Talk:Evolutionary psychology

Examples of EP in action

http://www.greencheese.org/EvolutionaryPsychology.png

http://www.greencheese.org/EvolutionaryPsychology

EP/sociobiology distinction

In the sociobiology article, it says that ...

Since then, other terms have come into currency, such as evolutionary psychology.

This doesn't seem to be true from reading this entry; it seems like evolutionary psychology has a more, well, psychological twist to it. Can someone check this? Chas zzz brown 10:59 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

the two fields are different: see http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/sociobiology.html

Critiques of EP

I think that this could do with a discussion of some of the critiques of EP, for example their tendancy to explain everything by recourse to some (sometimes improbable) evolutionary advantage, see William H Calvin, the Throwing Madonna and others.

Recent defenses against criticisms

Re: recent defenses against criticisms - first, I disagree with the substance of many of them. For example, it's absolutely true that little is known about the evolutionary context in which humans evolved. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to say one thing for certain. It's clear that we've diverged, but never clear why. Every adaptive change has a myriad explanations, and I can't recall examples of things that have been specifically tested. If people can't even dismiss the aquatic ape hypothesis (at best saying it's only as probable as other theories), what can we really say with certainty about the circumstances of human evolution? That females get pregnant and males don't? This is true of spiders, as well - but I didn't get my head bitten off last time I had sex. Graft 19:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Woops - second, I think they should not be written as, "yes, but..." responses to the critics, which is not the function of this article... if you feel the criticism needs to be tempered there are ways to do that without explicitly endorsing either viewpoint, which the previous text did. Graft 19:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Graft: We disagree that little is known about the evolutionary context in which humans evolved. If you want to see where I'm coming from, you could peruse my EP FAQ, and/or a book chapter of mine. Here is a brief snippet from the chapter (EEA = the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, the ancestral environment):

Is the EEA knowable? No one would dispute that our lungs evolved in an oxygen atmosphere (the lung EEA) nor that our immune system evolved in response to pathogens (the immune system EEA). Yet when it comes to the selection pressures that shaped the brain, some are skeptical that the past is knowable (e.g., Ahouse and Berwick 1998). The past, however, was much like the present. Physics was the same. Chemistry was the same. Geography, at an abstract level, was much the same—there were rivers, lakes, hills, valleys, cliffs, and caves. Ecology, at an abstract level, was also much the same—there were plants, animals, pathogens, trees, forests, predators, prey, insects, birds, spiders, and snakes. Virtually all biological facts were the same. There were two sexes, parents, children, brothers, sisters, people of all ages, and close and distant relatives. It is a common misconception that the EEA refers to aspects of the past that differ from the present, when it actually refers the aspects of the past whether or not they correspond to aspects of the present. We know that in the EEA women got pregnant and men did not. This single fact is the basis for perhaps three-quarters or more of all EP research. The hefty array of human universals (Brown 1991), although not as assuredly true of the past as, say, gravity, is nonetheless another important source of hypotheses about the EEA. Adding to our already detailed scientific understanding of the past are the historians, archaeologists, and paleoanthropologists who make a living studying it.

Sex differences in parental investment informs an entire industry of research in behavioral ecology. For the theory and a (now decade old) review of the data (on the order of 1000 studies, if I recall correctly), see Andersson, M. (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press.

If and when I get time, I will flesh out the EP section with more content.

I agree with you that the controversies section might simply state the critics' viewpoint (although I note there were v. few references there). But, readers of this article might also want to know how evolutionary psychologists would respond to the criticisms. What do you think? (For now, I have just added a link to my FAQ and book chapter.)

Ed Hagen, August 17, 2004

I think this debate might quickly stray from what's relevant to the page if we engage in it too much, but briefly: the factors you describe are very general factors that apply to an incredibly broad range of species, including our very near relatives the great apes. The specific factors that separated us from those relatives are not known. There are a number of hypotheses for what led to upright posture, vocalization, large brain-size, hairlessness, and the dozens of other adaptive changes specific to the human lineage. However, none of them have been conclusively proven and little remains known about the specifics of human speciation. This is my point: sure, females get pregnant, and males don't, but that doesn't tell us anything at all. That's true of every animal in the world. Some very simple questions cannot be answered. What was the primary diet of humans? What habitats did they occupy? What was the average span of life? What was the size of the human social unit? These simple and unanswered questions have dramatic implications for the evolution of human psychology; this is a considerable weakness of EP.

