Evolutionary psychology has long been debated as to whether it is true science or a set of theories and ideas that seem likely but lack support. Supporters of Evolutionary Psychology base their ideas upon our prehistoric past of which very little is known. It is difficult to arrive upon correct conclusions when the foundation of the theory is based upon conjectures rather than fact. In an article written by Jeremy Freese, Chair of the department of sociology at Northwestern University, explains that evolutionary psychologist often combine "psychological focus with vaulting ambition to make larger claims." A theory that is already on a frail foundation should not be used to make stretched conclusions. There is a substantial portion of scientists that wish to strike down evolutionary psychology, but they wish to strike it down for the wrong reasons. They are against EP because it goes against long standing traditional belief, but it should be struck down because it does not stand up to scientific testing. Many of the theories arising out of Evolutionary Psychology that can be tested do not give the results they predict. Two examples of this are the implications of birth order study, and the Trivers-Willard hypothesis. The birth order theory states that the oldest of the siblings will be the most conservative and ambitious of the siblings. The Trivers-Willard hypothesis states that affluent families favor the sons while an impoverished family will favor the daughters. Surveys conducted on both of these theories demonstrated that there is no correlation of proposed variables. Evolutionary Psychology cannot be considered scientific if models developed from it fail to predict outcomes.
Additionally, evolutionary psychologist commonly argue that "the modern environment has not existed long enough to have significantly impacted the mind's design." Thus, we are currently living with "prehistoric" minds that are aptly modeled with EP. This begs the question of where are we going? The development of technology is only accelerating which implies that our minds will only fall further and further behind. Will this eventually lead us to a point where our minds can no longer interact with the world around us? I doubt it. Evolutionary Psychology does not properly account for the other forces that mold and drive our minds.
Reference: "Evolutionary Psychology: new science or the same old storytelling?" by Jeremy Freese.
I have to disagree with your assertion that our anachronistic brains are proof against EP. I don't believe that any scientists would argue that society will outgrow, so to speak, out brains, because society is a product of our minds and is therefore similarly limited. Although some EP theories don't directly address social constructions, those same constructions are a product of our physical minds, which are themselves shaped by evolution.
ReplyDelete