Evolutionary psychology

{{psychology}}{{bronze}}
{{cquote|EvoPsych 101: Rats and people are the same, but men and women are different.|||Anonymous}}
'''Evolutionary psychology''' ('''EP''') attempts to explain how and why complex [[human]] behaviours emerged as a result of the [[evolution]] of humans and of the human [[brain]]. The field includes examining fitness advantages that such behaviors give, like by [[natural selection]]. Evolutionary psychologists see behaviors or [[social construct]]s, in the broadest sense, as [[adaptation]]s in the same way as physical ones. However, evolutionary psychology also investigates behaviors as possible byproducts of natural selection (or "spandrels", to use [[Stephen Jay Gould]] and Richard Lewontin's term<ref>Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. Lewontin. [http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/gould.pdf The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme.] Proceedings Of The Royal Society of London, Series B, Vol. 205, No. 1161 (1979), pp. 581-598.</ref>) or as mere evolutionary noise. 

Evolutionary mechanisms of mutation and natural selection have been very successful in explaining most aspects of human biology, and so far have had some success in explaining why many complex human behaviours exist throughout the human species. However, evolutionary psychology as a field is notoriously full of [[woo]] and [[crank]]s producing theories — that are either proven wrong or which [[Falsifiability|cannot be disproven]] — to promote [[bigotry]]. Examples include the idea that black people and [[women]] have not evolved the same ability to understand science like [[white]] men can,<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=035lOhkNbkM</ref> that standards of beauty not evident outside the West are actually universal,<ref>https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201010/the-truth-about-beauty</ref> and that black women haven't evolved to be as good-looking as women of other races.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20150414041244/https://www.jezebel.com/5802453/with-racist-article-crap-evolutionary-psychologist-sets-new-record-for-awfulness</ref><ref group="note">Good looking to whom, may I ask? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, rather than an inherent property of the beholdee.</ref> More scientific studies by actually qualified evolutionary psychologists actually do help explain beauty preferences seen throughout the human species,<ref>http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2004/jan/17/weekend7.weekend2</ref> along with many other features of human behaviour.

Note that evolutionary psychology isn't a scientific non-starter like [[homeopathy]] or [[intelligent design]]. Unlike these <strike>pseudo-intellectual excrescences</strike> regrettably misguided notions, evo-psy ''can'', both in theory and in practice, produce well-founded conclusions. 

Those interested in it should know, however, that even its least controversial and best-supported claims are intensely prone to distortion in the non-technical press and especially on the [[Internet]]. Just as 
self-interested hypocrites
 well-meaning men of substance almost immediately perverted [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s 1859 theory of natural selection to justify cruel bigotry ([[Social Darwinism]], [[eugenics]]), so interested parties can readily twist evolutionary psychology to buttress prejudice. This [[Appeal to consequences|does not make evolutionary psychology ''wrong'']], any more than the brutality of Social Darwinism made evolutionary theory wrong, but it does suggest that one should assess claims rooted in evolutionary psychology very carefully, whether reading them or writing them.

==Assumptions of evolutionary psychology==
Evolutionary psychology has one basic premise: that human behaviour and [[cognition]] (collectively known as [[psychology]]) are governed to a great extent by Darwinian evolution. In other words, evolutionary psychology proposes that genetics is an important mechanism behind shaping psychology. When evo psychs formulate hypotheses, they try to use the Darwinian evolutionary history of humans, even though there is little evidence to corroborate their specific account.

Evolutionary psychology attempts to provide explanations for certain human behaviours. However, whether or not these generated explanations can then be established as [[scientific]]ally-plausible or consistent is a separate question.<ref>[http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/human-nature-a-humean-take/ Human nature, a Humean take] by [https://sites.google.com/site/platofootnote/ Massimo Pigliucci]</ref> Areas in which an evolutionary approach to psychology is often applied include [[sex]], [[morality]], [[religion]], and [[Othering#Psychology|in-group/out-group effects]]. 

While no scientist worth their salt will dispute that humans are the product of [[evolution]], they will posit that they are a product of [[culture]] as well. A very clear picture has emerged in the literature and it goes against evolutionary psychology's main assumption — recall that they claim human psychology is governed to ''a great extent'' by Darwinian evolution. So, it is not that human psychology is not ''in part'' governed by our evolutionary history, but that [[society|social]] and cultural (i.e., on the [[levels of analysis]] above genetics) factors override the genetic layer in the overwhelming number of cases.<ref>[http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/evolutionary-psychology-jerry-coyne.html Evolutionary psychology, Jerry Coyne, Robert Kurzban, and the so-called creationism of the mind] by Massimo Pigliucci</ref> What this means is that many of the explanations and hypotheses evo psychs propose are fundamentally misplaced, leading to [[begging the question]].<ref>[http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/is-cultural-evolution-darwinian-process.html Is cultural evolution a Darwinian process?] by Massimo Pigliucci</ref>

==Controversy==
In general, the idea of applying natural selection to human behaviour is controversial.<ref name="lewontin">Lewontin R., Rose S., & Kamin L. (1984) ''Not In Our Genes: Biology, Ideology & Human Nature''</ref> The reason is that in order for natural selection to occur, a trait must both be genetically inherited and exposed to sufficient selective pressure. 

In studies of animal behaviour, the first requirement can usually be assumed in animals that lack [[cultural]] transmission. In humans, it is often not possible to establish whether or not given behavioural traits have a genetic component, as [[Experimental control|controlled experiments]] are not available for [[ethical]] and [[historical]] reasons, and workarounds such as twin studies often suffer from fatal flaws.<ref>Joseph, Jay (2003) ''The Gene Illusion''</ref> A further problem exists in that the definition of a discrete 'trait' is difficult to achieve; a behavioural trait exists in a behavioural context, and cannot be separated out the way that 'eye colour' can.<ref name="lewontin"/>

In regard to the presence or absence of selective pressure, critics allege that much of evolutionary psychology's claims about selective regimes are pseudoscientific in nature, as proposals about particular selective pathways often cannot be theoretically disproven. In a broader sense, they allege that EP has failed to produce any new insights into human evolution that move beyond a purely speculative character, remaining at the level of generating [[hypotheses]] without having generated evidence to build upon these initial hypotheses.<ref>Pigliucci, M. (2006). Is evolutionary psychology a pseudoscience?. <i>Skeptical Inquirer, 30</i>(2), 23-24.</ref><ref>Buller, D. J. (2009). Four fallacies of pop evolutionary psychology. <i>Scientific American, 300</i>, 74-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0109-74 See full text [https://libcom.org/library/evolution-mind-4-fallacies-psychology here].</ref> As such, it hasn't matured into a field of study analogous to other areas of [[biology]], remaining merely a novel proposal.

===Specific debates about evolutionary psychology===
====Straw men and heated arguments====
Proponents and critics alike are prone to making [[straw-man]] arguments — both in popular literature and sometimes in [[Scientific literature|scholarly literature]]. First, critics of EP are prone to dismissing it as [[biological determinism|genetic determinism]], although proponents rarely (if ever) make such a claim.<ref>For further detail and more common straw-man arguments, see Robert Kurzban. [http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/apd.html "Alas Poor Evolutionary Psychology: Unfairly Accused, Unjustly Condemned"]. ''The Human Nature Review'' 2002 Volume 2: 99-109 (14 March).</ref>

On the other side, self-righteous promoters of EP (and especially its [[Pop psychology|pop]] incarnations) will straw-man their critics as denying biology, as [[social constructionism|"social constructionists"]], as "[[politically correct]]", or even as "[[radical feminist]]s."<ref>[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11016-006-0020-3#page-1 A 2006 criticism of Griet Vandermassen].</ref> However, prominent EP critics such as David J. Buller do not repudiate that the human brain is the product of evolution; Buller divides EP into what he sees as upper-case "Evolutionary Psychology" (i.e., EP of the ''Flintstones'' variety) and lower-case "evolutionary psychology" based on better research and on a broader view of evolutionary theory.<ref>[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=psyching-out-evolutionary Psyching Out Evolutionary Psychology: Interview with David J. Buller], ''[[Scientific American]]''.</ref><ref>[http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/sex-jealousy-and-violence/ Sex, Jealousy, and Violence], ''Skeptic'' magazine.</ref> Similarly, Stephen Jay Gould argued that evolutionary psychology was only problematic insofar as it was concerned with finding selective, adaptationist explanations to the exclusion of others; he viewed human cognition as a spandrel that, once evolved, became subject to cultural and [[social]] factors.<ref>Gould SJ. (2002) ''The Structure of Evolutionary Theory''.</ref> This has led some to differentiate between two "senses" of evolutionary psychology in the sense that Buller has. "Capital EP" has also been referred to as "narrow-sense EP" or the "Santa Barbara school" due to its association with certain key assumptions and specific researchers.<ref name="bolhuis">Johan J. Bolhuis et al. [http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001109 Darwin in Mind: New Opportunities for Evolutionary Psychology.] PLoS Biol 9(7).</ref> Many criticisms of evolutionary psychology are directed at narrow-sense EP.

====Common criticisms of evolutionary psychology====
#'''EP as [[biological determinism|genetic determinism]]'''. In some cases, this is genuinely a straw man, as EP ''does'' attempt to describe the interaction between genes and [[environment]] in certain cases. EP generally claims that environmental input is necessary for genetic programs to operate.<ref>John Tooby and Leda Cosmides. [http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/papers/pfc92.pdf The Psychological Foundations of Culture.] Chapter 1 in ''The Adapted Mind''.</ref> However, in situations where there is an unambiguous interaction between genes and environment (for example, human height is determined both by genetics and nutrition), both the genetic and environmental component of the given trait can be independently established to some degree. Critics allege that EP often imposes no requirement that a given behavioural trait be established as having a genetic component or overestimates the influence of that component. In many cases, EP assumes the genetic component to exist, and assumes that it has a substantive impact on human behaviour, when neither clause has actually been shown to be true.<ref name="lewontin"/>
#'''EP relies on guesswork about a hypothesised "Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness" (EEA) because little is known about the environment of the late Pleistocene'''. The EEA does not refer generally to one single evolutionary environment, but specifically the environment in which a specific adaptation developed.<ref>This is explained in further detail in: Liddle and Shackleford. [http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep07288294.pdf Why Evolutionary Psychology is "True."] ''Evolutionary Psychology'' - 2009. 7(2): 288-294</ref> Critics charge that this enables proponents of EP to shift the ground in debates and create a situation in which no EP claim can ever be disproven, as a new EEA can be established any time an old one is shown to be unlikely, a hallmark of pseudoscientific thinking.
#'''EP is selection-centred and adaptationist'''. While some EP crosses into [[Lamarck|Lamarckian]] "hyper-adaptationist" territory and [[Panglossian]] thinking, much research in EP explains certain psychological phenomena as by-products (or "spandrels").<ref>Stephen Jay Gould penned a scathing attack entitled [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/jun/12/darwinian-fundamentalism/?pagination=false Darwinian Fundamentalism], yet he believed religion to be an evolutionary spandrel, which has become a dominant view in EP in agreement with Gould as set forth in works like Scott Atran's [http://human-nature.com/nibbs/03/satran.html ''In Gods We Trust''] and Pascal Boyer's [http://hanson.gmu.edu/religion.html ''Religion Explained'']. However, there is no [[irony]] here, as Gould explicitly described evolutionary psychology as a potentially fruitful field, if only it moved away from a preoccupation with adaptationism.</ref> Stephen Jay Gould regarded evolutionary psychology as a potentially legitimate field of research, and lamented that it was held in thrall by adaptationist, selection-centred approaches to problems, while actual human behaviour may not have been shaped by selective evolutionary processes.<reF>Gould, S.J. (2002) The Structure of Evolutionary Theory</ref> EP can and does cross into the territory of hyper-adaptationist, [[PIDOOMA|speculative]], unfalsifiable "just-so stories." A number of concepts, findings, and methodologies in the field have been criticized for being implausible or false by the standards of [[neuroscience]],<ref name="panksepp">Jaak Panksepp and Jules Panksepp. [http://www.flyfishingdevon.co.uk/salmon/year3/psy364-intro-psychobiology/panksepp_seven_sins.pdf The Seven Sins of Evolutionary Psychology.] ''Evolution and Cognition''. 2000, Vol. 6, No. 2.</ref> [[evolutionary biology]],<ref name="bolhuis"/><ref>Robert Lickliter and Hunter Honeycutt. [http://wexler.free.fr/library/files/lickliter%20(2003)%20developmental%20dynamics.