I agree that responses of EPologists are appropriate, and that both sides of the debate should be referenced. I'll try to do some of that in the near future. Graft 17:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If I may suggest, perhaps the criticisms and the responses to them should be moves into separate subsections. I've seen this done on other articles, and it works well to present both sides in an NPOV way. Listing a criticism and then immediately following with a response to it, the way the article currently does, reads almost like a straw man argument in favour of EP. I'm not suggesting that was the original author's intention, but it does read that way. Splitting the sections to allow both the yeas and nays in the argument to have a complete say before introducing counterarguments would read more like a statement of arguments than a refuting of criticism. Joshua Nicholson 05:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I just came to this article and was struck by how POV the criticism section here is. This article states that these criticisms are incorrect. While i'm willing to accept that perhaps these criticisms as written may be simply incorrect, i'm sure there are criticisms that deserve to be here, and not followed in the next breath with "this is wrong because...". This seems to be in major need of revision, and as i'm not well versed in the subject at all, i don't think i'm the one to do it. I came here specifically to read about the criticisms of EP, and the POV of the article makes me unable to determine whether these are strawman criticisms, built up so that the writer may knock them down, or whether these are simply the writer's rebuttal. I shouldn't have to ask these questions in the first place. --Ben.c 17:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'm adding an NPOV dispute tag in the section until these issues are resolved. I'll try to do it myself, but I'd like to draw the attention of people who are more well-versed in EP to write this section from an NPOV. -- Schaefer 22:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Graft, I simply must disagree. In fact, a great deal is known about the phisical environment, organization, group size and diet of humans and human ancestors from the A. africanus species to the present, the very period during which our modern brains evolved. And more to the point, the closer in time, the more is known so that all the "unknowns" you mentioned are well documented for even the earliest Homo Sapiens. Arguing that little is known about pre africanus species is irrelevant.DHBoggs 19:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)DHBoggs

This is simply false. I'd like to see you justify even a single one of those statements. Graft 01:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Gaft, you are right in your criticism of DHBoggs, I would go further to suggest what we really don't know about the EEA is the nature and complexity of the social environment that gave rise to the hypothesized mating, parenting, etc. mind modules proposed by EP. Even among hunter/gatherer societies of modern eras there is great diversity in the nature of social patterns of food gathering, hierarchical structures, dominance, status, aggression, etc. etc. It is, therefore, hard to imagine what adaptative pressures our ancestors faced in the EEA. BarryCull 06:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

EP misconceptions

It is a very common misconception of EP that EP is primarily interested in what makes humans different from other animals, especially our closest relative, the chimp. In fact, EP is interested in the functional structure of the brain, whether or not this structure is similar to that of other animals. See, e.g., this. The functional structure of human cognition will depend on features of the environment that are often known with certainty. The fact that these aspects of the environment also characterize the environment of other animals is neither here nor there. EP often draws upon comparative analyses with other species for exactly this reason, in fact. If males of many species engage in intrasexual competition over mates, this strengthens the case for adaptations for intrasexual competition in human males. If many primate species are fearful of snakes, this strengthens the case for an innate fear of snakes in humans. It is simply not true that the fact that females got pregnant and males did not tells us nothing. In my previous post above, I cited a review of the biological literature on sexual selection with a bibliography of over 1000 studies. This literature is mostly an exploration of the implications of sex differences in parental investment (i.e., that females get pregnant and males do not) in scores of different species.

Also, the latter part of the sentence "Evolutionary psychology is based on the presumption that, just like hearts, lungs, livers, kidneys, and immune systems, cognition has functional structure that has a genetic basis, and therefore is subject to evolution by natural selection" is perhaps misleading because it seems to be saying that current selection is important. But as EP's have argued for years, it is not current selection that is important, but past selection over evolutionary time. Thus, the design evident in the heart is evidence for a past history of natural selection. Yes, the heart has a genetic basis -- otherwise it couldn't have evolved -- but EP is interested in the design of the heart, not its genetic foundations per se (only because the genetic foundations of complex adaptations like the heart are currently unknown). Adaptations that evolved by natural selection must, by defintion, have a genetic basis, but we do not need to know this foundation in order to study adaptations. Darwin knew nothing of genes, yet he was able to identify many adaptations by evidence of their design.

