A set of psychological theories that emphasize the adapted nature of the mind. The really big movers in this school of psychological thought are are Leda Cosmides and John Tooby; it's also allied with the Cognitive Science crowd, and of course all of those "hip" modern day evolutionists (lots of Richard Dawkins' _The Selfish Gene_ shows up in evolutionary psychology.)

Essentially, a comprehensive theory of everything in psychology, just like Freud's stuff, Skinner's stuff, etc.. an

Traditionally, in pre-rational times, each human being believed that the customs and taboos of his or her village were ordained by God, and that the heretics in the next village (who did everything differently) were going straight to Hell (or their crops will fail, or the Moon Goddess will bite their ass in battle, or whatever).

Nowadays, modern science has enabled us to replace this superstitious nonsense with something that has an -ology on the end.

Now we know that the customs and taboos of our village were ordained by evolution instead! The heretics in the next village have been dealt with by not mentioning them when we publish. That's outside the scope of the present investigation, guys! No fair bringing it up.

This is called "progress".

A far more scientific and mathematical way of looking at morality and anthropology. If you accept: (a)The theory of Evolution, (b)that psychological traits can be inherited, and (c)and that a persons mind set effects their chances of reproducing; then you have little room to disagree with the basic idea of evolutionary psychology - "A populations fundamental psychological (including moral) traits are a result of evolutionary pressure".(ie. Not some fundamental moral code.)
This offers rational and beautifully logical reasons for why things are the way they are. Morals, taboos, and human drives in general are explained without need for such banalities as "good and evil, right and wrong". People are the way they are, because certain psychological traits were more beneficial to our ancestors living on the grassy plains thousands of years ago.
Like the rest of evolutionary theory,it is just a theory, but even if it's wrong, it's elegance is stunningly beautiful,and is based on the ideas of emergent complexity. Oh ya, it also wipes the floor with creationism.

A good idea taken too far. Yes, psychological tendancies can be inherited, yes, they do affect your chances of mating, and yes, mainstream psychological theory glosses over this. However, most evolutionary psychologists seem to focus more on replacing current theory completely than supplementing it. As a result, a good idea gets seen as bullshit, partially because it fails to take environment into account, but mostly because its proponents are too caught up in their "revolution" to acknowledge the work of anyone outside of their own particular specialty.














  • Center for Evolutionary Psychology -
  • Francis F. Steen Cognitive Adaptations, 1998 -
  • Dr. C.A.P. Kenyon Evolutionary Psychology, 2000 -

Evolutionary Psychology is a um scientific theory that simply states: genes control (complex) social behavior. This theory probably has more to do with social beliefs of "western civilization" then with any type of scientific evidence. But rather than a social critique, I will explain some of the missing links in the Genes -> Social Behavior chain.

Now, between a gene and a behavior there are a number of steps: they are:

  1. Gene transcribes to Protein.
  2. Protein performs function in a neuron.
  3. Neuron function defines functional region of the brain.
  4. Functional region of the brain performs cognitive function.
  5. Cognitive function causes behavior.
  6. Individual behavior is inserted into a web of social behavior.

Now let's look at each one of those steps one by one, and explain the tenousness of linking a gene to social behavior.

  1. Gene transcribes to protein: Genes transcribe into sequences of amino acids called peptides. Peptides fold and are cut many different ways, and even after seeing them in their finished form, it is very hard to say what kind of enzyme or structual component they are meant to be. And even at that, not all genes are transcribed into proteins all the time. Whether or not a gene is called up to make an amino acid depends on many things, it is a feedback controlled mechanism caused by the environment in the cell. If I was given the time, I could probably change my genetic expression through feedback.
  2. Protein performs function in a neuron: This also is very dependent on the situation in a given neuron. There is thousands of different proteins performing different functions, and a protein may be produced but go to waste if there is no need for it at the time. And even if it is performing its function, it will probably be just a drop in the bucket compared to the cacophony of reactions going on around it. Of course, many proteins are not first order enzymes, but may be helping to manufacter another component that may not be protein based, such as a fatty acid or metal ion based molecule.
  3. There are many different types of neurons in the brain, and they do have some architectural differences, and indeed in some areas, such as the hindbrain and limbic system, the structures they are forming are not directly based on neuron structure. However, on the whole, it is hard to say whether differences in internal structure have much to do with the way the neuron is interacting with its fellow community members.
  4. Functional region of the brain perfomrs cognitive function. Again, although there has been great advances in the past few decades in such things as fMRI and PET, and much of the basic efferent and afferent areas have been identified, the amount of understanding of higher cognitive function in areas like the frontal cortex is not really understood, if at exists at all. Despite all of the research, we still haven't found the area of the brain that knows not to mix polka dots and pinstripes.
  5. Cognitive function causes individual behavior: Even without the messy issue of where sentience enters, it very hard to go from understanding the single cognitive function of a "computational region" of the brain, to trying to say what effect they will have on behavior. After all, there is many different computational fuctions going on in the brain at any one time, and of course not all of them are turned into behavior. Why does one area of the brain "win out" over the others, both in deciding what is the focus of attention and what executive action will be performed? I also do not know.
  6. Individual behavior as part of a web of social behavior: While it is true that people's individual behavior is very tightly wound in with social behavior, the feedback mechanisms are much too intricate to be described by social science, let alone medical science. And indeed, social behavior almost speaks of the true weakness of the vagaries of chemical noise in the brain. People, even in very altered states, seem to be able to connect to higher social realties, if they choose to. For example, theoretically speaking, even if you gave me enough dextromethorphan that I could get my teeth knocked out with an Arnis stick and not really care, I would probably still remember to say please and thank you.

So that, in short, is why I consider it rather unscientific to go from "at a certain pH, there is a gene activated that will cause a protein to form that helps attach a fatty acid group to an enzyme that helps metabolize a cuprous enzyme in a certain type of astrocyte" to "the football players always get the cheerleaders!"

"Easy writing makes for difficult reading."

That's it.

From now on, whenever I see a write-up about "evolutionary psychology" without even a single citation, I'm voting it down. Not because I'm incredulous of the field—though I am—but because you have given me no good reason to believe your proposal.

If you're not supporting your deep-rooted subconscious explanation for the male appreciation of the breast, or monogamy, or Man's fondness for cheese fries, or whatever it is, with some established work, what are you supporting it with? Sixth-grade health classes and conjecture, I guess.

That's not gonna fly with me, Diego. I could make a guess myself—one just as valid as yours. Evolutionary psychology is indubitably an academic field, and you are not an expert in it (N.B. If you are an expert in this field, please disregard). Your ideas might be clever or they might not, but without support they're nothing more than masturbation.

You are, of course, free to draw your own original conclusions about evolutionary psychology. Post more! Convince me to believe this field! Post interesting analyses! That's what this Web site is for, right?

But don't waste my time with ideas you pulled from thin air. I want to hear corroboration with someone who's been peer-reviewed. Who didn't write his ideas at work when he had an epiphany reading write-ups about breasts. Someone who doesn't go by "Sk8rBoi420."

Yes, I'm asking for a fair amount of work. Research is time-consuming, and so is rigorous citation. But y'know what? If you can't be bothered to do something so basic as research and citation, why should I be bothered reading your work?

Submitting such a bare skeleton for reading shows contempt for legitimate science—and more importantly, for your readership.
