jhkim (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} jhkim) wrote,@ 2008-04-16 23:57:00 |
|
Evolutionary Psychology
So I ger very annoyed by evolutionary psychology. I see it pretty regularly, sometimes in jest thankfully, but more often than not completely serious. As far as I have seen, the field is completely unscientific, and primarily exists to spout conservative politics. Some recent examples would be in Mighty Ponygirl's "Science explains why men like games more than women" or Jonathan Tweet's "gender and gaming".
Just to be clear: there is no psychological data on the ancestors of humanity. So instead, evolutionary psychologists make up evolutionary explanations for observed psychological trends in modern humans. Essentially, this means picking trends that they like, and then spinning them as genetically essential rather than environmental or cultural. For that matter, nearly all of the studies cited aren't even cross-cultural. In practice, it is vanishingly rare for a psychological study to be done in different countries at all, let alone in significantly different cultures.
What is particularly notable is that despite massive and obvious cultural differences between men and women -- such as clothing, make-up, and body language -- any subtle difference that can only be seen through extensive statistics is spun to be purely genetic. So if, say, female college students show a statistical difference in how they talk or how they write from male counterparts, it is taken to be a revelation calling for a purely genetic explanation.
The "Hunting Instinct"
As one example of evolutionary logic, I regularly hear about how "hunting instincts" differentiate men from women. For example, Jonathan Tweet's recent blog post suggested that men were "evolved to enjoy hunting and warfare". Similarly, this mega-thread on theRPGsite featured someone claiming that gender differences were explained by men being "bred for hunting and lifting".
In general, modern humans do not seem well adapted to hunting. Up through Homo Habilis, there is no evidence that we hunted at all. Homo Habilis was prey to larger predators, and they had tools for cutting meat but not for stabbing or clubbing prey. There are few indications of physical adaptations for hunting after Homo Habilis. So it is questionable to me how much mental adaptation for hunting we have -- i.e. how deeply ingrained our "hunting instincts" are.
Further, if hunting were a primary point of the male/female split, we might expect to see sexual dimorphism increase after we started hunting. However, actually the opposite happens. The sexes became more similar in size after we begin hunting (around the time of Homo Erectus, approximately 1.8 million years ago).
So while some hunting instincts are within possibility, I think the tendency to assume them is overblown.
The Moving Bar
Anti-feminists throughout the past decades have constantly pointing to whatever the current conditions are as a genetically-determined reality. For example, the lack of women authors and doctors was often cited as evidence that women were genetically unfit for those professions. These days, that is rarely held.
Now, of course, there are real genetic differences between men and women. Some are obvious, and some are less so. However, no one actually grows up under scientifically controlled conditions, and the population differences are subject to a host of environmental and/or cultural influences.
I certainly believe that there are a host of genetic differences between men and women, and I believe in evolution. However, I don't think that any specific difference between modern men and women is "proven" to be purely genetic by supplying an unproveable evolutionary explanation.
P.S. For some more evolutionary psychology annoyances, here are some articles that have galled me over time:
So I ger very annoyed by evolutionary psychology. I see it pretty regularly, sometimes in jest thankfully, but more often than not completely serious. As far as I have seen, the field is completely unscientific, and primarily exists to spout conservative politics. Some recent examples would be in Mighty Ponygirl's "Science explains why men like games more than women" or Jonathan Tweet's "gender and gaming".
Just to be clear: there is no psychological data on the ancestors of humanity. So instead, evolutionary psychologists make up evolutionary explanations for observed psychological trends in modern humans. Essentially, this means picking trends that they like, and then spinning them as genetically essential rather than environmental or cultural. For that matter, nearly all of the studies cited aren't even cross-cultural. In practice, it is vanishingly rare for a psychological study to be done in different countries at all, let alone in significantly different cultures.
What is particularly notable is that despite massive and obvious cultural differences between men and women -- such as clothing, make-up, and body language -- any subtle difference that can only be seen through extensive statistics is spun to be purely genetic. So if, say, female college students show a statistical difference in how they talk or how they write from male counterparts, it is taken to be a revelation calling for a purely genetic explanation.
The "Hunting Instinct"
As one example of evolutionary logic, I regularly hear about how "hunting instincts" differentiate men from women. For example, Jonathan Tweet's recent blog post suggested that men were "evolved to enjoy hunting and warfare". Similarly, this mega-thread on theRPGsite featured someone claiming that gender differences were explained by men being "bred for hunting and lifting".
In general, modern humans do not seem well adapted to hunting. Up through Homo Habilis, there is no evidence that we hunted at all. Homo Habilis was prey to larger predators, and they had tools for cutting meat but not for stabbing or clubbing prey. There are few indications of physical adaptations for hunting after Homo Habilis. So it is questionable to me how much mental adaptation for hunting we have -- i.e. how deeply ingrained our "hunting instincts" are.
Further, if hunting were a primary point of the male/female split, we might expect to see sexual dimorphism increase after we started hunting. However, actually the opposite happens. The sexes became more similar in size after we begin hunting (around the time of Homo Erectus, approximately 1.8 million years ago).
So while some hunting instincts are within possibility, I think the tendency to assume them is overblown.
The Moving Bar
Anti-feminists throughout the past decades have constantly pointing to whatever the current conditions are as a genetically-determined reality. For example, the lack of women authors and doctors was often cited as evidence that women were genetically unfit for those professions. These days, that is rarely held.
Now, of course, there are real genetic differences between men and women. Some are obvious, and some are less so. However, no one actually grows up under scientifically controlled conditions, and the population differences are subject to a host of environmental and/or cultural influences.
I certainly believe that there are a host of genetic differences between men and women, and I believe in evolution. However, I don't think that any specific difference between modern men and women is "proven" to be purely genetic by supplying an unproveable evolutionary explanation.
P.S. For some more evolutionary psychology annoyances, here are some articles that have galled me over time:
