February 4, 2003
WAR OF THE ROSES:
Evolutionary psychology: "fashionable ideology" or "new foundation"?: A review of Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology edited by Hilary Rose and Steven Rose (Oliver Curry, 28 January, 2003, Human Nature Review )According to modern evolutionary biology, genes build organisms in order to make more copies of themselves. The design of organisms reflects the problems, obstacles and opportunities that genes face on the long road to replication. Biologists use these problems to make predictions about the kinds of 'design solutions' or 'adaptations' of which organisms will be composed. They can then conduct experiments to test for the presence of these adaptations. Conversely, biologists can ask whether a particular trait is an adaptation by asking whether it solves (better than chance) a problem that the organism typically faces. These two processes are sometimes referred to as engineering and reverse-engineering respectively. Engineers start with a problem and try to design a widget that will solve the problem. 'Reverse engineers' start with a widget and try to work out what problem it solves.Evolutionary psychology adopts this "adaptationist" approach when investigating the design of the human mind. Evolutionary psychologists can start with a problem that would have been recurrent in the lives of our ancestors -- such as how to choose fertile mates, or how to maintain cooperative alliances. They then suggest alternative solutions, and design experiments to test for them. For example, using evolutionary theory, comparative data and the ethnographic record, Donald Symons was able to make a number of predictions about the evolved design of human sexual psychology; these predictions were subsequently put to the test and largely confirmed by a survey of 10,000 individuals from 37 different cultures conducted by David Buss. And the process can run in reverse: previously mysterious psychological devices can be illuminated by revealing the function that they are designed to perform. For example, through a series of experiments, a quirk of human psychology -- discovered years earlier on the Wason Selection Task -- was explained by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby as a "cheater-detection mechanism", a device that game theory predicts is necessary for certain forms of cooperation.
Steven Rose seems to accept the basic premise of evolutionary psychology. He writes: "The declared aim of evolutionary psychology is to provide explanations for the patterns of human activity and the forms of organisation of human society which take into account the fact that humans are animals and, like all other currently living organisms, are the present-day products of some four billion years of evolution. So far so good." Rose continues: "Because humans are as subject as any other organism to evolutionary processes, we should therefore expect to find such adaptations among our own kind just as much as amongst the others that we study. Individual aspects of being human -- from our body shape to our eyes and capacity for binocular vision -- are clearly evolved features and fit us to the environment in which we live."
However, the Roses object to using this adaptationist approach to illuminate the psychological mechanisms that underpin human social behaviour. This is because, the Roses claim, not enough is known about the conditions under which our ancestors evolved to make claims about the problems that they faced, or to test whether or not particular features of human psychology are adaptations. The Roses also claim that the period of pre-history that evolutionary psychologists focus upon -- the Pleistocene or 'Stone Age' -- is the wrong one because there has been sufficient time since the end of the Pleistocene for significant evolutionary change in the design of the human mind. In addition, the Roses argue that evolutionary psychology's claims about universal features of human social psychology are contradicted by cultural and historical variability, and neglect the role of emotion in human mental life. Finally, the Roses use Daly and Wilson's research on step-parents to exemplify what they see as the empirical short-comings of evolutionary psychology. This review will look at each of these 'arguments against evolutionary psychology' in turn.
Arguments between evolutionists about evolutionary psychology are especially enjoyable for evolution skeptics. The claims made by evolutionary psychologists are so obviously nonsensical* or repellant (or both) that even many evolutionary biologists are unable to accept them. Thus, it was his opposition to evolutionary psychology--fueled by a recognition that it did things like justify the Holocaust as merely a natural function of selfish genes--that destroyed his credibility with the hard-core Darwinians. Apostasy from evolutionary dogma is bad enough in itself, but what really places folks like the Roses and Gould beyond the Pale is that they, inevitably, end up relying on the arguments of those who are skeptical of evolution in general. They reach for a scalpel but grab a sledgehammer.
So, if we look at the Roses' case, they argue: there is an insufficient evidentiary record to demonstrate that adaptations served useful purposes; that Man has had time to evolve beyond the proposed "adaptation" but hasn't; that the lack of universality in supposed adaptations suggests that something more than uniform and purely natural forces was at work; and that the studies upon which evolutionary psychology rests are subject to equally plausible alternative explanations. This is obviously dangerous territory because each of these objections is raised against all of evolutionary theory. So, if the opponents of evolutionary psychology are right, it tends to weaken the whole structure of evolution, not just undermine its shakiest addition. The most unfortunate effect of this is that those opponents of evolutionary psychology who hope to maintain the rest of Darwinism intact are necessarily less intellectually honest and vehement in their arguments than they might be if they were willing to be broadly skeptical. That they win these debates even arguing with one hand effectively tied behind their backs suggests just how weak is the opposing side.
————————--
*For example, take a look at the bolded sentence in the review. If fertility and reproduction are the be all and end all then how explain women waiting until they are in their mid to late 30s to breed these days? How explain abortion and falling family size? It's a curious kind of biological/psychological imperative that can't overcome the pro-choice movement. As for cooperative alliances--how explain that most murders occur between family members, Civil Wars, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., etc., etc...?
MORE:
-ARCHIVES: Science in Christian Context: Issues related to Human Nature
Evolutionary Psychology and Its True Believers. (Andrew Ferguson, March 19, 2001, Weekly Standard)
The first sentence you copy is incorrect,
as least for darwinian evolutionists.
Not merely incorrect, but as wildly incoherent
as your made-up darwinism, Orrin.
