Dr.GH

I am not a genetic determinist, but there are good/important arguments about the "nature" side of the "nature/nurture" argument. I am most definately a mugwump, seeing contributions from both perspectives.

A psych text I use somewhat in my classes is :

http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/twd/pdf/index.html

I particularly like Chapter 7 "The Evolution of Animal Behavior: The Impact of the Darwinian Revolution" from The Things We Do .

The counter argument is most any intro to psych textbook. Because racists, and opposition to racists have so overwhelmed the discussion of the heredibility of behavior, the arguments have become more political (and emotional) than scientific.

The linkage of race and behavior is false. It is invalid. It is harmful. It is shameful. It is NOT science.

The very categories of "race" common socially are known to be invalid biologically.

Read:

http://www.physanth.org/positions/race.html

(There are a few additional links I want to add, but I have family obligations that (Yes dear I am coming!!) that call me away).

Dr Rick

Of course, I wouldn't miss a chance to debate EP with you, again, , but I won't be able to post much more until after the weekend. In the meantime, be careful not to fire to many rounds into your own foot.

In the meantime, let me leave you with this:

Some of EP has been, to quote the late S Gould, a pseudo-scientific "just so" way of explaining human behavior: A human behaviour is observed, a story is constructed by an EP "scientist" about how the behaviour conveys some evolutionary advantage, an analogous behavour is found in some other animal, and the test of the story becomes the observation that prompted it.

Dr. Gould elaborated when he commented on the EP derived concept of differential 'parental investment':

"This principle of differential 'parental investment' makes Darwinian sense and probably does underlie some different, and broadly general, emotional propensities of human males and females. But contrary to claims in a recent deluge of magazine articles, parental investment will not explain the full panoply of supposed sexual differences so dear to pop psychology. For example, I do not believe that members of my gender are willing to rear babies only because clever females beguile us. A man may feel love for a baby because the infant looks so darling and dependent, and because a father sees a bit of himself in his progeny. This feeling need not arise as a specifically selected Darwinian adaptation for my reproductive success, or as the result of a female ruse, culturally imposed. Direct adaptation is only one mode of evolutionary origin. After all, I also have nipples not because I need them, but because women do, and all humans share the same basic pathways of embryological development"

This is the problem that permeates much of EP; an observation is made and then determined to have evolutionary significance even though other plausible explanations exist. That practical and ethical constraints may prevent rigorous testing on human subjects in some situations (ie researchers can't manipulate mate selection in humans just to test an hypothesis) does not mitigate the unscientific nature of much (though not all) of EP.

Here's what Stephen Gould had to say about Wright's The Moral Animal and still more on the science of evolutionary psychology:

"The task of evolutionary psychology then turns into a speculative search for reasons why a behavior that may harm us now must once have originated for adaptive purposes. To take an illustration proposed seriously by Robert Wright in The Moral Animal, a sweet tooth leads to unhealthy obesity today but must have arisen as an adaptation. Wright therefore states:

'The classic example of an adaptation that has outlived its logic is the sweet tooth. Our fondness for sweetness was designed for an environment in which fruit existed but candy didn't'.

This ranks as pure guesswork in the cocktail party mode; Wright presents no neurological evidence of a brain module for sweetness, and no paleontological data about ancestral feeding. This "just-so story" therefore cannot stand as a "classic example of an adaptation" in any sense deserving the name of science.

Much of evolutionary psychology therefore devolves into a search for the so-called EEA, or "environment of evolutionary adaptation" that allegedly prevailed in prehistoric times. Evolutionary psychologists have gained some sophistication in recognizing that they need not postulate current utility to advance a Darwinian argument; but they have made their enterprise even more fatuous by placing their central postulate outside the primary definition of science--for claims about an EEA usually cannot be tested in principle but only subjected to speculation. At least an argument about modern utility can be tested by studying the current impact of a given feature upon reproductive success. Indeed, the disproof of many key sociobiological speculations about current utility pushed evolutionary psychology to the revised tactic of searching for an EEA instead.

But how can we possibly know in detail what small bands of hunter-gatherers did in Africa two million years ago? These ancestors left some tools and bones, and paleoanthropologists can make some ingenious inferences from such evidence. But how can we possibly obtain the key information that would be required to show the validity of adaptive tales about an EEA: relations of kinship, social structures and sizes of groups, different activities of males and females, the roles of religion, symbolizing, storytelling, and a hundred other central aspects of human life that cannot be traced in fossils? We do not even know the original environment of our ancestors--did ancestral humans stay in one region or move about? How did environments vary through years and centuries?

In short, evolutionary psychology is as ultra-Darwinian as any previous behavioral theory in insisting upon adaptive reasons for origin as the key desideratum of the enterprise. But the chief strategy proposed by evolutionary psychologists for identifying adaptation is untestable, and therefore unscientific."

Have a great weekend

Rick

The Lone Ranger

Evolutionary Psychology seems to be one of those areas that incites a very high noise-to-signal ratio. This is due, in part, to some extravagent and poorly-supported claims by those in the pro Evolutionary Psychology camp. However, it's also true that some of the more virulent critics of EP (Gould and Lewontin, in particular) have spent an awful lot of time making spurious (and sometimes downright vicious) attacks upon the characters of their opponents, rather than honestly addressing their claims.

Personally, I was not at all impressed by Not in Our Genes, as it presents a sometimes grotesquely exaggerated picture of what "sociobiology" is all about. Besides, it's rather badly dated now. In any event, sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are somewhat different in their emphases and approaches. Also, Not in Our Genes spends an awful lot of time beating long-dead horses, such as the whole Cyril Burt controversy.

Some of the more virulent critics of EP can be downright irrational in their opposition to it. There's the infamous case of Lewontin citing Karl Marx as an unimpeachable authority on why human behavior is "infinitely malleable," for example.

***

Fortunately, much of the initial furor has died down, and cooler heads seem to be prevailing. Surely, no one seriously claims in this day and age that there is no genetic influence upon behavior? (Some of the proponents of EP would have you believe that those who criticize EP are "environmental determinists" who insist that there is no genetic influence upon human behavior.)

The claim that there are no genetic influences upon human behavior would be an extraordinary claim indeed. Unfortunately, it's difficult to test how behavior might have evolved, to say the least. Accordingly, the field of EP does tend to encourage wild and sometimes poorly-supported speculation. Nevertheless, some interesting and well-supported information about ourselves has been provided -- for example, that people tend to select mates whose MHC proteins differ from their own. It has been pretty-throughly demonstrated that humans (females, in particular, apparently) can use their sense of smell to evaluate how genetically-similar a potential mate is to themselves.

Matt Ridley's writings (especially The Evolution of Virtue) would probably be a good introduction to the field of EP, as he provides a much clearer explanation of possible evolutionary mechanisms and pathways, and is far less prone to "hand-waving" than Pinker is.

Much more technical are the writings of Paul and Patricia Churchland; they're philosophers/neurobiologists who show how Evolutionary Psychologists construct and test alternate hypotheses regarding why certain behaviors might be selectively advantageous.

Cheers,

Michael

Duck!

Interesting. I've read The Red Queen by Matt Ridley and I've just started Genome since I've just finished Pinker's How The Mind Works. If I come across it I might just buy and read The Evolution Of Virtue. I like Ridley's work. Although I can't remember which Ridley (Mark or Matt) is Dawkin's ex-student.

I have Evolution and Mendel's Demon sitting on my shelf yet to read. I can never remember which Ridley wrote which book and which is Dawkin's ex-student.


Duck!

The Lone Ranger

Quote:

In short, evolutionary psychology is as ultra-Darwinian as any previous behavioral theory in insisting upon adaptive reasons for origin as the key desideratum of the enterprise.

Actually, Gould is being more than a little disingenous. He knew, or should have known, that most if not all Evolutionary Psychologists are well-aware that many behavioral patterns -- even if they're genetically-influenced -- are as likely to be exaptations as they are to be adaptations. The Churchills, among others, are quite clear on this in their writings.


The more careful Evolutionary Psychologists are well-aware of the difficulties involved in recognizing true adaptations, and in testing them. Nevertheless, Gould is presenting a standard of proof that would completely invalidate all attempts to infer adaptive value in animal behavior. Ethologists use comparative studies to infer when a particular behavior pattern may have arisen in a lineage. For example, in our lab, we use behaviors to help refine the phylogenetic trees of salamanders. (Perhaps unsurprisingly, the trees we derive from behavioral data correspond extremely well with those derived from anatomical and/or genetic data.)

As for Gould's comments on The Moral Animal, while Wright's book certainly has its flaws, Gould's review of it was such a grotesque characature of what Wright was saying that I actually sent Gould an e-mail asking if he had read the book, since Gould was claiming in his review that Wright had made claims that were diametrically opposed to what Wright was actually claiming.

Anyway, my point is that the Evolutionary Psychology is far from a mature field of study with a clear methodology, and it has its fair share of problems. Nonetheless, the criticisms of some of its more virulent opponents are frequently exaggerated, and sometimes downright dishonest.

Cheers,

Michael

The Lone Ranger

For what it's worth, Mark Ridley is an Oxford zoologist, and a former student of Dawkins. Matt Ridley is a science writer.

I don't know if they're related.

Cheers,

Michael

cricket

Nor can any of you silly menz remember book titles, as it is The Origins of Virtue. I was less thrilled with that one; preferred his Genome and especially The Red Queen and Wright's The Moral Animal.

Don't worry everybody you'll soon have your answers about The Blank Slate -- I just got a copy last night. <pz gnashes teeth>

cricket

They aren't.

The Lone Ranger

Oops, heh heh. I should certainly have known better, given that I've read it. That'll teach me to post without thinking.

Cheers,

Michael

Duck!

Well, I've just started Genome. It's an entertaining read. I just couldn't remember which Ridley is which. I really enjoyed "The Red Queen" which I think is Matt's and I've got "Mendel';s Demon" on my bookshelf which I think is Mark's. I think that Mark is an ex-student of Dawkins and that Mark and Matt aren't related.


Duck!