%20toward%20a%20biologically%20plausible%20evolutionary%20psychology.pdf Developmental Dynamics: Toward a Biologically Plausible Evolutionary Psychology.] ''Psychology Bulletin'', 2003, Vol. 129, No. 6, 819 – 835</ref><ref>Elisabeth A. Lloyd and Marcus Feldman. [http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1449175?uid=3739256&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=47698910654127 Evolutionary Psychology: A View from Evolutionary Biology.] ''Psychological Inquiry'', Vol. 13, No. 2 (2002), pp. 150-156</ref> and [[anthropology]].<ref>C.R. Hallpike. [http://hallpike.com/Some%20anthropological%20objections%20to%20evolutionary%20psychology.pdf Some Anthropological Objections to Evolutionary Psychology.] In ''On Primitive Society: And Other Forbidden Topics'', ch. 10, pp. 214-255.</ref> Application of pop EP ideas, both by pop-science writers such as [[Steven Pinker]]<ref>Simon Blackburn, "Meet The Flintstones" (available online at: http://web.archive.org/web/20130701174918/http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/%7Eswb24/reviews/Pinker.htm)</ref> and by fields outside of traditional EP<ref>Graham Sewell. [http://hum.sagepub.com/content/57/8/923.short Yabba-Dabba-Doo! Evolutionary Psychology and the Rise of Flintstone Psychological Thinking in Organization and Management Studies.] ''Human Relations'', August 2004, vol. 57 no. 8 923-955</ref> have, again, been [[snark]]ily referred to as "''Flintstones'' thinking."
#'''EP ignores proximate explanations of psychological phenomena'''. EP attempts to explain proximate explanations provided by cognitive, social, etc. psychology with an ultimate evolutionary explanation. These explanations are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. However, the issue is whether or not the "ultimate evolutionary explanation" is ever necessary to explain observed phenomena to begin with. EP proposals often fail to pass the test of [[Occam's Razor]], failing to establish that EP provides an explanation for data that can't be explained with more mundane approaches.
#'''EP is unfalsifiable'''. In some cases, EP generates explanations for behaviour that cannot be falsified, opening it up to charges of classical pseudoscience. One example is the changing EP explanations for traits such as [[altruism]], in which multiple EP explanations have been put forward to explain the trait. Ground can be shifted between [[group selection]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://bioteaching.com/on-group-selection/ |title=On Group Selection |date=April 13, 2013 |author=Marc Srour}}</ref> [[reciprocal altruism]], sexual selection (mate choice), and kin selection; if one explanation is shown to be inappropriate, the other can be invoked.
#'''EP relies on the assumption of massive modularity'''. EP posits domain-specific modules that are shaped by natural selection to perform a specific task as well as claiming that the brain is composed largely of these modules (hence "massive modularity").<ref>Peter Carruthers. (2006) [http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/pcarruthers/Massive-modularity.pdf The Case for Massively Modular Models of Mind.] In ''The Architecture of the Mind: Massive Modularity and the Flexibility of Thought''.</ref> Critics contend that neuroscientific data does not support massive modularity.<ref name="panksepp"/><ref>David J. Buller and Valerie Gray Hardcastle. [http://www.niu.edu/phil/~buller/publications/_pdf/epmdn.pdf Evolutionary Psychology, Meet Developmental Neurobiology: Against Promiscuous Modularity.] ''Brain and Mind'' 1: 307–325, 2000.</ref><ref>See also the [http://www.iep.utm.edu/fodor/#H7 Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy on Fodorian modularity] and the [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modularity-mind/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Modularity of Mind] for the theoretical differences between types of modularity and arguments concerning them.</ref>

===The media discovers evo psych===
The [[mainstream media]] and [[pop science]] ''love'' evolutionary psychology. In the specific cases or studies brought to the public's attention in newspaper articles, situations are often over-simplified to the point of being plain silly. Even qualified scientists who should know better can sometimes not resist the temptation to attribute ''every'' behavior that is ([[Stereotype|stereotypically]]) associated with a particular [[gender]] in contemporary society is actually the result of something our remote ancestors did to survive on the savannah. In fact, evolutionary psychology, at least in its "popular" incarnation, can be an example of using "science" to imbue just-so stories with an [[Argument from authority|air of credibility]] that actually justifies [[sexism]] and [[Discrimination|discriminatory]] behavior<ref>[http://newstechnica.com/2008/10/23/science-reveals-evolutionary-origins-of-gender-stereotypes/ Science reveals evolutionary origins of gender stereotypes] (parody, but everything except the last two paragraphs is from real news stories)</ref> — or, in a similar vein to [[self projection as god]], can be used to attack sexism and discrimination as an "outdated" relic of bygone times that is no longer relevant in modern society{{fact}}.

An example is a supposed "study"<ref>[http://www.badscience.net/2007/08/pink-pink-pink-pink-pink-moan/ Pink, pink, pink, pink. Pink moan.], [[Bad Science]]</ref> which explains why boys prefer blue and girls prefer pink. In the view of pop-evolutionary psychology, this is because women being gatherers and men being hunters, liking pink was most likely to allow you to find berries so women grew to be attracted to pink. So far, so [[common sense]]; however, the idea completely ignores many established facts (and blueberries). In actuality, colour preferences change from place to place, and even in the [[West]]ern world (where the concept of gender-specific colours is strongest), 100 years ago it was reversed; i.e., the soft colour of blue was associated with the [[Mary (mother of Jesus)|Virgin Mary]], and was thus feminine, while men preferred associations with strong, passionate colours such as red and pink. Another colour that's now seen as feminine, purple, was once associated with the [[Roman Empire]], and with it, was seen as masculine back in the day. Indeed, a purple cloak was part of the Roman Emperor's regalia. To "wear the purple" was a [[euphemism]] for assuming this position, and the word itself became used for royalty in general.

===The curious case of Kevin MacDonald===
Another example of how evolutionary psychology can go in a wrong direction is the work of [[Kevin MacDonald|Kevin B. MacDonald]], who uses evolutionary psychology to explain [[Evil Jew|stereotypical]] [[Jewish]] characteristics as being part of a group evolutionary strategy. His trilogy of books on the subject, especially ''The Culture of Critique'' (1998), has been called [[Antisemitism|anti-Semitic]] for its assertion that Jews gravitate toward politics to promote policies in opposition to the dominant culture. In 1995 he was elected to a six-year term on the executive council of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, but by 2007, he had increasingly associated on a working level with anti-Semitic and [[white nationalist]] groups, causing the California State University at Long Beach, where he is a professor, to publicly distance itself from his views. In 2010, he became the director of the newly-founded American [[Third Position]] political party. His "[[bullshit|theory]]" essentially asserts [[racialism|Jewish biological superiority]], but turns this around and uses it to argue that anti-Semitism is justified as "self-defense."<ref>[http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/kevin-macdonald Kevin MacDonald profile], [[Southern Poverty Law Center]]</ref>

==Other evolutionary approaches==
Although the field explicitly calling itself evolutionary psychology is relatively new, the idea goes back to [[Charles Darwin]]. Darwin's works ''The Descent of Man'' and ''The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals'' included applications of evolutionary thought to psychology. Other evolutionary approaches to human psychology and behavior have variously gone under the names of "sociobiology", "human behavioral ecology", "gene-culture co-evolution", and "human behavior and evolution".<ref>See Kevin N. Laland and Gillian R. Brown's [http://www.acampbell.org.uk/bookreviews/r/laland-brown.html ''Sense and Nonsense''] for a detailed overview.</ref> Some critics have contended that evolutionary psychology is a rebranding of sociobiology.<ref>Val Dusek. [http://human-nature.com/science-as-culture/dusek.html Sociobiology Sanitized: The Evolutionary Psychology and Genic Selectionism Debates.] ''Science as Culture'', Volume 8, Issue 2, 1999</ref> While a number of former sociobiologists have moved into the field of evolutionary psychology, the focus on psychological mechanisms is what distinguishes the two approaches. As Leda Cosmides and John Tooby write: "... in the rush to apply evolutionary insights to a science of human behavior, many researchers have made a conceptual 'wrong turn,' leaving a gap in the evolutionary approach that has limited its effectiveness. This wrong turn has consisted of attempting to apply evolutionary theory directly to the level of manifest behavior, rather than using it as a [[heuristic]] guide for the discovery of innate psychological mechanisms."<ref>Cosmides and Tooby. (1987) [https://www.cep.ucsb.edu/papers/missinglink87.pdf From Evolution to Behavior: Evolutionary Psychology as the Missing Link.] In ''The Latest on the Best Essays In Evolution and Optimality'', ed. John Dupre</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==See also==
*[[Memetics]]
*[[Neuroplasticity]]
*[[Political neuroscience]]
*[[Rape#Evolutionary just-so stories|Rape and pseudoscience]] 
*[[Satoshi Kanazawa]], another example of how ''not'' to do evolutionary psychology

==External links==
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology Criticism of evolutionary psychology] on Wikipedia
*[http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/human-nature-a-humean-take/ Human nature, a Humean take] by [https://sites.google.com/site/platofootnote/ Massimo Pigliucci]
*[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mLL-zCstydEC&lpg=PT6&ots=pNgX9ELtl2&dq=beyond%20Human%20Nature%3A%20How%20Culture%20and%20Experience%20Shape%20Our%20Lives&lr&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false Beyond Human Nature: How Culture and Experience Shape Our Lives] by [http://subcortex.com/ Jesse J. Prinz]
*[http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/steen/cogweb/ep/EP-primer.html Evolutionary psychology: A primer], Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, University of California, Los Angeles
*[http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/evpsychfaq.html Evolutionary psychology FAQ], Edward Hagen, University of California, Santa Barbara
*Jaime Confer et al. [https://web.archive.org/web/20120222053417/https://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/Group/BussLAB/pdffiles/evolutionary_psychology_AP_2010.pdf Evolutionary Psychology: Controversies, Questions, Prospects, and Limitations.] ''American Psychologist'', Feb-Mar 2010
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-psychology/ Evolutionary Psychology in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
*[http://host.uniroma3.it/progetti/kant/field/ep.htm Evolutionary Psychology], David J. Buller, Northern Illinois University
*[https://journals.sagepub.com/home/evp ''Evolutionary Psychology''] open access journal
*[http://www.epjournal.net/blog/ The Evolutionary Psychology blog] by Robert Kurzban
*[http://www.hbes.com/ Human Behavior and Evolution Society]
*[http://www.une.edu/nei/ New England Institute for Cognitive Science and Evolutionary Studies]
*[http://fepsociety.org/ Feminist Evolutionary Psychology Society]
*Scott Atran. [http://www.sitemaker.umich.edu/satran/files/m_l.pdf Adaptationism for Human Cognition: Strong, Spurious or Weak?] ''Mind & Language'', Vol. 20 No. 1 February 2005, pp. 39–67
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/evolutionary-psychology-a_b_220545.html Evolutionary Psychology and the Public Media: Rekindling the Romance], David Sloan Wilson, ''[[Huffington Post]]''
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20071022051133/http://faultline.org/index.php/site/comments/belief_in_evolutionary_psychology_may_be_hardwired_study_says/ Belief in Evolutionary Psychology May Be Hardwired, Study Says], Coyote Crossing
*[http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2237 Evolutionary Psychology Bingo]
*[https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/05/evolutionary-psychology-quiz Take the evolutionary psychology quiz!]
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osEiblC7Itw The Problems with Evolutionary Psychology] P. Z. Myers ''YouTube''

==Sources==
*Barkow, Jerome H., Leda Cosmides, and John Tooby (eds.) [http://books.google.com/books?id=SxX4gRzOS6oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=cosmides+tooby&hl=en&ei=3I7eTo_VH4Pt0gH_4Li9Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=cosmides%20tooby&f=false ''The Adapted Mind'']
*Buller, David J. [http://books.google.com/books?id=dQ5MGDvn8eIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=adapting+minds&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=uY7eTp-3FOTd0QG0roWdBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=adapting%20minds&f=false ''Adapting Minds'']
*Buss, David M. (ed.) [http://books.google.com/books?id=YT4nXpF07YIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=handbook+of+evolutionary+psychology&hl=en&ei=c47eTrn-HObW0QHyqfyRBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false ''The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology'']
*Laland, Kevin N. and Gillian R. Brown. [http://books.google.com/books?id=2KcbFVBSxWYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false ''Sense and Nonsense'']
*Sterelny, Kim, and Julie Fitness (eds.) [http://books.google.com/books?id=EDxVi10kOyIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false ''From Mating to Mentality: Evaluating Evolutionary Psychology'']

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Popular science]]
[[Category:Protoscience]]

Categories: Evolution, Psychology, Popular science, Protoscience