Challenging evolutionary psychology: Philosopher attacks the field’s underlying scientific foundation

| | May 22, 2020
evolutionary psychology wide
Credit: Darwinian Medicine
This article or excerpt is included in the GLP’s daily curated selection of ideologically diverse news, opinion and analysis of biotechnology innovation.

It’s not often that a paper attempts to take down an entire field. Yet, this past January, that’s precisely what University of New Hampshire assistant philosophy professor Subrena Smith’s paper tried to do. “Is Evolutionary Psychology Possible?” describes a major issue with evolutionary psychology, called the matching problem.

[Smith: For example, one] hypothesis is that, in the environment of evolutionary adaptation, mate infidelity was costlier for males than it was for females. Presumably, it’s on account of the fact that, if you’re a man, you might end up taking care of someone else’s child. So college students were asked how likely it is that they’d have sexual intercourse with someone other than their current partner.

Related article:  Viewpoint: Here's why it's 'moronic' to suggest that Homo erectus was lazy

Evolutionary psychologists posit that, based on these questionnaire answers, mate guarding behavior is driven by a hard-wired, domain-specific cognitive module whose function is to procure and protect one’s mate from extramarital relationships. But their evidence is nothing more than the responses given to these prying questions by contemporary college students. My worry is that it doesn’t begin to be a scientific study. There’s no way to move from the contemporary case to the prehistoric case, which is a hypothesized case about how prehistoric males behaved with respect to their mates and cheating.

Read the original post

Advertisements
Share via
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend