tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post629872808218579762..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The Bankruptcy of Evolutionary PsychologyLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10272061120471111372011-10-11T13:08:03.049-04:002011-10-11T13:08:03.049-04:00Just following the links from the comments section...Just following the links from the comments section in the latest ev-psych thread.<br /><br />I'm boggling at this latest just-so story. Did they have <i>any</i> women in the research team or colleagues who could have told them that women have a series of <i>conscious</i> strategies for avoiding rape <i>all the time</i>?<br /><br />If this conclusion were true, then it would require that women who are ovulating have an unconscious suite of behaviors that they engage in to prevent rape (if they were conscious, they'd wind up in the all-the-time repertoire) and that they're more effective than the steps that women take when they're not ovulating. <br /><br />Furthermore, they'd have to show that there is a strong selective advantage to be had in <i>not</i> being raped. Here you'd think that they'd at least learn the wisdom of telling a consistent story. Because it has already been notoriously argued by Thornhill and Palmer that rape is adaptive for men. So if rape is adaptive for men, but not being raped is adaptive for women, then we have an evolutionary arms race and we've been studying the dynamics of those for decades. So what evidence is there that the avoidance behaviors of women have become more elaborate in response to the rapist behavior of men? One would think that if such coevolution were a reality, the effects of it could hardly be missed.Nullifidianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207390447020990907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51768095276926118542011-01-23T07:52:25.535-05:002011-01-23T07:52:25.535-05:00Mike D says,
The general premise, that our behavi...Mike D says,<br /><br /><i>The general premise, that our behaviors are influenced by evolutionary adaptions of the brain, seems plausible enough.</i><br /><br />Indeed, that's a "plausible" idea. But in order to move from "plausible" to science you need a lot more. First, you have to at least consider other plausible evolutionary explanations such as the possibility that the trait evolved but it's maladaptive or neutral. That's hardly ever done.<br /><br />But before getting that far, you had to do three things that most evolutionary psychologists shun. (1) You have to demonstrate that the behavior has a strong genetic component. (2) You have to show that there was variation in our ancestral population (different alleles). (3) You have to demonstrate that you sufficiently understand the conditions and culture of our ancient ancestors to be able to construct an adaptive scenario. <br /><br />If you skip these steps you are not doing science.<br /><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23435869891680333932011-01-22T18:22:56.440-05:002011-01-22T18:22:56.440-05:00Just having a good idea about why things may work ...Just having a good idea about why things may work the way they do is not enough for the idea to be scientific. E.P. can (maybe uncharitably) be seen as just a collection of disconnected factoids with no testable or modifiable theories, internal to the discipline, to connect them together. The methods of making the E.P. stories of 2050 will be the same as those of 2010.<br /><br />It's maligned, partly, because it produces much "research" that ends up being touted in newspapers, tv, and general interest magazines. This, even though many of its hypotheses are untestable, contradictory or otherwise less than scientific. Yet it calls itself a science, and is considered as one by the general public, and so risks besmirching the reputation of the whole of science in eyes of the public. Science is not storytelling with facts.crfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10726414637021391906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40417270266086203122011-01-21T23:45:48.003-05:002011-01-21T23:45:48.003-05:00I can understand criticism of bad research, but I&...I can understand criticism of bad research, but I'm not really clear on why evolutionary psych is such a maligned field. The general premise, that our behaviors are influenced by evolutionary adaptions of the brain, seems plausible enough.Mike Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04097261108461657167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30624583729134581822011-01-21T11:31:55.791-05:002011-01-21T11:31:55.791-05:00It drives the experimental psychologists nuts too....It drives the experimental psychologists nuts too.Kurthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12230865912938107654noreply@blogger.com