1. Issues and Benefits of Evolutionary psychology Flashcards Preview

human evolution > 1. Issues and Benefits of Evolutionary psychology > Flashcards

Flashcards in 1. Issues and Benefits of Evolutionary psychology Deck (86)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

what is a pseudo science?

A

a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method

2
Q

what is the goal of EP?

A

The goal of EP is to study human behaviour as the product of evolved psychological mechanisms.

3
Q

what has happened over the past 20 years or so?

A

Over the past 20 or so years evolutionary psychology has emerged as a major theoretical perspective, generating an increasing volume of empirical studies and assuming a larger presence within psychological science

4
Q

but what has EP generated

A

At the same time is has generated many critiques and remains controversial among some psychologists.

5
Q

what issues covered in essay about cons

A

Five principle issues will be covered
- the environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA), massive modularity and EP’s politically incorrect claims, spandrels and concerns of falsifiability

6
Q

what will essay on this attempt to identify?

A

This essay will attempt to identify some of the most common concerns and attempt to elucidate EP’s stance to pertaining them and cover the limitations as well of the benefits of applying an evolutionary framework to studying human psychology and behaviours.

7
Q

quote on EEA and pseudo-science

A

‘The pseudo-science of Evolutionary psychology purports to explain human behaviours by reference to an ancestral environment’ -Tattersall 2001

8
Q

what does the EEA refer to?

A

The environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA) refers to those aspects of the ancestral environment that were relevant to the evolution, development and functioning of an organism’s adaptations- roughly, the environment in which a species evolved and to which it is adapted.

9
Q

who first proposed the EEA?

A

First proposed by Bowlby (1969) it is an essential and logically necessary aspect of the theory of natural selection.

10
Q

what has the EEA been?

A

As the content of EP is almost entirely to be found in the structure of the ancestral environment it is clearly important yet it has been a lightning rod for criticism.

11
Q

who gave a bad definition of the EEA

A

• T&C (1990) definition of the EEA:
– “The EEA is a statistical composite of the adaptation relevant properties of the ancestral environments encountered by members of ancestral populations.”

this is too vague to actually be of use

12
Q

when is the EEA assumed in literature to be?

A

– Assumed often in literature that the EEA is roughly about 250,000 to 10,000 years ago, sometime in the Pleistocene.

13
Q

researchers who gave typical controversial opinion of the EEA.

A

• “the human brain may have difficulty comprehending and dealing with entities and situations that did not exist in the ancestral environment, roughly the African savanna during the Pleistocene Epoch.“
Li & Kanazawa (2016)- evidence of how the EEA is typically seen.

14
Q

what is the issue of the EEA

A

False idea of statis since Pleistocene

We didn’t have one area of where we lived there was no one direct environment thus psychologists who seem to claim that this is the case are inherently wrong. - Homo erectus lived from the south of Africa to the north, southern Europe, southern Asia- a huge global expanse

Homo-erectus interbred with homo-sapiens so their evolutionary adaptations would have influenced ours.

Clearly we are missing something- homo erectus – know they cared for people who were injured so they were engaging in complex human like behaviours and living in a wide area of ecological conditions.

15
Q

Skeptics that past is knowable

A

). Yet when it comes to the selection pressures that shaped the brain, some are skeptical that the past is knowable (e.g., Ahouse and Berwick 1998).

16
Q

support for using the EEA and who argued

A

Hargen (1998)- argues that too much emphasis has been placed on the differences between the EEA and our current environment- or the differences that have occurred. He argues that if a species diverges too rapidly and too far from its EEA then quite simply it will go extinct. The human species is clearly not going extinct; hence the common belief that EP claims humans currently live in an entirely novel environment is incorrect. Most aspects of the modern environment closely resemble our EEA. Pain, illness, friendship, status, mating, parenting, pregnancy all work in modern society- evidence that we have not diverged from the EEA quite as much as some would say.

No one would dispute that our lungs evolved in an oxygen atmosphere (the lung EEA) nor that our immune system evolved in response to pathogens (the immune system EEA).

17
Q

what is a common misconception about the EEA

A

It is a common misconception that the EEA refers to aspects of the past that differ from the present, when it actually refers the aspects of the past whether or not they correspond to aspects of the present.

18
Q

what do we know about the EEA

A

We know that in the EEA women got pregnant and men did not. This single fact is the basis for perhaps three-quarters or more of all EP research.

The past, however, was much like the present. Physics was the same. Chemistry was the same. Geography, at an abstract level, was much the same—there were rivers, lakes, hills, valleys, cliffs, and caves. Ecology, at an abstract level, was also much the same—there were plants, animals, pathogens, trees, forests, predators, prey, insects, birds, spiders, and snakes. Virtually all biological facts were the same. There were two sexes, parents, children, brothers, sisters, people of all ages, and close and distant relatives

19
Q

what should EP remain cautious of in terms of the EEA

A

The fact remains that EP needs to remain highly cautious not to assume that the EEA was in one place at one time- and perhaps move away from the definition of the EEA as such- instead- it may be better to focus on a list of known evolutionary histories that we know we’re occurrences for all humans and make sure to point out that other issues such as what culture was like or what food humans ate is very unknown.

20
Q

what don’t we possess about the EEA

A

Don’t possess records of mullions of past years that would reveal in precise detail all of the selective events over millions of years that have led to the current design of the human body and mind.

21
Q

what other ways can we know about the EEA

A

Evolutionary psychologists also use evidence from anthropology, archaeology, primatology, comparative biology and ethology to elucidate some aspects of an otherwise scientifically uncertain ancestral past.
Can use many sources of evidence e.g. human remans and cave paintings- which as cumulative findings yield reasonable inferences about our ancestral past that we can be relatively sure about (Buss, 2008)

22
Q

what will EP always be limited in in terms of knowledge about past selection pressures?

A

Although convergent evidence from independent data sources yields especially reasonable inferences about some past selection pressures, evolutionary psychology and indeed the entire field of psychology will always be limited by an incomplete knowledge of past selection pressures.

(or until the advent of time tra

23
Q

what may the EEA uncertainties also have led to?

A

Unwarranted reliance on hunter-gathered models

24
Q

what is important to remember about HG groups?

A
  • Modern HG are not in a time capsule- can’t say that Hazda for example are the same as early homo-sapiens because they are not.
  • What’s so strange about HG groups now…? In most cases to be a HG you have to be isolated to begin with or would have been pulled into historical transformations. Also some have gone back to hunter-gathering so haven’t always been hunter gatherers.
  • They are not homogenous
25
Q

what is a gap that fills the space between two necessary things?

A

Spandrel

26
Q

who came up with the name spandrels and how

A

Gould and Lewontin (1979) observed that many organism ‘traits’ are not adaptations but simply incidental by products of other structures terming them spandrels.

27
Q

what is the idea behind spandrels?

A

The idea that an organism’s traits may be erroneously identified as adaptations. If spandrels and adaptations were difficult or impossible to distinguish , this would undermine claims that true adaptations have been found.

• Basic assumption that we shouldn’t assume everything is adaptive is valid.

28
Q

who argued that many things we see are just side effects and what e.g.’s did they use

A

• Gould argued that we think many things have evolved but really they are just the way they are e.g. bones are made of calcium them being white is just a side efect. g. Argued the female orgasm was a spandrel. Selection of male orgasm across many species as essential component of reproduction argued that female orgasm is non-functional and has evolved because the structure is needed to make a male orgasm happen (don’t agree lots of work on benefits of female orgasm)

29
Q

evidence that spandrels exist

A

Can get behaviours that look adaptive and useful that still aren’t adaptations- if you put live and dead ants in a petri dish- then live ants move dead ants into piles called “corpse aggregation”- clears out nest supprosdly but….
Pfeiffer, 1996- can create the same outcome in a very different way- robot with two sensors front left and front right telling it where things are like an ant cant see well straight ahead of them- rule is to avoid obsticles- means that anything in middle gets pushed around- set them going and the same outcome happens as ants where blocks are moved into piles. Can get exactly the same behavioral outcome using a very simple set of decision rules that have no direct link to the supposed outcome that has been put forward as to why we see the pattern in ants.

