In A Behavioral Problem: Evolutionary Psychology Explains . . . Itself?, I report on this current psychology fad - the effort to explain why men supposedly like to spend big and women supposedly like to shop, by imagining the behaviour that enabled Stone Age man to survive.
The basic idea is that, in the Old Stone Age, selfish genes blindly sought to replicate themselves. If those responsible for the neurons in our brains programmed behavior that caused a cave man to leave many descendants, the drive to procreate became part of our mental equipment. Essentially, little programs like these in our brains cause us to behave the way we do. So the reason we return the lost wallet is not because our minds have made a moral decision, but because our selfish genes have been programmed to do so.
The trouble is, we don't know what behaviour enabled Stone Age man to survive, apart from obvious stuff like feeding one's family rather than killing them. So evolutionary psychology always ends up sounding like contemporary culture.
And why are we surprised? Like the study of extraterrestrial life, it is a discipline without a subject.
The really interesting thing is that many are beginning to ask some sharp questions on this topic:
The key problem with evolutionary psychology emerged from the Decade of the Brain project in the 1990s. The brain is not a series of linked modules; it is a restless sea in a semisolid state, constantly reordering itself, according to the focus of attention provided by the mind. Adapting to one’s environment is constant and normal. Echoes from the past are just that, dimly heard echoes, not prophecies of our behavior today.
Fads in psychology come and go. It is time for this one to go. We can quite easily explain why well-off women like to shop (but poor ones, worldwide, like to bargain) without catching a time machine back to the Stone Age.
Comments
The headline tell us "Lots of thoughtful folk are getting leery" of evolutionary psychology but in making this case Mrs O'Leary only links to articles she wrote, quoting herself. Although many people are leery of evolutionary psychology this article doesn't make the case at all well.
That's because Ms. O'Leary is a faux journalist who rarely actually interviews anyone. Her columns are based on her own prejudices.
Ah yes more wisdom from the World's Greatest Journalist! And what great sources she draws upon...wait a minute...all her sources are from several of her myriads of web sites.
What is amusing though is that O'Leary is always complaining about "just-so" stories, but her own writing is full of them..."poor ones, worldwide, like to bargain". But I guess when you are the World's Greatest Journalist you have liberty to make crap up.
I'm sure she's a nice lady...but this for somebody who likes to go and on about being a "professional journalism" this is rather pathetic writing.
Ah yes more wisdom from the World's Greatest Journalist! And what great sources she draws upon...wait a minute...all her sources are from several of her myriads of web sites.
What is amusing though is that O'Leary is always complaining about "just-so" stories, but her own writing is full of them..."poor ones, worldwide, like to bargain". But I guess when you are the World's Greatest Journalist you have liberty to make crap up.
I'm sure she's a nice lady...but this for somebody who likes to go and on about being a "professional journalism" this is rather pathetic writing.
Lots of thoughtful people? Neither of the quotes are attributed and all of the links point to O'Leary's other web sites? Lots of people? Or just one maybe?
This is very poor journalism!
It seems there is prejudice on both sides. Those on the evo side have no desire to admit that they just don't know. Why does the brain do this? Dunno. What happened back then? Dunno. But can we admit our ignorance? Only under the banner of "evolutionary" this-or-that.
Religion, it seems, isn't only for the Christians out there...
This is typical O'leary hyperbole. She breathlessly makes some grandiose claim in the title of her pieces (e.g., "Darwinism is Dead!!!!"), but then completely fails to substantiate the claim in the article itself. This example is no different. I do agree that evo psych certainly is a speculative science and probably has a long way to go, but what's wrong with that (after all isn't ID really nothing but pure speculation?)
If you can't deal with the message, attack the messenger.
"If you can't deal with the message, attack the messenger."
The trouble is though, what is the message? I'm not even exactly sure why O'Leary is saying, since she is apparently too lazy to even attribute her quotes. She lefts a couple of quotes from out of nowhere, gives us no references so we cannot read them in context or understand their source.
The message might be very good, but in this case the messenger has done a lousy job delivering that message. I think ID deserves better than this.
The message I believe she wanted to get across to those working in evolutionary psychology was:
"How do YOU know? Where you THERE?!?"
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!