Talk:Evolutionary psychology/Archive 1

message: The controversies section is getting quite bloated. This page should be primarily
about evolutionary psychology, not criticisms of it.   Suggest revision
of criticisms to a brief summary (e.g., list of criticisms), and then a 
link to its own page ("Criticisms of Evolutiony Psychology" for a longer discussion.   
That page can review criticisms of EP as well as rebuttals.  
Anyone up for taking on this edit?
:I think it's sensible to have the controversies section in the main article, since "evolutionary psychology" suggests not only the methods and findings but also the paradigm shift in progress (POV!)-- so the controversies section (as long as it's kept tidy) conveys an important part of what EP is to the reader by describing the state of that paradigm shift in the broader scientific community. Delmonte 22:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion:  Move controversies section to its own page

message: In the early hours of Wednesday, May 03, 2006, I copied the text from the main "Evolutionary psychology" article and the text from the "Talk:Evolutionary psychology" page (both as plain text). I then queried the word counts in a text editor.
Counting from the first word of the first sentence to the last word of the last external link (not including the sidebar), the main article contained 3757 words.
Starting with the list of contents and finishing with the signature "Orgone 16:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.
Response to Ed: Some simple answers to your questions:  The primary diet of humans in the past can be ascertained from analysis of tooth wear, the nitrogen content of bones, and the shape of the ribcage (more meat than before, less fibrous plant matter).  The habitats they lived in are easily figured out by looking at the animal bones found with them (frogs and alligators = swamp, lots of seagulls = beach, etc).  The average span of life can be figured out from the way that bones change as a person ages.  The size of the human social unit can be extrapolated from the size of living bands of hunter-gatherers--variable: from about 10 - 100.  --Leopoldhausen 05:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Recent defenses against criticisms

message: 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)
thread_title: Criticism can be positive

message: :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)
replies: text: Thanks for confirming my understanding. Vielen dank! ~ Dpr 20:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation Question

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Can the Neutrality Dispute Tag be Removed Now?

message: 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  —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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Back to the "Controversies" Debate

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: In Response to Pepper & Others with Similar Concerns

message: 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)
thread_title: Extension of the theory section

message: 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)
thread_title: Modifications to "Controversies" section

message: 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)
thread_title: Change of Subject

message: This sentence is unclear to me:
"Evolutionary psychology has been applied to the study of many fields, including economics, aggression, law, psychiatry, politics, literature, and sex."
What are the great examples in economics, aggression, law, psychiatry, politics, literature, and sex?
--Irgendwer 18:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: examples

message: Proposal: I would suggest revising/paring down the third paragraph substantially, but retaining the reference to evolutionary developmental psychology ('evolutionary psychology', no caps (no commitment to massive modularity or every mechanism as an adaption - see Gould's Panglosian Objection) as opposed to 'Evolutionary Psychology' with caps, which is described here, as put forward by Tooby & Cosmides etc.) 
I would also suggest getting rid of most of the material dealing specifically with evolutionary theory, we can have a link to that, this page should focus on Evolutionary Psychology.
Orgone 06:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: I'd like to suggest that this section in "criticisms" be removed, as it is based entirely on ignorance of the current state of the art in EP, at least in the criticism's current form.  If it is to be retained, it should be based on the claim that things that evolutionary psychologists really study (e.g., the specifics of what's considered beautiful and why, theory-driven predictions about correlates of these traits and about individual differences in preferences for these traits, etc.) are trivial, not the silly example given ("men will like beautiful women"). Delmonte 15:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "triviality" section

message: Some opponents of evolutionary psychology maintain that elements of human  behavior are irreducible to their component parts. On the other hand, it is quite possible that a study of the component parts can lead to new insights about how they function as part of an integrated whole.
Response
*Again, the core of EP is in regards to the nature of the structure of human cognition. This is almost entirely missed by most critics. EP's debate whether the mind has domain-specific mechanisms, domain-general mechanisms, or some combination of both. The last of these three seems to be gaining the high ground in EP. EPM 01:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reductionism

message: *I just made a new category if ant of you are interested in copying and pasting it to your User Page:
**Category:Wikipedians interested in evolutionary psychology
***Of course, don't forget to add the double brackets on each end    to create the internal link. Hope some of you like it. EPM 23:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A new category

message: An interview of Steven Pinker by Robert Wright. A discussion of Evolutionary Psychology, I would recommend giving it a watch:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3554279466299738997
Orgone 17:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Great Video

message: I just created an article on evolutionary educational psychology, if anyone wants to check it out. EPM 15:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolutionary educational psychology

message: *Mental Evolution by Rodney Chang
From Mental Evolution and Art, Rodney Chang, Exposition Press, New York, NY, 1980 
Rodney Chang is a digital artist. Freudian, Behaviorist, as well as Holistic psychological theories are additional conceptual brushes for the digital artist. Source
Dhammapal 09:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pseudoscience. This is a scientific article. No to inclusion. Jefffire 15:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. This shouldn't be included in the article. It has nothing to do with Ev Psyche. It doesn't even look like something that has undergone any kind of peer review. EPM 22:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed link: "Mental Evolution" by Rodney Chang

message: Substituted at 20:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment