HughRistik comments on Problems in evolutionary psychology - Less Wrong

55 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 13 August 2010 06:57PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (102)
Tags: evpsych science

Comments (102)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: knb 13 August 2010 10:30:56PM *  7 points [-]

I'm somewhat frustrated by the frequent posts warning us about the dangers of Ev. Psych reasoning. (It seems like we average at least one of these per month).

It seems like a lot of this widespread hostility (the reaction to Harald Eia's Hjernevask is a good example of this hostility) stems from the fact that ev. psych is new. New ideas are held to much higher standard than old ones. The early reaction to ev. psych within psychology was characteristic of this effect. Behaviorists, Freudians, and Social Psychologists all had created their own theories of "ultimate causation" for human behavior. None of those theories would have stood up to the strenuous demands for experimental validation that Ev. psych endured.

Evolutionary theories get mentioned a lot on this site, and I frequently feel that they are given far more weight than would be warranted. In particular, evolutionary theories about sex differences seem to get mentioned and appealed to as if they had an iron-cast certainty. People also don't hesitate to make up their own evolutionary psychological explanations.

I just don't think this is true. People do lots of hypothesis generation on LW, using many explanatory frameworks, and I see no reason to believe that Ev. Psych explanations are more overconfident.

Comment author: HughRistik 13 August 2010 11:05:43PM *  10 points [-]

Wow, who downvoted this, and why?

It seems like a lot of this widespread hostility (the reaction to Harald Eia's Hjernevask is a good example of this hostility) stems from the fact that ev. psych is new.

Not just that; certain political positions believe (correctly or incorrectly) that sociobiology or evolutionary psychology is counter to their worldviews. See Defenders of theTruth by Ullica Segerstrale.

While it may be true that some writing about evolutionary psychology (particularly in the popular press) deserves rationalist scrutiny, certain forms of opposition to evolutionary psychology also deserve rationalist scrutiny for their long track record of putting badly-though-through social values above scientific inquiry.

So much junk opposing evolutionary psychology has been written that anyone casually investigating the subject can easily have screwed up priors and be infected with biases and misconceptions about the field. The best way to evaluate evolutionary psychology is to read what people in the field write in peer-reviewed publications (not popular books) and assess their reasoning for yourself.

Comment author: Perplexed 13 August 2010 11:56:02PM 1 point [-]

Could you explain why you hypothesize that opposition to evolutionary psychology stems from the youth of the discipline? Or better yet, don't try to explain your own thought processes and instead try reading what the critics write and assessing their arguments rather than imagining their motivations.

Yes, much of the opposition to sociobiology was based on political ideology. That has mostly passed. But the opposition to evolutionary psychology is based on epistemology. It just is not a respectable empirical science.

Comment author: HughRistik 14 August 2010 12:38:40AM 7 points [-]

Could you explain why you hypothesize that opposition to evolutionary psychology stems from the youth of the discipline?

That was knb's hypothesis, not mine.

Or better yet, don't try to explain your own thought processes and instead try reading what the critics write and assessing their arguments rather than imagining their motivations.

Or even better, don't accuse me of imagining people's motivations when I've already given a citation about the politics around sociobiology and evolutionary psychology that informs my view: Defenders of theTruth by Ullica Segerstrale.

I have read plenty of criticism of evolutionary psychology. I've also read plenty of defenses of evolutionary psychology.

Yes, much of the opposition to sociobiology was based on political ideology. That has mostly passed.

On the contrary, I've seen plenty of opposition to evolutionary psychology from certain political ideologies. I'm not "imagining" these motivation. Are you not familiar with the opposition, or do you not think it comprises the bulk of opposition to evolutionary psychology?

But the opposition to evolutionary psychology is based on epistemology. It just is not a respectable empirical science.

Now we are talking. What sources have led you to this conclusion? If it's Gould, Lewontin, Rose, etc... I think you've been snookered, and I'll explain why when I respond to your other post where you brought them up.

My knowledge of evolutionary psychology comes mainly from the following sources:

  1. Reading articles critical evolutionary psychology found on the web, or in journals.
  2. Reading the introductions in studies from an evolutionary psychology perspective, that explain their methodology.
  3. Reading responses to critics from evolutionary psychologists.

My preliminary impression is that evolutionary psychology is not categorically a failure at by being a respectable empirical science. This doesn't mean that evolutionary psychologists are right about everything, or that I'm willing to defend every aspect of their reasoning. My impression is just that the epistemic standards in the peer-reviewed evolutionary psychology work I'm familiar with don't seem obviously worse than the epistemic standards in mainstream sociology or psychology.

Comment author: Perplexed 14 August 2010 01:37:52AM 2 points [-]

Could you explain why you hypothesize that opposition to evolutionary psychology stems from the youth of the discipline?

That was knb's hypothesis, not mine.

Whoops, sorry. Now I feel like an idiot for reasons beyond squandering all my karma on this crusade.

I've read Segerstrale. I agree that the opposition to Sociobiology was unjustified. But I still claim that what Buller calls "EP" (as opposed to "ep") is pseudo-science - not because it tells us something unwelcome about ourselves, but rather because it tells us next to nothing about ourselves.

My impression is just that the epistemic standards in the peer-reviewed evolutionary psychology work I'm familiar with don't seem obviously worse than the epistemic standards in mainstream sociology or psychology.

Ah! That may explain our disagreement. I don't know what standards are expected in sociology or psychology. I was thinking in terms of the standards expected in evolutionary biology. I thought I stated that in my initial comment.

Comment author: HughRistik 14 August 2010 01:56:29AM *  2 points [-]

But I still claim that what Buller calls "EP" (as opposed to "ep") is pseudo-science - not because it tells us something unwelcome about ourselves, but rather because it tells us next to nothing about ourselves.

See what you think of Delton, Robertson, and Kenrick's discussion of "Evolutionary Psychology" vs. evolutionary psychology:

Compounding the problem is the false distinction Buller draws between “Evolutionary Psychologists” and “evolutionary psychologists.” Buller is a self-proclaimed champion of “evolutionary psychology” and all of his critiques are aimed squarely at “Evolutionary Psychology.” (It’s noteworthy that evolutionary researchers far-flung from his narrow “Evolutionary Psychology” also hypothesize that men evolved to prefer attractiveness and women status in mates.) He often criticizes “Evolutionary Psychologists” by using theories and data generated by “evolutionary psychologists.” Yet many of these supposed “alternatives” are already widely accepted by “Evolutionary Psychologists.” But enough with the scare quotes. All of these researchers are part of a large, sprawling, heterogeneous scientific community that includes psychologists, anthropologists, biologists, and others. Like many scientific communities, evolutionary psychology includes a large set of shared assumptions and conclusions, and a healthy number of scientific disputes. Many—if not all—of the alternatives that Buller cites fall into the shared assumptions category.

See also Machery and Barrett's response:

‘EP’ versus ‘ep’. Our strongest critique concerns Buller’s very strategy. Because Buller believes that ‘ep’ and ‘EP’ can be neatly distinguished, he takes his arguments to undermine only EP, while leaving an evolutionary approach to mind and behavior (ep) largely intact. The trouble is that ‘EP’ and ‘ep’ do not in fact represent independent, isolated groups of people or schools of thought. Not only do evolutionary psychologists of all stripes share common professional meetings and publication outlets, they share a large number of theoretical commitments as well. As we will explain in more detail below, some of these commitments, which Buller dismisses as part of ‘EP’, are in fact likely to be crucial for any evolutionary science of the mind. In particular, Buller claims that information-processing mechanisms (or, more specifically, “cortical” mechanisms) “weren’t shaped by selection over our species’ evolutionary history” (200), and that “there is no such thing as human nature” (457). But this is tantamount to rejecting two ideas—the existence of psychological adaptations and the notion of human nature—that are endorsed by evolutionary psychologists of all stripes. To give only one example, researchers influenced by Boyd and Richerson’s theory of culture (Boyd and Richerson 1985; Richerson and Boyd 2004) take a tendency to imitate prestigious people, sometimes called “prestige-dependent bias,” to be a psychological adaptation (Henrich and Gil-White 2001). While these researchers would not be classified as ‘EP’ under Buller’s scheme, their commitments to psychological adaptations and a human nature are just as much a part of their research enterprise.

Comment author: Perplexed 14 August 2010 02:37:31AM 1 point [-]

What do I think? I think these are rhetorically effective critical reviews. Without reading Buller's book or any of the reviews by biologists and philosophers of biology, I have no idea whether they are fair reviews.

However, I have read enough by Cosmides, Tooby, and by their critics and defenders to form the opinion that what the critics say about their work is entirely fair.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit