Anyone here familiar with evolutionary psychology?

[Tobin S.]

I've been reading a book called "The Moral Animal: Why we are the way we are. The new science of evolutionary psychology" By Robert Wright. It was published in 1994. I find it intensely interesting and it is the first book that I've read on the subject.

But I was thinking that since it was published 18 years ago, when the science was in its early stages, that there are probably some more advancements made in the theories and that maybe you could point me in the direction of some other good books on the subject. Also, feel free to give your thoughts on the subject here.

[Turbineguy]

1. It seems it's possible to evolve

in a backwards direction. Look at the Teaparty.

Either that or Fox News really does turn a human brain to pus.

[Tobin S.]

3. I guess some of us are more evolved than others

It might be true that there is no greater catalyst for evolution in our current state than education. But I guess that would be a different kind of evolution than Mother Nature. But she did give us the ability to learn.

[Neoma]

17. That's more of a failure in education.

[applegrove]

2. I've had many psychological experiences which were primeval in nature. So I can

guess at how interesting a book on that subject would be but I've never come across one.

[Tobin S.]

4. Someone sent me a PM saying that evolutionary psychology does have its critics

Particularly from some feminists. If s/he comes along to post in this thread maybe we can go over what we said in private and add to the conversation.

But s/he made a good point in that I should check out the detractors as well as the promoters. I have not yet finished the book, but when I do I'll start looking at other points of view to get another perspective.

[Odin2005]

9. My big issue with Evo-Psych is unfalsifiable "just-so" stories.

80 years ago the great American vertebrate paleontologist Alfred Romer hypothesized that amphibians evolved from lobe-fined fish that lived in lakes and rivers in drought-prone areas, and this was taken as fact for decades even though there was no evidence for it. Decades later, with the discovery of Acanthostega, it was found that the first amphibians lived in wet climates and spent most of their time in the water, like some living salamanders.

A lot of Evolutionary Psychology's hypotheses are like that. Many are based on the hunches, assumptions, and conventional wisdom of scientists with little empirical evidence.

[Tobin S.]

10. Much of the book I'm reading is speculation

It's the educated guess kind of speculation, but speculation just the same. But the book was published 18 years ago, and it is my first my first exposure to many of the ideas presented in it. The science was in its infancy then and I would think that in the last couple of decades many experiments would have been done to test some of the hypotheses.

[mopinko]

5. that book changed the way i saw humans in a very, very large way.

it's late, but i promise to post more tomorrow.
very, very interesting topic that throws freud out the window.

[Tobin S.]

8. I look forward to your response

I'm about 2/3 of the way through the book. Hopefully I will have learned enough by the time you reply to respond intelligently.

[laconicsax]

6. Evolutionary psychology has two main groups:

The first, which is legit, uses evolutionary theory to try and determine the origins and adaptive advantages of various aspects of human psychology.

The second, which isnmuch mote popular with the media, does the same thing to prove that various societal bigotries (racism, misogyny, etc.) are only 'natural' and shouldn't be fought.

It really goes from studies determining that depression may have adaptive advantages and that's why so many people suffer from it to people on TV arguing that it's human nature to prefer stick-thin women with huge boobs and distrust black people.

[Tobin S.]

7. The book I'm reading falls into the first category

But I can see how some information in it could be used to promote the second category if it is read dishonestly and/or inaccurately.

I think an important understanding regarding the theories is that if they are true it doesn't mean that we have to behave in the ways that genes or natural selection "want" us to. We are free to a certain degree to make choices about our lives and can choose not to be wholly driven by basic desires. But it seems to me that we do have to recognize those desires in us and how they influence our thoughts, emotions, and behavior, and bring it into conscious awareness.

[mopinko]

11. the biggest thing that i walked away with was

that altruism is risky. a child must grow in a nourished environment in order to grow up to be someone who trusts and can be trusted. someone who cares about the "clan" as a whole.
the flip side of that is that altruism in the face of privation is stupid. it is a real threat to survival. it leads me to see some behaviors in children as testing the level of physical and emotional nurturance that is available to them. stealing is the most obvious to me. a child in the midst of a nurturing clan who steal will be seen, and a lesson will be taught. a child in a clan that is struggling will likely not be noticed. for that child the "decision" to hone the skill of stealing makes sense.
so, i see this as the mechanism by which poverty leads to crime. and i see it not as a failure of poor people to live up to some norm, but as people who took the route most likely to lead to their survival. and also as a failure of us all to make sure that all the children in our clan are nourished.

the book talks about, and i believe the science backs up, that the developing brain of a child that is soaked in it's mother's adrenalin, meaning that she is constantly stressed, will divert resources from the areas of higher mental functions to those of the more "brutal" functions. this does not have to be caused by poverty and malnutrition. it can as easily be cause by a mother dealing with difficult life circumstances of any kind- illness in the family, assholes and dysfunction in the family. but certainly lack of adequate nutrition is the biggest of stressors.
a lot of people think i am a little nuts when i say it, but if the government provided that any pregnant woman could have a steak dinner any time she needed it, no questions asked, no forms to fill out, we would raise a generation that would change the world.

[mopinko]

12. i think that the idea that rape and war are "natural" is very offensive to some.

i think this is a bit of a misstatement, but i do think their is something to it. if chimps do it, i think people are wired to do it. and chimps are very violent.
i think that they miss the lesson that fairness, and a loving safety net lead to a different sort of person developing.
i admit that mostly it makes me cynical that people can change once they are adults. perhaps psychiatry will focus on making the brain more malleable, and fixing it, instead of putting bandaids on it.

[Tobin S.]

14. People can change when they are adults

Unfortunately, the catalyst to change is often a traumatic event- but it doesn't have to be.

[laconicsax]

15. The way subjects like that are handled also illustrates the divide in evo psych

It ends up being a difference between:
-Examining rape and violence (not to suggest that one isn't the other) in hominid evolution and discovering possible evolutionary reasons for both.
-Constructing a hypothesis to justify the prevalence of rape and violence as 'only natural.'

[PufPuf23]

16. Have not read the thread yet, but

much has been ignored in 60s, 70s, and 80s psychology exploration..

IMHO psychology is a valid art and science.

Apologists abound.

My experience of 60 years indicates that the professions of psychology/psychiatry are co-opted by dogma and politics/economics.