30
Q

whose criticisms mimic the issues of the ant and robot findings, what did they compare ET to and what other criticism did they make?

A

Gould & Lewontin who postured that the explanations that adaptionists gave for traits were analogous to Rudyard Kipling’s Just So Stories (outlandish explanations as to why the elephant got its trunk). Criticised the acceptance of stories without sufficient empirical evidence.
They made two important epistemological criticisms of the story telling of adaptationists:
1) often use inappropriate evidentiary standards for identifying adaptations and their functions.
2) Often fail to consider alternative hypotheses to adaption.

31
Q

from Gould and Lewontin’s first issue what has now become a key issue to EP

A

Frequent criticism is that theories and assumptions of EP are not falsifiable

32
Q

what example can you use in the case of hypotheses not being falsifiable

A

The example of Rape (Thornhill and Palmer, 2000; Thornhill and Thornhill, 1990)

33
Q

what is the theory of rape and who by

A
  • Theory asserts that human social behaviour is guided by specific evolved predispositions that were selected because they increased reproductive success.
  • An instance of this is the idea that men have a predisposition to engage in rape behaviour towards women because this leads to an increase in their RS (Thornhill and Palmer, 2000)
34
Q

how was the theory of rape tested?

A

• In a test of this theory Thornhill and Thornhill (1990) hypothesised and found that rape victims are more concentrated in those whose age is within the normal span of fertility.

35
Q

but how is the test of rape theory not actually adequate?

A

• But this is not ample evidence to support the theory that is proposed two assumptions would need to be met for the theory to be correct- but neither of these can be falsified

  1. Rape behaviour was a specific target of evolution- because adequate evidence in favour of this is not available nor identifiable, the assumption is not falsifiable.
  2. Rape increases a man’s RS- although this statement is not true in our current society the researchers assert that rape increased RS in human ancestral history- but again is impossible to tested.
36
Q

in rape theory what could be falsified overall and what couldn’t?

A

• Thus, whilst the specific hypothesis that rape will target fertile women can be falsified, the assumptions and thus the theory are not.

37
Q

what is valid in the absence of clearly established background assumptions

A
  • In the absence of clearly valid background assumptions the data they found is open to many explanations.
  • For example younger women could be at a greater chance of rape simply because they are more likely than the very old and very young to engage in activities that increase vulnerability to rape such as being outside their homes in the evening.
38
Q

what is oft the problem with untestable assumptions?

A

above the problem with untestable assumptions is often side-stepped by presuming them to be true.

39
Q

but what have others argued about EP and falsifiability?

A

Others have argued that EP hypotheses are in fact often falsifiable and that indeed throughout the course of EP many hypotheses have been proven false (Confer et al., 2010).

They argue that although EP is a relatively young field, hundreds of empirical studies have been conducted to test a variety of evolutionary psychological hypotheses. Some have been confirmed; others have bene falsified and some have not been subjected to enough empirical tests to render a firm scientific conclusion.

40
Q

what is an example of something that has been proven true through rigorous testing

A

e.g. challenge hypothesis in males- made a number of direct predictions which were found to be true- the basis of this hypothesis is that T effects aggression which has been found to be true but T also has costs- if that is not assumed to be true then would be an issue that faced psychology/ biology as a whole rather than simply EP.

41
Q

what is an e.g. of something that has been proven false

A

For example the kin altruism theory of male homosexuality (Bobrow and Bailey, 2001)

42
Q

what does the kin altruism theory purport?

A

contends that homosexuality is an adaptation that involves a shift among those whose heterosexual mating prospects are not promising from direct mating effort to investing in kin, such as the children of one’s brothers and sisters (Wilson, 1978).

43
Q

what was the test on the kin altruism theory of male homosexuality?

A

In a direct test of this hypothesis, Bobrow and Bailey (2001) used samples of heterosexual and homosexual men matched for age, education, and ethnicity. They assayed generosity toward family members; financial and emotional investment; avuncular tendencies, such as willingness to give gifts or cash to support nieces or nephews; and general feelings of closeness toward genetic relatives. The results proved conclusive—they found no evidence for any of the key predictions made by the kin altruism hypothesis of male homosexuality.

44
Q

subsequent tests on kin altruism theory of male homosexuality

A

Subsequent empirical tests have also failed to support the kin altruism hypothesis, finding no significant differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals in generosity toward kin, general feelings of familiality, or willingness to invest in nieces or nephews (Rahman & Hull, 2005). On the basis of the current empirical evidence, we can conclude that the kin altruism theory of male homosexuality has been refuted.

45
Q

what can we say overall about falsifiability.

A

The key point is that precisely formulated evolutionary psychological hypotheses that yield specific predictions about design features that are not known to exist prior to empirical testing are fully amenable to empirical confirmation and falsification.

46
Q

what do EP hypotheses vary in

A

Evolutionary psychological hypotheses, like those from other theoretical perspectives within psychology, vary in their quality, their precision, and the degree to which they are anchored in well-established theoretical foundations. Sloppy and imprecise evolutionary hypotheses that fail to generate precise predictions deserve scientific criticism.

47
Q

what overall can be said about the “just-so stories claim”?

A

The sometimes reflexive charge that evolutionary psychological hypotheses as a rule are mere “just-so stories,” however, is simply erroneous, as the examples above demonstrate.

48
Q

what would class a phenomena that would be puzzling from an EP perspective?

A

For example those which appear to reduce an individual’s reproductive success, and cannot be explained by mismatches with, or hijacking of, our psychological mechanisms by modern day novel environmental inputs.

49
Q

e.g.s of phenomena that are puzzling and why are they

A

Most obvious is homosexual orientation, which has been called the ‘Darwinian paradox’. Exclusive homosexual orientation defies evolutionary logic since it presumably fails to increase an individuals RS

Another example is suicide- large numbers of people take their own lives each year.

50
Q

has there been support for any Evolutionary hypothesis for homosexuality

A

Although some evolutionary hypotheses have been proposed for explaining homosexuality, none have received empirical support thus far (e.g. Bobrow and Bailey, 2001)

51
Q

some explanation to suicide but then what does this fail to do?

A

Another example is suicide- large numbers of people take their own lives each year. Although suicide has been proposed to be more likely in individuals who have a dramatically reduced ability to contribute to their own reproductive fitness, e.g. relation to ill health, burdensomeness to kin and failure in heterosexual mating were strong predictors of suicidal ideation, ie. if more of a burden on family then they can’t reproduce (Brown et al., 1999). This still fails to explain suicides seen in youth, could be beneficial to overall RF.

52
Q

what can we say these inexplicable phenomenons are?

A

Such suicides are likely to be nonadaptive by-products of evolved mechanisms that malfunction (Wakefield, 2005)

53
Q

what can we say overall about suicide/ homosexuality?

A

Overall, there are puzzling phenomena such as homosexuality and suicide that remain at least somewhat inexplicable on the basis of current EP accounts.

54
Q

intro to socio-political issues of EP quote

A

Thornhill and Palmer (2000) assert that the scientific community must choose between politically motivated views of the biological world and the ‘truth’ of evolutionary psychology.

55
Q

what has led critics to claim that EP is racist and sexist?

A

Examples of underlying assumptions, values, beliefs, ideologies and training influencing all aspects of a research program are numerous in EP.

56
Q

what is an e.g. of inherent sexism in EP (monkeys)

A

e.g. Gannon (2002) points out bonobos are primates whose social sphere is female centred and female dominant. Because the idea of a female centred culture is so foreign and perhaps aversive, to many individuals the bonobo culture is labelled as an aberration ‘it is safe to assume that bonobos started out with male dominance’ (DeWaal and Lanting, 1997)  there are concerns that statements like these are simply reflected of individual ideas regarding sexual hierarchies of males and females.

57
Q

what is an e.g. of inherent sexism in EP?

A

Returning to the example of rape, Thornhill and Thornhill (1992) claim, without supporting research or references that ‘rape is not about a terrifying experience in a women’s lives, but rather a men’s mating strategy’ also arguing that in the context of rape ‘there may be an involved intuition that women lie for their own gain’ (Thornhill and Thornhill, 199) whilst failing to analyse the motivation to lie amongst men faced with a prison sentence.