Fair enough - I rewrote it that way merely because that's the appropriate logical progression. If A then B is not equivalent to if B then A. It is absolutely impossible to say something is adaptive without first knowing that it has a genetic basis. Graft 16:13, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is the point of view described by one speaker at a lecture I attended last year as the argument of "a thousand just so stories can't all be wrong". (This was in the context of the origins of language.) At any rate, the article should at least mention Gould; from his perspective, the framework of EP only makes sense in the panadaptationist paradigm (which he perforce rejects). He wrote a number of essays attacking the EP program, including "The Internal Brand of the Scarlet W" (collected in The Lying Stones of Marrakech) which is the most familiar to me. 18.26.0.18 19:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

EP and sociology

Some studies have been criticized for their tendency to attribute to genetics elements of human cognition that may be attributable to sociology (e.g. preference for particular physical features in mates).

But couldn't sociological studies likewise be criticized for attributing to sociology that which could be attributable to genetics? Or is there some rule that a socilogical explanation is correct by default?

Answer: Science doesn't work either/or those two alternatives. As with most EP hypothesis, the answer is "we don't know" or "the data doesn't tell". So the correct null hypothesis to testing the genetics of a behavioral trait is not sociological explation, but "not attributable to genetics".

Criticism can be positive

All the 'criticisms' in the aforenamed section are negative. Criticism's meaning does not neccesarily connotate negativity 100% of the time, although some fallaciously twist the meaning to mean something that is depreciative. Think of criticism as 'commentary', or 'evaluation' not 'depreciation' or 'disparaging'.--Knucmo2 16:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Translation Question

Le point commun de toutes ces approches est qu'il n'existe pas entre le physiologique et le psychologique une barrière tellement infranchissable que l'évolution ne pourrait expliquer que le premier, et pas le second.(From the French Wiki article on EP)

Is it fair to translate this as meaning, essentially, that EP states that there does not exist an utter separation between psychology and physiology, that evolutionary mechanisms are capable of influencing both? Is that the jist? (A fairly straightforward one, if this is the case). Thanks! ~ Dpr 16:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Literal translation: "The point common to all these approaches is that there does not exist between physiology and psychology a barrier so insurmountable that evolution can only explain the first, and not the second." -- Schaefer 18:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my understanding. Vielen dank! ~ Dpr 20:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Message from 209.232.131.45

Note: I moved this back down to the bottom of the page, where new messages belong. -- Schaefer

I want to put this right at the top just because I'm being ignored. Not that I can't explain that but; Congregation for competitive sexual (mate) selection can evolve into congregation as competitive sexual selection. Whereupon, all traits conducive to congregation (i.e. socialization/enculturation) become subject to the evolutionary influence of sexual selection as noted by Darwin.

So;

1. all traits means all traits. No single trait can be singled out as preeminent.
2. the function of enculturation is regulation of competition. The induces an evolutionary trend. Plus, it achieves a state wherein regulation of competition becomes competition.
3. of the three essential expressions of sexuality, (1) competition, (2) coitus, (3) reproduction, essential to consideration of reproduction is the manner or style of reproduction. There are numerous other references to this but working backwards I refer to the level of dependence involved.

That is to say, some species such as some instects or plants, show only the most minimal concern for the success of offspring and typically deposit large numbers of seed or egg etc. Whereas, if we observe other species from fish to reptiles to avian to mammals & etc. increasing levels of parental involvement with offspring are observed (go look it up).

The most significant aspect of this to psych. is the behavioral quality or nature of the parental and infantile involvement. This leads to the following.

The period of neonatel, infantile, & juvenile dependence cannot exceed the capacity of the parental response. So; the primary expression of dependence by the neonate elicits the secondary expression of dependence by the parent/caregiver. This is a dynamic behavioiral relationship acting to curtail or extend the period of juvenile dependence. This is also essentially, the definition of mammalia.

So we have regulation of competition as competition; and,

• Dependence as a drive with bimodal expression.
• Dependence is a drive, not a disorder. Drives are subject to vicsissitudes.

The activities of the dependence drive and the action of enculturization as competition occur within close temporal proximity in the human juvenile/infant. These drives are not congruent and are mostly incompatible (re: Freud psychosexual stages). The human species has maximized this phenomenon to produce a state of competitive diversity and disparity through the developmental stages of the human infant/juvenile.

Look, I could go on about how evolution maximizes all opportunities, takes maximime use of all diversity, but do I have to? -- 209.232.131.45

Errrr... forgive my irreverent stupidity, but your point is.... ? Mikkerpikker 16:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

How do you do that? That is to say, I know and my above actually describes the competitive function of closing your mind with a quick quip but,.... Although enculturation is competition, the individual percieves enculturation as inclusive membership. So examine the tools of inclusion, or consider the effect of their absence. Success at the psycho-sexual stages, the three "R's" you name it, naming it etc. Inclusion does not exist w/o exclusion. Your perceptions of relevant, that is relevant to competition, actions, display etc. is controlled by this and this is acted upon in accordance with your individual development.

The previous post states two definite interactions between behavior and evolution. The influence of mate selection and the influence of behavioral dependence and applies that to humans, while also refering to the unique effect of interaction between the two. What more do you want if you want to talk about "evolutionary psychology" other than that? You will get nothing from what I have previously stated if you do not work on developing the concept for your own use. The trouble with most psychological efforts is that they have such a patchwork quality, no overiding theory, just a bunch of isolated observations sewn together.

This should be at the top because almost nobody reads all the way down in discussions if they are just looking something up for info. It really should be the central theme of the entire article or its own article but I'm trying to generate some sort of consensus first. -- 209.232.131.45

Please use the "Show preview" button from now on to verify that your messages are appearing on the talk page as you intended them. Adding spaces in front of your paragraphs causes them to be pasted in a fixed width font with no word wrap, which renders them very difficult to read. Also, please remember to sign your messages by appending four tildes (~~~~) at the end. I've corrected both of these for you in your last two posts already, but keep this in mind for your future posts. -- Schaefer 20:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well,

1. Wikipedia convention is that discussion is posted at the bottom & ppl know the check the bottom so don't worry...
2. I still have no idea what your point is. What specific changes to the articles are you proposing? If you do intend to make changes please remember everything you say must be verifiable and must not consititute either original research or your own particular point of view (see neutral point of view Mikkerpikker 21:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah you're hopeless. I can drag you to the horse trough and give you a wild west waterboarding brokeback mountain style, shove you in the drink, but I can't make you think.209.232.131.45 20:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but nothing you say makes sense. You're rambling and incoherent. This is why no one has any clue what you're talking about and why everyone ignores you. Graft 21:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Why should you say no offense? I don't care, but: The statement "Congregation for competitive sexual selection can evolve into congregation as competitive selection." neither rambles nor is incoherent. Appreciation of it requires some effort. The claim that behavioral dependence is a drive in the same sense that libidinism is a drive is quite direct as well. Although both have manifold implications. 209.232.131.45 20:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC) [ WP:RPA -ed]