As Mayr never tires of saying, the modern
synthesis of darwinism is based on the
concept of "population thinking." Dawkins
is a heretic on this matter; he is not a
darwinian, even if he thinks he is and you
think he is.
If a supposed physicist explained that
smoke rises because it aspires to the godhead
-- as Christian physicists actually did say for
centuries -- we would (at least, I would)
consign him to the foil hat crowd and move
along.
The Roses stand in exactly the same
relation to real darwinism.
Geez, even you agree it's a crock now?
Posted by: oj at February 4, 2003 11:26 PMEngineers start with a problem and try to design a widget that will solve the problem. 'Reverse engineers' start with a widget and try to work out what problem it solves.
This definition is wrong. Reverse engineering is taking an existing product and figuring out how it solves a problem. The problem is known, how it comes up with its solution to that problem is what you are trying to discover.
I have never endorsed evolutionary psychology, Orrin, though I cannot exclude an evolutionary component.
But I deprecate the extreme stance, since I endorse free will.
Above a primitive level, genes cannot code for complicated behaviors. You posted about homosexual behavior. Genes certainly code for sex drive. That they coded for my taste for women with long, black hair is improbable.
Harry:
Of course evolutionary psychology is a logical consequence of Darwinism, but no one who believes in free will can accept it. You just need to be as skeptical about your faith as you are about that of others.
Evolutionary psychology would be a logical consequence if evolution worked in both a continuous fashion. That is, it starts with bacteria and gradually, continually, shapes and forms a man. This isn't what happens, though. It operates on a boom and bust cycle. Species and genii suddenly appear, and they just as quickly disappear. There's no mechanical continuity to it. It's more a case of succeeding discrete events.
Psychology, likewise, doesn't operate on mechanical (logical) principles. We do things for a number of reasons that often defy rational self-interest. It isn't a case of input "x" and you're sure to every time get "y" as a result. In fact, you almost never, ever get "y" as a result.
There is, however, a degree of predictability on a more mass scale because probability can be tested, recorded and employed. But even then, surprises abound.
In short, I don't think "logical consequences," in the dialectic sense that you use the phrase, have much to do with how biology or psychology actually work in the real world.
Derek:
The theories aren't logical but to espouse the first is to imply the latter.
Derek -
Re: "Psychology, likewise, doesn't operate on mechanical (logical) principles. We do things for a number of reasons that often defy rational self-interest. It isn't a case of input "x" and you're sure to every time get "y" as a result. In fact, you almost never, ever get "y" as a result. "
Stephen Wolfram essentially argued against natural selection in general in his great, stinking, slag-heap of a book A New Kind of Science
using just the argument you presented (essentially, replace the word 'psychology' with 'natural selection' and you have a summary of his skepticism). I am not sure you which you will be, proud or offended!
Orrin,
Evolution is not intended to work like a physical law, like say Newton's laws of dynamics. It's an attempt to inductively (looking backwards) explain how life got the way it is based on the evidence we have.
Darwin's idea of a progressive chain is obviously dead as a doornail because the fossil records tell us that didn't happen. What we have instead are inexplicable busts and booms. Maybe God did it, or maybe something in our code did it. I'm literally an agnostic on the issue. It doesn't matter. The point is, evolution doesn't behave in a manner we humans can replicate at will, which means it not something you play the "logical consequences" game with, as the Roses seem to be attempting.
Bruce,
I haven't read Wolfram's book, so I'll reserve offense.
As far as natural selection goes, the problem is, we really don't know what is "natural" for nature to select. The Eugenicists of the early twentieth-century like to emphasis intelligence, but I don't think they ever thought about what a society of Aristotles would be like. (H.L. Mencken poked fun of them on this point).
Is there a natural selection? I suppose so: the fossil records prove nature has done quite a bit of "selecting" in the past. On what basis? We'll never really know because Nature and life itself are far too complex for us to ever master all the variables. As soon as we decide on x, the situation changes, and we're dealing with y. As far as I can tell no real rhyme or reason has been determined.
Derek:
However, the notion that Man can overcome the dynamics of natural selection by mere exercise of free will would put paid to Darwinism. You can't have both a massive force that has relentlessly shaped the form of all life in the universe and human freedom.
The Wolfram book is terrific.
Posted by: oj at February 5, 2003 7:59 PMOJ:
You stated "*For example, take a look at the bolded sentence in the review. If fertility and reproduction are the be all and end all then how explain women waiting until they are in their mid to late 30s to breed these days? How explain abortion and falling family size?"
Keep in mind your conclusions are based on your extremely simplistic premise.
I highly recommend the book "Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection" by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy. (No, that's not a typo.)
It offers a very nuanced discussion of just the topics in the post: evolution, evolutionary psychology, and the competing considerations women have to keep in mind.
Respectfully,
Jeff Guinn
Jeff:
That's the point. If they consider and keep things in mind then it's not natural selection but intelligent choice.
Natural selection is measured by differential
reproductive success, and nothing else.
It helps to have an idea what caused the
difference, but not necessary to darwinism.
The difference is, and you go from there.
If Orrin will not accept that life is sufficiently
different from non-life to require a different
method of thinking about it (what Mayr
calls population thinking), then no amount
of back and forth will budge him.
Use the wrong tools, get the wrong answer.
In fact, though, we do understand pretty
well some strategies for reproductive
success, and they are beyond the craziest
imaginings of the freest thinkers.
The male right whale is essentially all
testicles, for the purpose of making
bathtubfuls of sperm, to wash out the
sperm of the male that previously mated
with the female. Best hung wins.