58
Q

what quote sums up the idea that people don’t like evolutionary explanations for terrible things?

A

‘to propose that (rape) serves some evolutionary function is distasteful and unnecessary’- Henry Gee senior editor at Nature

59
Q

what can have a bias on assumptions in EP?

A

Thus, we see the bias that culture has on these assumptions- and there is a lack to consider one’s own cultural backgrounds in effective analysis.

60
Q

what would EP argue about gender differences?

A

Male and female bodies are profoundly similar in some ways e.g. heart and lungs but profoundly different in others e.g. the difference in sexual organs. Male and female cognitive abilities are likely to be identical in most respects, but differ fundamentally in domains like mating where the sexes have recurrently faced different adaptive problems (Buss, 2004)

61
Q

what would be fears on EP to rape?

A

In the case of issues such as rape also, many fear that providing an evolutionary explanation to these seems to justify it to some degree, and relinquishes blames from those conducting the rape.

62
Q

but what can be argued in defense of morality issues

A

Whist this may be true, it is also clear that whilst these may have evolved evolutionary, humans have also evolved parts of the brain that deal with issues of morality and understandings of what is socially acceptable- thus maybe EP needs to make more clear that we still have free will and choice.

63
Q

what don’t people like the notion of and what do they claim this makes EP?

A

People do not like the notion that phenomenon’s such as rape, homicide, infanticide, war, aggression, infidelity and deception are hardwired into our brains and are genetically evolved adaptions. Thus people argue that Evolutionary psychologists who argue an innate unchangeable nature must be therefore opposed to social or political change, and are merely attempting to scientifically justify the status quo.

64
Q

but what can be said to address claims that EP doesn’t allow socio/ political change

A

if EP predicted that social or political change were impossible, then it would be wrong on its face. The tremendous amount of social and political change over the course of human history is irrefutable.

65
Q

how is the body massively modular?

A

The body is massively modular. It contains thousands of different parts, each with specialized functions. This means that the brain could be massively modular but doesn’t mean that the brain is massively modular.

66
Q

what is modularity of mind?

A

Modularity of mind is the notion that a mind may, at least in part, be composed of innate neural structures or modules which have distinct established evolutionarily developed functions.

67
Q

who first developed the concept of modularity?

A

Fodor (1983) who first developed the concept of cognitive modularity

68
Q

what did Fodor state about modular systems?

A

must—at least to “some interesting extent”—fulfill certain properties:

  1. Domain specificity: modules only operate on certain kinds of inputs—they are specialised
  2. Informational encapsulation: modules need not refer to other psychological systems in order to operate
  3. Obligatory firing: modules process in a mandatory manner
  4. Fast speed: probably due to the fact that they are encapsulated (thereby needing only to consult a restricted database) and mandatory (time need not be wasted in determining whether or not to process incoming input)
  5. Shallow outputs: the output of modules is very simple
  6. Limited accessibility
  7. Characteristic ontogeny: there is a regularity of development
  8. Fixed neural architecture.
69
Q

where did fodor claim modules could be found?

A

In his views modules can be found in peripheral processing such as low-level visual processing but not in central processing

70
Q

how do Evolutionary psychologists instead define modules as?

A

functionally specialized cognitive systems that are domain-specific and may also contain innate knowledge about the class of information processed. Modules can be found also for central processing

71
Q

what is massive modularity?

A

Concept of modularity applied to far more sophisticated behaviours. Have had modules posited as the meanings- known as massive modularity. Fodor was proposing modularity for basic perception as opposed to these sophisticated behaviours.

72
Q

who particularly established massive modularity

A

Other perspectives on modularity come from evolutionary psychology, particularly from the work of Cosmides and Tooby.

73
Q

what does the perspective of massive modularity suggest?

A

This perspective suggests that modules are units of mental processing that evolved in response to selection pressures. On this view, much modern human psychological activity is rooted in adaptations that occurred earlier in human evolution, when natural selection was forming the modern human species.

74
Q

What does Fodor say about massive modularity?