I agree with Mikkerpikker, this argument just rambles on without benefit to the discussion. To the poster: Please distill your point. It appears as though either he/she doesn't fully understand the concept well enough to respond effectively and is lost in using overtly complex terminology, or otherwise is not cognitive of the fact that for a response to be worthwile it has to be easily discernable to the reader. The basics of EP are clear enough, so proper arguments for and against the theory should be similarly clear. GordonGraff 06:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I was hoping the kids had all gone to bed and something meaningful could be discussed. To date I've seen nothing to indicate whether or no I've just engaged some creationists on a mischief mission. But here's a thought, first, of course, I've said it before and i'll say it again, "rambling & incoherent" is collection agency jargon for "letter sans check" so watch out how you use it. Second, i've put this in the discussion page for a reason. Now then, if EP evades behavior it tends toward some phrenology. So, the thought for the day is, if we accept the East Africa Origin hypothosis, which suggests that geological forces of the afar triangle caused ecololgic & climatic changes from forested to open savanah which forced the proto-human to adapt a more mobile lifestyle and is regarded as cause for the upright gait: then, this more mobile lifestyle requires behavioral adaptations as well. These adaptations are essentialy, an increase in volitional group cohesion. The influence of this upon congregation as competition should be obvious. Now, if the EP people would allow any of my thoughts to post in any of their websites, instead of censoring me, I might stop troubling you here. But on the other hand, I have always found the suggestion that an intricate argument is "Beyond" the capacity of some "audience" to be offensive.209.232.131.45 19:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed your mangled formatting for you (don't add spaces before a paragraph the way you did; it wrecks things). As to your early comments, presuming malice is NPOV and not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Do not make personal attacks. --Davril2020 23:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Your prose steps on its own toes. You're incoherent. The statement "Congregation for competitive sexual selection can evolve into congregation as competitive selection." is about as intelligible as "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." Graft 01:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I second Graft's commnet. I've honestly tried to understand what u're saying 209.232.131.45, but you're making NO sense. (p.s. I'm impressed Graft, a biologist who knows her Chomsky...) - Mikkerpikker ... 02:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Graft and Mikkerpikker - can't figure out what 209.232.131.45 is saying. Maybe it needs dumbing down - must be saying something. Suggest introducing specific examples to illustrate the abstractions. - Pepper 150.203.2.85 09:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Can the Neutrality Dispute Tag be Removed Now?

• If not, what specifically needs to be altered in order to do so?

I don't like the section, because the "responses" to the criticism are just so much hand-waving and don't actually settle any issues. Neither are there firm criticisms made using example. Graft 20:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the responses sound more or less like what I've heard/read defenders of EP say in reponse to critics. The criticisms could probably be made clearer with examples. --Rikurzhen 20:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Here's a paper you all might find interesting:
  • Wilson, D. S., E. Dietrich, et al. (2003). On the inappropriate use of the naturalistic fallacy in evolutionary psychology. Biology and Philosophy 18: 669-682.

D.S. Wilson is perhaps the most reasonable critic of ev psych. More reference to his criticisms may well develop a useful and fair 'criticism' section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.87.27.73 (talk • contribs) .

Congregation stuff

What is the "neutrality dispute tag" and does it have anything to do with my junk?

First, Chomsky said "Green ideas sleep furiously." A sample of following the rules and acheiving no meaning.

Numerous species congregate for various purposes, significant among which is congregation for mate selection and reproduction. Therefore, the key is congregation. If you don't join in the fray, you don't reproduce. Whereupon, Darwin's observation of the influence of sexual selection comes into effect, acting upon the basic behavior of congregation. Culture is an evolved form of congregation. It results from the above described process. The primary function of culture is regulation of intra-species competition. This reduces the stress and mortality of the competition thereby benefiting the (both, all) contestants. Next time you are beset by or are promelgating-promoting niggling regulations, remember that it is sexual.(this means you or re: 4/15) Enculturation is a competitive process. That means the Freudian interpretation of the psycho-sexual stages must be completely revised, and more. The influence of this observation upon understanding human developmental psychology will be revolutionary, but who knows when? Could be 3002ad or beyond. As a competitive process, there are numerous behaviors, traits and qualities which act to enhance individual membership. Most of the acquired characteristics (as opposed to heretible) act upon the principle of inclusion/exclusion. These two are inseperable, two sides of the same card. The capacity for acquired characteristics is heretible and developmental. So, in that vein, a little math problem. At the current rate of expenditure, how many years would it take for U.S. casualties, Iraq, to equal British casualties, day one 1st battle of the Somme, WWI? (Funny, the mortal and injured ratio is about the same in both instances.) The purpose of this excercise is to emphasize that the potential of the process goes far beyond any limited application or niggling rules and regulations. Tell your recruiter. Why no reference to the role of dependence in the evolution of reproductive styles? Don't get me started. Lastly, when replies make no reference to the content I grow doubt about motive or even if "it" passes the Turing test. Can't help it.

Um. Do YOU pass the Turing test? Not yet. Anyway, regarding your nonsense: your "theories" are farcical. Congregation occurs for many, many reasons, not JUST for mate selection. Are you going to suggest migratory flocks exist to facilitate mate selection and nothing else? Your premise is invalid.

Even were it not, and were your reasoning sound, it still has no bearing on this article. We have a policy about no original research, meaning you should be able to cite someone else's work demonstrating what you say, otherwise it's useless. Graft 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Graft is quite correct. Even if you were 100% accurate it doesn't matter. Your first task must be to publish this work in scientifically peer-reviewed journals of a high academic standard. No matter how insightful you are (and frankly I cannot understand a word you are saying), it still doesn't matter. That is the nature of Wikipedia and it is established policy. If you have derived this theory from existing research, cite your sources and we can then evaluate them. --Davril2020 21:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Back to the "Controversies" Debate

It's seems to me that progress on this page is being hindered by at least two intertwining factors:

• 1.) The debate surrounding the "Controversies" section
• 2.) That particular debate being constantly derailed by what appears to be rants that seem, (at least to me), to have really nothing to do with evolutionary psychology

I have in front of me the textbook, Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind by David Buss. One section is entitled "Common Misunderstandings about Evolutionary Theory", (pp 19-21). I'll list his three subsections addressing what he considers three misunderstandings, and I'll briefly try to illustrate his arguments. Perhaps this may be of help.

• Misunderstanding 1: Human Behavior is Genetically Determined
  • Here Buss uses calluses as an analogy. Calluses aren't created by genes. "Callus-producing mechanisms" are created by genes, which were selected for through the evolutionary process. These mechanisms need an environmental stimulus, (i.e. friction), to be activated. By the same token, genes don't create behavior. Genes, (once again, which were selected for through the evolutionary process), create "psychological mechanisms." Psychological mechanisms are activated by environmental stimuli. Thus, evolutionary psychology is an interactionist approach between biology and environment.

• Misunderstanding 2: If It's Evolutionary, We Can't Change It
  • Again, Buss uses the callus analogy. We can alter our environment in such a way as to reduce activation of our "callus-producing" mechanisms, (e.g. with gloves, shoes). By the same token, Buss argues that if we have a better understanding of our psychological mechanisms, their evolved functions, and what environmental stimuli triggers which mechanisms in what ways, then that knowledge can potentially give us more power to change.

• Misunderstanding 3: Current Mechanisms are Optimally Designed
  • Here he makes two points:
    • 1.) evolutionary time lags: Evolution moves more slowly than environmental change. As an example, a strong desire for fat was adaptive in a time when fat was scarce, but it's not very adaptive in an environment with a fast-food joint on every corner.
    • 2.) costs of adaptations: For the sake of argument, let's say we had a psychological mechanism for "fear of snakes." (Buss and others actually argue that we do, though I remain skeptical here. But I'll use it anyways for the sake of the "less-than-optimal" argument, which I think is an interesting point.) If we had a "fear of snakes" mechanism, then that could be adaptive by keeping us from getting bitten by poisonous snakes. But if the level of fear was so high that it kept us from venturing outdoors, yes we could greatly reduce our risk of being bitten, but we would also be greatly hindered in engaging in other adaptive behaviors, such as humting and gathering. Thus, there is a cost-benefit issue at work here.

I think this last point may be Buss' weakest point. It seems to me that if a particular mechanism is less than optimal, it's only to contribute to the overall optimality of the organism. But then again, he may be implying this, though he didn't come out and say it.

Hopefully, this can be useful. For further references on evolutionary psychology, check out the papers at [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.241.194.190 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry for not signing it before User:EPM 21:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons I tried to figure out the incomprehensible ranter’s stuff was in search of a corrective to the unsatisfactory EP article.

The trouble with the EP entry is that it doesn’t actually SAY anything. It is academic waffle.

EP says the basis of behaviour was shaped by natural selection. It follows that what some organism does has its roots in differential reproduction a million years ago. I think someone, somewhere, should be saying clearly that EVERYTHING is rooted in evolution. Or is this not the case? Is it that only that things which are (relatively) obvious are to be explained? Tell us!

