Evolutionary Psychology

1. Evolutionary Psychology Notes Objections to Evolutionary Psychology Aim To introduce you to the most common objections to evolutionary psychology and to an evolutionary approach to mind and behaviour.

2. Evolutionary PsychologyNotesObjections to Evolutionary Psychology Q. Is evolutionary psychology another form of historical determinism? A. If this question is taken to mean ‘does EP assume that some sort of final outcome/state of humanity (good or bad) is inevitable?’, the answer is no. EP eschews the fallacy of progress toward perfection - i.e. that we are on some sort of upward trajectory towards a better state. Similarly it eschews the notion that we are on some sort of trajectory towards a worse state. EP is agnostic about the moral ‘value’ of the past & future.

3. Evolutionary PsychologyNotesObjections to Evolutionary Psychology Q. Is EP a form of biological determinism? A. If this question is taken to mean ‘does EP assume that thought and behaviour is amenable to causal explanation?’, then the answer is yes. EP assumes that thoughts and behaviours are not randomly produced, e.g. that what we call a train of thought is more akin to the related images that make up a scene in a film than it is to a set of stills from different scenes spliced together ad hoc.

4. Evolutionary PsychologyNotesObjections to Evolutionary Psychology Q. Is EP a form of biological determinism? A (2) If this question is taken to mean ‘does EP assume that thought and behaviour is rigidly and unalterably fixed by genes?’, then the answer is no. Whilst EP assumes that the psychological adaptations are coded for – just as is, say, the heart – genes do not dictate the day-to-day specifics of their operation. EP predicts, ceteris paribus, that thought and behaviour is functional – that it is directed toward end states – but it does not insist on a singular specification of means.

5. Evolutionary PsychologyNotesObjections to Evolutionary Psychology Q. What about learning? A. If this question is taken to mean ‘does EP suggest that we cannot and do not learn – i.e. acquire information through experience?’, the answer is no. On the contrary, the concept of generational deadtime and the uncertain futures problem demands that we learn. What it does argue is that our learning is ‘framed’.

6. Evolutionary PsychologyNotesObjections to Evolutionary Psychology Q. What about learning? A(2) If this question is taken to mean ‘does EP argue that we are not ‘flexible’, ‘plastic’ or ‘malleable’?’, the answer is no.

7. Evolutionary PsychologyNotesObjections to Evolutionary Psychology Q. Does EP claim that we are not responsible for our actions because our genes make us do things? A. No. You and your genes are not separable – you are your genes and your genes are you. EP does not argue that we are unable to make decisions. But it does say that certain sorts of issue are of greater salience and we may be inclined to pursue certain sorts of outcome over others. Each of us possesses the cognitive ability to break the law as well as uphold it.

8. Evolutionary PsychologyNotesObjections to Evolutionary Psychology Q. Does EP claim that there is a limit on what we can think/conceive of? A. Don’t know. History suggests that there isn’t and the inevitability of variation of forms (including forms of mind) suggests that there will always be novelty of thought.

9. Evolutionary PsychologyNotesObjections to Evolutionary Psychology Q. Does EP claim that there is a limit to thought? A(2) If this question is taken to mean ‘are there possible experiences not open to humans?’, the answer is yes. We know that many breeds of dog have a wider hearing register than we do. It follows that, in some sense, they are open to at least one form of sensory experience that appears to be closed to us. Comparable claims can be made for other species. Similarly, we have no sense of and can make no existential sense of, say, the life of a lion.

10. Evolutionary PsychologyNotesObjections to Evolutionary Psychology Q. Is EP a defence of the status quo? A. If this question is taken to mean ‘is EP essentially conservative?’ the answer is no. As explained above, EP is not driven by values.

11. Evolutionary PsychologyNotesObjections to Evolutionary Psychology Q. Is EP a defence of the status quo? A(2). If this question is taken to mean ‘does EP seek to preserve inequality?’, the answer is no. EP argues that we possess essentially identical cognitive adaptations despite the fact that social hierarchies are ubiquitous in both human and non-human social groups. How so if all are equal? Arguing that minds are alike does not deny variation (brought about by recombination, mutation, age, sex, access to social and material resources, injury, disease, etc).

12. Evolutionary PsychologyNotesObjections to Evolutionary Psychology Q. Is EP a defence of the status quo? A(3). If this question is taken to mean ‘does EP deny that social change for the better is impossible?’, the answer is no. EP argues that human societies are in a state of tension between individual self interest and the profound need for social alliances and cooperation. This tension is creative in that it peaks and troughs, and in the course of doing so generates new and different solutions. EP argues that social change is inevitable rather than impossible by virtue of the fact that the individuals that comprise society are forever renewed.

13. Evolutionary PsychologyNotesObjections to Evolutionary Psychology Q. Is EP racist? A. If this question is taken to mean ‘is EP politically motivated toward the end of biologising distinctions between races and or cultures?,’ the answer is no. EP is in the business of formulating a general theory of mind and behaviour. The consequences of such a theory – be they benign or malign - do not drive the search for it.

14. Evolutionary PsychologyNotesObjections to Evolutionary Psychology Q. Is EP racist? A (2) If this question is taken to mean ‘does EP make biologically based distinctions between races or cultures?’, again, the answer is no. In fact, EP plays down any such suggestions – even those that have empirical support – and insists on ‘the psychic unity of humankind’. The quarry of EP is the functional organisation of the brain. The assumption is that this organisation must be pan-human because humans are a single species and all members of the species share the same functional organisation.

15. Evolutionary PsychologyNotesObjections to Evolutionary Psychology Q. Is EP sexist? A. If this question is taken to mean ‘does EP make a distinction between the sexes?’ the answer is yes. EP takes anatomical differences and the different roles that males and females play in reproduction seriously. Viz., male and female bodies are identical in most ways, but profoundly different in some. The possibility of sex differences is extended to cognition: Cognitive abilities are assumed to be identical in most respects, but to differ fundamentally in certain domains - principally mating and parenting.

16. Evolutionary PsychologyNotesObjections to Evolutionary Psychology Q. Is EP sexist? A(2) If this question is taken to mean ‘does EP privilege one sex over the other?’ the answer is no. No privilege is accorded to either sex on any psychological or behavioural dimension. So, for example, a question such as ‘are ovaries (under some or another construal of the term) ‘better’ than testicles?’ or ‘are female mating tactics more sophisticated than male tactics?’, are meaningless in that EP doesn’t ask or seek to answer such questions.

17. Evolutionary PsychologyNotesObjections to Evolutionary Psychology Q. Doesn’t EP suggest that humanity, like the rest of nature, is ‘red in tooth and claw’? A. If this question is taken to mean that a pessimistic view of the human condition is tolerated, the answer is yes. EP accepts that what might be called the darker side of human behaviour may be part of the human condition. It does not fall prey to the so-called ‘naturalistic fallacy’ whereupon it mistakes questions about ‘What is?’ with ‘What ought to be?’. e.g. The temporal and geographical pervasiveness of male sexual aggression suggests that it may be a sex typical proclivity whether we like it or not.

18. Evolutionary PsychologyNotesObjections to Evolutionary Psychology Q. Doesn’t EP suggest that humanity, like the rest of nature, is ‘red in tooth and claw’? A (2) If the question is taken to mean ‘is EP in the business of reinforcing negative attitudes and stereotypes and insisting upon their legitimacy?’, the answer is no. In being about the human condition, EP seeks to find out about the source of negativity with a view toward amelioration: e.g. given that most males are not sexually aggressive can the conditions that elicit such behaviour be specified and extinguished?

19. Evolutionary PsychologyNotesObjections to Evolutionary Psychology Q. Does EP deny that factors other than evolved adaptations are irrelevant? A. If this question is taken to mean ‘are social/cultural considerations unimportant?’, the answer is no. Human minds are embedded in a changing flux of social conditions. How they respond is dependent on what is outside of them in much the same way as how, say, a given metal ‘behaves’ is dependent on ambient temperature. However, EP argues that the conditions in which minds find themselves have been created by other minds: the world is ergonomic.

20. Evolutionary PsychologyNotesObjections to Evolutionary Psychology Q. Does EP deny that factors other than evolved adaptations are irrelevant? A(2) If this question is taken to mean ‘does EP privilege a reductionistic approach to mind?’, the answer is yes. If you want to know anything you have to start somewhere. EP makes the assumption that the modern human mind preceded modern societies and that the latter would not exist and does not exist independently of the former. The starting point is the mind. If EP is reductionistic, it is so, only in the sense that it assumes that minds are complex but not mysterious.

21. Evolutionary PsychologyNotesObjections to Evolutionary Psychology Recap • First and foremost EP seeks to offer a coherent account according to the evidence in light of the (v.v. widely accepted) theory of evolution. • This account – like any other – has political implications but EP has nothing to say about what they might be nor is it interested in finding controversial implications • EP employs the standard epistemological tools of the natural sciences. This includes a conviction that thoughts and behaviours have a discernible cause and that the way to deduce the cause is to break the phenomena of interest into analysable parts.