A

in a later book described massive modularity as ‘modularity gone mad’ (Fodor, 2000). If one of modularity’s strongest proponents doesn’t like the massive modularity hypothesis, then there must be something pretty contentious about it.

75
Q

who has identified a key issue with modularity?

A

Gannon 2010- suggested that an issue with proposed massive modularity is that it is not informed by EP’s essential theories but has been used to explain data in conflict with the theories

76
Q

what is an example of massive modularity being used to explain data in conflict with EP theories?

A

E.g. the assumption that reproductive success is the prime motivation for human behaviour is contradicted by the observation that men are not lined up for miles to donate at sperm banks. Evolutionary psychologists explain these data by assuming that the naturally selected modules are informationally encapsulated: since sperm banks were not present in human evolutionary history, they were not part of the evolved adaption. Thus, hypotheses generated by the theories are not falsifiable because contradictory data derived from the current environment are easily dismissed as irrelevant to the hypothesis if not part of the ancestral environment; and we do not know, with any acceptable level of certainty, the conditions of the ancestral environment. T

77
Q

what is modular structure of the brain not defended by?

A

The massively modular organizational structure is defended, not on the basis of evidence, but as a necessary (but untested) assumption for the interpretation of human cognitive function within the EP paradigm.

78
Q

what is another issue with modularity in terms of brain structure?

A

Evidence also suggests that there are no intrinsic, predetermined area maps in either the cortex or the thalamus; instead, both develop their area specializations as a consequence of their inputs and the temporal (‘chronotropic’) dynamics of neural growth.

79
Q

which psychologists argue for plasticity instead and what do they argue?

A

Buller and Hardcastle (2000: 307): . . . while the adult human mind/brain typically contains a degree of modularization, its ‘modules’ are neither genetically specified nor evolutionary adaptations. Rather, they result from the brain’s developmental plasticity, which allows environmental task demands a large role in shaping the brain’s information-processing structures. The brain’s developmental plasticity is our fundamental psychological adaptation, and the ‘modules’ that result from it are adaptive responses to local conditions, not past evolutionary environments.

80
Q

what does Gannon note that discussions about modularity are

A

Gannon 2010- notes though that ‘ the purpose of the discussion above is not to demonstrate that the assumptions underlying EP are false, but rather that there is serious doubt among scholars that the validity of these assumptions can be established.

81
Q

who supports modularity?

A

A 2010 review by evolutionary psychologists Confer et al

82
Q

what is the opposite to modularity?

A

domain general hypothesis

83
Q

what did confer et al., 2010 suggest generally?

A

suggested that domain general theories, such as for “rationality,” has several problems

84
Q

why do confer et al argue for modularity (3 key points)

A

1) Testability- Evolutionary theories using the idea of numerous domain-specific adaptions have produced testable predictions that have been empirically confirmed; the theory of domain-general rational thought has produced no such predictions or confirmations.
2) rapidity– The rapidity of responses such as jealousy due to infidelity indicates a domain-specific dedicated module rather than a general, deliberate, rational calculation of consequences
3) Reactions may occur instinctively (consistent with innate knowledge) even if a person has not learned such knowledge

85
Q

what do confer et al., 2010 give as in intrinsic reaction example

A

One example being that in the ancestral environment it is unlikely that males during development learn that infidelity (usually secret) may cause paternal uncertainty (from observing the phenotypes of children born many months later and making a statistical conclusion from the phenotype dissimilarity to the cuckolded fathers)

86
Q

what are some smaller general criticisms of modularity (three)

A

Some critics have suggested that our genes cannot hold the information to encode the brain and all its assumed modules.[22] Humans share a significant portion of their genome with other species and have corresponding DNA sequences so that the remaining genes must contain instructions for building specialized circuits that are absent in other mammals (Peters and Brad, 2013)
Even within evolutionary psychology there is discussion about the degree of modularity, either as a few generalist modules or as many highly specific modules.
Moreover, critics argue that Cosmides and Tooby’s conclusions contain several inferential errors and that the authors use untested evolutionary assumptions to eliminate rival reasoning theories.[ Lloyd, 2014]