For example. If we like fast food and sugar, EP explains it’s because it was reproductively advantageous, once, to seek fat and carbohydrates. Just so. Well then. If 40 year old men like to fly light aircraft for sport, EP ought to be able to show how this extraordinary behaviour has its roots in reproductive advantage. (It wouldn’t have any problem explaining why they read pornography.) If 40 year old women like to read celebrity magazines, EP should show how differential reproduction produced this curious behaviour. (It wouldn’t have any problem explaining why they are keenly interested in female fashion.) If some things lie outside the area of explanation then say why and tell us where the boundary lies and the principles for determining those boundaries. (In my view the productive, falsifiable approach would be to say everything is in.)

The cars versus spiders mismatch story is about the only nitty-gritty item. I don’t find in this entry anything about the most interesting thing of all about us humans, namely that we are male and female. And the interesting thing about that is our furtive sexual relations, No mention of dimorphism and the implications for behaviour. No mention of relative investment in offspring and the implications for behaviour. No discussion, for example, of the implied male strategy being to inseminate as many females as possible and see to it that no other male gets near his mate. No discussion that the implied female strategy would be to marry a high status male and bear the children of a handsome philanderer. These things are the interesting stuff. And what is the origin of the furtiveness?

What I do find is “the fact that women got pregnant and men did not is an essential aspect of the EEA of human mating preferences”. Aspect?? What on earth does it mean? An encyclopaedia entry should not be confined to the rarefied abstractions. It is supposed to inform.

You write “Evolutionary psychologists use knowledge of the environment of evolutionary adaptedness to generate hypotheses regarding possible psychological adaptations and subsequently these hypotheses can be tested…” Good for them but we are not reading a disquisition on the theory of science. The entry needs some concrete substance as well.

I am sure the writers have been meticulous about sources but the entry is boring. Please show how evolutionary psychology might explain some psychology.

- Pepper 150.203.2.85 04:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pepper, thanks for your comment. But please do remember Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia anyone can edit. If you feel the article is unsatisfactory, go for it & change it!! Mikkerpikker ... 23:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This entry should in fact engender considerable debate because it goes to the core of the "human nature" debate. The entry should clarify, however, the fact that EP is one paradigm for studying how human thought might have evolved. The paradigm states that by knowing something about the EEA we should be able to predict what psychological processes have evolved in our species. Using these predictions EPsychologists then look in modern behaviour for the predicted adaptations.

There are many problems with this paradigm. Most of the theoretical issues have been covered here. The biggest problem with the paradigm, however, is the evidence from the studies that have been held up as support for EP is spurius. I won't bore people by re-iterating the critique of the data here, but would direct those interested to David Buller's excellent book "Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature"[2].

The problem with the entry, as I see it, is that is doesn't provide alternative models of how the human mind may have evolved. The issue turns on whether the data from "mainstream" psychology supports the EP claim that the human mind is comprised of hundreds, perhaps thoudands of specific adaptations to specific adaptive tasks (mind modules) or whether a general problem solver has evolved in the human mind as a response to an unpredictable physical and social environment. This view is well articulated in Merlin Donald's book [3].

In my humble view I think the controversial part of the entry so far, is not what follows the warning about the criticisms. The criticism have far more support from cognitive science than the claims of EP. In that light, how should the entry be edited? BarryCull 03:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Professor of Psychology

In Response to Pepper & Others with Similar Concerns

Should this article be scrapped and just started over again from scratch? Or is that too radical? Will just a few modifications here and there be sufficient? EPM 06:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Be bold! I agree the article needs to change so go ahead and edit, changes can always be undone & we all can help with the improvement drive... Mikkerpikker ... 23:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, be bold, I know. Trouble is I am just a dilettante, picking up on the curious (not to say salacious) and trying to make connections. Reading The Selfish Gene and some other popular stuff doesn't qualify me. I looked up the EP entry in the hope of learning something but found myself reading a sort of self-examination of the academic field of EP.

Scrapping the whole thing and starting again seems a bit drastic, but it does need more than a few mods here and there. (a) dish us up some genuine psychology with the more on sexual behaviour and sex differences the better (as the ranter said, everything is sex) and, (b) tell us what EP can explain and what it can't and why / why not.

