

Oh good. ;) It seems that I can't post these days without making a jab at libertarianism, but it's fun.

Thanks, good post.

[misfratz.livejournal.com]

I've recently been arguing with some internet morons who were claiming that their inalienable right (as 40-something-year-old men) to lech at young women was down to biology. At the time, I found this, which is not strictly anti ev-psych, but is kind of telling about how this particular human behaviour is not really linked to biological determinism.

I think the main point (scientifically) is that virtually every claim made by ev-psych proponents has not been properly subjected to tests in order to see if it can be falsified. There is a huge lack of controlled experiments (ones with an actual control, not 'rigidly organised', although that's probably also true) and poor use of statistics plus lack of elimination of confounding factors in virtually all gender-difference studies that I've read.

I hate that Pinker gets to claim any knowledge in the biological sciences; he's a psychologist, which is a completely different field, and he doesn't honestly seem to know much about genetics, evolution or developmental biology.

Re: Thanks, good post.

[sabotabby]

I think you've just found the evolutionary precedent for cougar parties.

It bothers me that there's a quest for the "natural" to begin with. Just because something's natural doesn't mean it's good. Cancer and poison ivy are natural.

[99catsaway.livejournal.com]

Heh, I think that people sometimes have a hard time admitting that their preferences are often shaped by society. Ergo, we get people who insist that it's "natural" to like 90lb bleach blonde women with DDs. Obviously the media had something to do with shaping what we like.

It's a hard thing to admit, that in even our most intimate preferences, we're being brainwashed. But if the alternative is that we're entirely at the mercy of our genes, this is a little more optimistic.

[sabotabby]

See, I don't mind admitting I'm shallow. I have a wide (though specific and sometimes odd) range of what I consider attractive. Fortunately, that goes for most people, or my hair-of-many-colours, asymmetrical-faced self would never get laid.

[esizzle.livejournal.com]

Here's a favourite of mine: Women like masculine men and unfortunatly that goes hand in hand with being rough and a bastard. 'Treat them mean, keep them keen.'

Or is that what Nice Guyism is? I haven't heard of the trademark before.

[sabotabby]

Nice Guyism is basically that, plus: "Women only like assholes. Why won't they go out with meeee? It's because I'm too nice. Well, I'll show those cunts!"

[ironed_orchid]

Sadly, it does exist outside the internets, although I'm not sure that academia and pop skience magazines count as the rest of the world.

It does, as you note, get picked up and used as ammo by all sorts of wankers as ammo in the War against Women^TM (because clearly we are not to be trusted, and will destroy a good man if we get the chance). Other items in their arsenal include "speed seduction" (hypnotize the chick into having sex with you, because you know she won't do it of her own free will).

When it came up, many of my first year students argued in favour of determinism, and not even good versions of determinism, rather than for free will or an ability to reason and interact with culture that goes beyond biology. Having spoken to some of them since them, they seem to get over this towards the beginning of 3rd year (at least, the ones who continue to take philosophy/arts courses do).

Sadly, a bunch of the postgrads in philosophy are interested in it, and not from a "we must stop this madness" point of view.

[sabotabby]

I have a special hatred for those How To Seduce Women In [X] Easy Steps type things. Someone in my office had a copy of The Rules floating around for the longest time, and it made me want to go on a shooting spree.

Oy.

[hopita.livejournal.com]

OK, so here's the thing: I dig evolutionary psychology. Not as much as I dig evolutionary biology, mind you, but I dig it just the same.

I agree with a lot of your criticisms, as do a lot of people who believe in both evolutionary psychology and feminism. And the thing is, all that gender role stuff is sooooo just a part of what evolutionary psychology is all about. The basic thing of evolutionary psychology is that humans in Western society -- all humans, regardless of gender -- are not living the way humans are designed to live. Issues of isolation (Hillary had it right with that whole "it takes a village" thing), the diseases of wealthy societies (addiction, eating disorders, etc.) ... one of my favorite stories is about the anthropologist who went to study depression among the Kaluli of New Guinea, and couldn't find any.

Incidentally, the thing that got me into evolutionary psychology in the first place? The Unabomber. His manifesto prompted a cover story in Time magazine, which I found fascinating. Make of that what you will.

[sabotabby]

I'm extremely doubtful that there's a certain way that humans are designed to live. And even if there is—does that make one particular lifestyle desirable, or even possible? Beyond that, I don't think we need to look back to the Stone Age in order to critique Western civilization.

What did the Unibomber have to say about evo-psych? I did read the manifesto, but it was ages ago.

[aaronfreed.livejournal.com]

Speaking of libertarians, there's so much bullshit in this thread that I don't even know where to start. Help please.

[sabotabby]

Ugh, a forum with thin white text on a black background. I can barely read it, though I like the picture of the hamster and Donald Duck Seig Heiling.

[corvus.livejournal.com]

http://community.livejournal.com/idf_girls/

:(

[sabotabby]

Oh, wow. That is offensive on so many levels. I don't know whether to use my "fuck patriarchy" icon or my "tanks are stupid—throw rocks at them" icon. (I guess I'll have to settle for Leila Khaled.)

the straw man cometh

[reverendgraham.livejournal.com]

I am aware of evolutionary psychology generally, but I've never read much about it specifically, so I can't vouch for any weird cultish particulars of it, but...

I don't know of any credible psychologist who would say that modern humans are "locked into" gender roles. It seems almost a tautology to point out that human behavior is a function of both biological predisposition and "free will" acting in concert, with the latter generally having veto-power over the former. And certainly I wouldn't argue that "every" difference between men and women in modern society is due to evolutionary factors—again, I don't know who would argue such a thing. It is, however, fairly obvious that there are advantages to be accrued from distinct sex roles among sexually reproducing organisms. Surely you're not contesting that, are you? Sexual reproduction evolved as a means of fortifying gene pools through diversification, and a consequence of this is that there has been specialization between the sexes. This is true of fish, it's true of insects, it's true of monkeys, and it's true of humans. And our brains have certainly evolved under the same evolutionary pressures as the rest of the human phenotype. And most higher vertebrates—with a few idiosyncratic exceptions—follow the same general sex roles: females, investing more time and energy (i.e., food) in reproduction, have more of a vested interest in their offspring, and will choose a mate quite selectively, while males, investing little time and energy in reproduction, will fuck anything with a hole (or whatever the pertinent receptacle may be). In both cases the goal is the same: to maximize the number of surviving offspring capable of reproducing. I don't understand why there should be any controversy over this—it may not be politically corect, but it is factual, logical, and it's been going for a billion years, with, I would say, some degree of success.

I'm not sure if you're conflating the modern PC idea of "gender" with sex, but I think it's fallacious to criticize the evo-psych people for only recognizing two genders (which you seem to be doing). Last I checked, that's pretty much the norm among vertebrates, is it not? I mean there's that weird fungus with like 13 sexes, but who the hell knows what's up with that. (Some manner of crazy fungus-orgies, I assume.) I mean, are you suggesting that the the occurrence of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender types, weird fetishists, &c, somehow contradicts the evolutionary origins of the mind? Are you, indeed, suggesting that the conscious human "mind" appeared fully-formed in the human species or its forebears, and has continued unchanged and static in some virginal blank-slate condition since then, impinged upon only by environmental factors?

I don't know that it's constructive to "blame" things like infidelity on abstract genetic factors, but I certainly don't see the harm in trying to illuminate such facets of human behavior through scientific analysis. To do otherwise smacks of intellectual Stalinism. It's exactly the sort of crap that the ID people are always trying, and the young earth creationists before them. When I read this yesterday, it reminded me of something I'd been thinking of lately, the whole issue of whether homosexuality "is" genetic or "is" a "choice," with people on both sides making wholly irrational and unscientific arguments for purely sentimental and political reasons, when the evidence strongly suggests a combination of factors, perhaps if anything leaning more towards environmental than genetic. But nevermind the science! It's better to feel good than to be right, it seems. And that bothers me. But maybe I'm just missing the point. Am I? What are you saying? Maybe I can't get a date these days, but the science is there and I stand by it. As for the evo-psych people, as I said I have no affiliation with them. But I read the Wikipedia article (what more can one be expected to do these days?) and I found nothing particularly offensive about it, and it seems to mesh with my general views, although maybe if you could give me some specific examples of what you find factually disagreeable I could give it more thought.

Re: the straw man cometh

[sabotabby]

Like I said, I don't have a background in it, and I've mostly encountered it through internet arguments wherein someone asserts, with some argument invoking Darwin and/or chimpanzees, that certain behaviours are "a part of human nature" and cemented in our genetic make-up. Now, I don't doubt that certain behaviours are fairly deeply ingrained, but I worry when "human nature" starts to take on a specifically conservative form. (Usually, whenever someone bases an argument around what is natural or unnatural, it's a sign that the argument he's making was actually pulled out of his ass.)

I wonder too at the idea that we have, in the year 2007, ceased to evolve and adapt to a rapidly changing environment. Case in point: People with higher levels of education and income tend not to breed as much. Evolution, it would seem, favours the Duggar family.

I'm not sure what you mean by the PC idea of "gender."* Gender != sex. Sex is determined by biological characteristics, but these don't necessarily line up; there are people with chromosomes that don't jive with the expected external genitalia, for example. That's without getting into hormone levels, let alone identity. Gender essentialism doesn't take these differences into account because the culture that informs gender essentialism is still grappling with that.

My problem with evo-psych is not that it attempts to examine human behaviour through scientific analysis. It's that—from the articles I've read, which, granted, are more pop than academic—it does exactly the opposite. It takes a culturally specific set of beliefs and extrapolates, using sciencey-sounding language, a model of "human nature" that can't be proved and isn't particularly useful. ("Natural" sex for cats, as far as I understand it, is pretty much painful rape with a barbed cock. Why should the "natural state" of humans be automatically good or something to strive for?)

Evo-psych isn't pure science (I'm still unconvinced that it's science, period), and doesn't exist in some sort of political vacuum. There's a definite interest into promoting the idea that a) humans are naturally competitive and warlike, b) women are naturally subservient to men, and c) it has been like this forever and ever and any attempt to deviate from this will end in tears and gulags. It's interesting that you bring up creationism, because the idea of fixed gender roles owes much more to religion than it does to science.

* I'm having problems with the idea of PC. As far as I can tell, it means "polite." I don't have a problem with people being polite, though often rudeness is called for.