I suggest saying ALL behaviour has biological roots because it is something clear that is potentially falsifiable and potentially productive and escapes the "just so story" criticism. I say this as a principle, not speaking from specific knowledge. The Junggrammatiker - Young Grammarians - did it in the 19th century with language. They said, "There's an explanation for everything - every swear word, every sound change, every damn thing," and with that off they went and found it. There must be people in the EP game who do this. Didn't EO Wilson more or less take that approach?

Sorry to be whingeing and unable to directly contribute but I really have no specialist knowledge - have never read a single academic article. I am just an encyclopedia reader looking for my info in nuggety sound-bites. - Pepper 150.203.2.85 07:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay well here he is again. Alright, now notice, this is the discussion page, not the main article. Simply tossing off terms like rant and cant might get this reduced to less than nothing but, re; Lucretius. Now then, I am well aware of the processes of resistance to ideas involved and so, to give you a final example of how great those resistances can be, let's return to WWI. From the out-break of hostilities, 8/14, to the conclusion of the "race to the sea" 11/14, and establishment of the stalemate, each side on the western front lost approximately one million killed. The condition of stalemate persisted on all fronts, west, east, south, middle east, for approximately four years. So, how much punishment was required before sanity returned to the soldiery culminating in the various mutinies, French, Russian, German, in the ranks which although occuring seperately brought about a cessation of hostilities? The ultimate cause of WWI was the timetables of mobilization of the conscript armies. Think of the trains as slow moving ICBM's loaded with troops, not nukes. And what was the result of WWI? WWII. The only force which assured that the troops would willingly acquiesce and participate is/was; enculturation is competitive selection in humans. Now then, for the last time. If you still can't fathom the transformation of congregation for into congregation as. "For" and "As" are two different words with variable meaning. If I said "For example" or "As example" the meaning might be relatively similar. But if I said "Jack has a rubber doll for Jill," or "Jack has a rubber doll as Jill," there is a different implication. Jill might do well to note, if she cares. Or maybe, only maybe, you could say that while some avian species utilize plumage for competition display, a turkey has great big feathers on its butt "as" competition. But that's only a big maybe, it's more complex than that... Now about this page, yesterday was SuperBowl, what is football, or sport? F.ball is a display of athleticism, aggression, team, within a set of rules. So it is actually a competition of rules, not performance. Well bye kids, it's been a drag.209.232.131.45 20:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A word salad. Great. --Davril2020 21:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Extension of the theory section

I've just extended the theory in this article. Hopefully, this will reduce some of the concerns that have been previously expressed here in regards to this article being "academic waffle." I hope to add even more eventually, with a focus on specific hypotheses, predictions, and research on specific human behaviors. But I would be curious to hear any comments about the changes thus far. EPM 08:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Modifications to "Controversies" section

I've also made some modifications to the "controversies" section. I first broke it down into various subsections, each of which deals with specific controversial issues. I also extended some arguments. Lastly, I altered some of the language in this section in such a way as to try to give it a more "neutral" feel. For example, I changed statements like, "this is a misunderstanding" to something like, "evolutionary psychologists argue that this is a misunderstanding." My goal was to modify it well enough so that the "neutrality" tag can be removed. If that section is still unsatisfactory, though, some specific comments on how to improve it further would be helpful and welcome. EPM 21:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Change of Subject

Gentlemen, If you don't mind I would like to bring up a different but quite related topic. I am a relative newbie to WP, and still trying to learn the three principles.I am not trained in evolutionary psychology, nor in the current research methodogies. However for over 50 yrs I have been a diligent student of biology,evolution, and animal social behavior.I have also spent many thousands of hours observing the social problems of human individuals and groups. And now I am interested in putting them together. I have written 8/10ths of a WP article GROUP (SOCIOLOGY).

My thesis is that Territoriality and Dominance though well studied in animal social behavior is totally neglected in human social behavior. Sociology, social psychology, psychology, and especially psychoanalysis all developed for the most part without any references to Darwinian evolution,or ethology.I recognize the intuitive, inferential leap that I can systematize the recognition of territoriality and dominance in humans. May I ask some of you to read the above referenced article, and let me know if you would accept an effort to extend my thesis to the next level.Islandsage 22:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)