I wonder if there is a glass ceiling on how much evolutionary psychology could ultimately be accepted as a field of psychology. The chapter contrasts evolutionary psych with behaviorism, which focused purely on what can be observed through experimentation. With a general shift towards rejecting theories that cant be tested, could there ever be a time where evolutionary psychology gains a measure of mainstream acceptance, or would there have to be a surge of experimental data in support of evolutionary theory?
I am curious if evolutionary psychology will ever be widely accepted in the future. Could it become the new foundation for all psychology and its subsections? People's resistance to accepting evolutionary psychology reminded me of how people first responded to Darwin's theory of natural selection. After enough time and clearing up misconceptions his theory is widely accepted. Could evolutionary psychology have a similar fate?
-- Edited by rhiatt on Monday 20th of January 2014 03:54:52 PM
I feel as though psychology is like religion - people choose to believe one school of thought (or multiple) and will find evidence to support their own beliefs. In this sense, I don't think evolutionary psychology will ever be considered a "widely accepted" ideology because as mentioned in class, it is only a lens and not an absolute.
This chapter introduces the idea of inclusive fitness which attempts to explain altruistic actions towards individuals who carry at least some of your genes in hopes that they may pass them on. To what extent do individuals need to be related (share the same genes) for one individual to demonstrate a certain level of altruism towards the other (simply sharing resources vs. sacrificing one's life to save another)? Moreover, what could explain altruistic intentions towards individuals who are not genetically related, like an adopted sibling?
EP will probably get its share of recognition in the psychology world soon, but with the use of modern technology to examine the brain, I feel the high-tech experimentation aspects of cognitive psychology will overshadow EP for the time being. I wonder how well the two can be merged together. Are there even tests and experiments (in the more traditional sense of other branches of psychology) for EP? Or is this necessarily not plausible, given the scope of EP?
I think it is interesting to note the similarities between Freud's life-preservative instincts and sexual instincts with Darwin's theories of natural selection and sexual selection. If we are to consider Freud's theories as part of the foundation of psychology, it seems we began with an evolutionary-based theory and then quickly moved away from it. Why was there such a quick retreat from the idea that the mind has evolved the same way organisms have? Especially since Darwin's theory is so widely accepted now, why is it still so hard for people to accept that the mind may evolve as well?
William James believed that there are many different domain-specific instincts present in humans (and, it seems, he may have at least been partially correct despite rebuttals by behaviorists) and that these instincts may at times contradict each other. Why might this be evolutionarily desirable for humans as opposed to other animals, who have fewer instincts than us (according to James)? Why might contradicting instincts be necessary?
Kimberly's questions bring up an interesting point in terms of the broader issues of the impact of nurture on evolutionarily programmed mechanisms. It makes me wonder, to what extent can nurture influence certain biologically programmed things, such as altruism, or what one is looking for in a mate?
What about the impact of modern healthcare? Some people who have diseases/disorders that are not adaptive (such as schizophrenia) are able to lead relatively normal lives and reproduce - thus spreading their maladaptive traits. Might this have something to do with the recent rise we've seen in the numbers of people with almost all psychiatric disorders (i.e., autism, depression, ADHD, etc.)
Lastly, while I agree with most of what is presented in the book, I still find it difficult to believe that basically every aspect of our lives is influenced by evolutionary psychology. We have reached an amazing era of technology, one in which we have coded the entire human genome, have designed ways of communicating with people across the globe in a matter of seconds, and can see inside a living brain. And yet we still have no idea where the genes for "wanting a mate with symmetric" features are located - might this indicate that it is, in fact, not a genetic basis that has been passed along through evolution, but rather a result of culture? While one could argue that these traits have originated in multiple different isolated cultures, one could also argue that while evolutionary psychology may be called into question, evolution in the strictly biological sense is very well supported, and that combined with general fossil/historical records indicates that humans all originated in the same place, and then spread out across the continent. So is it not possible that these cultural norms originated at that same time and spread across the global along with the population and have remained, at their core, unchanged across millions of years?
-- Edited by Laurel on Monday 20th of January 2014 09:57:39 PM
EP will probably get its share of recognition in the psychology world soon, but with the use of modern technology to examine the brain, I feel the high-tech experimentation aspects of cognitive psychology will overshadow EP for the time being. I wonder how well the two can be merged together. Are there even tests and experiments (in the more traditional sense of other branches of psychology) for EP? Or is this necessarily not plausible, given the scope of EP?
I wouldn't be surprised if more studies begin using the experimentation aspects of cognitive psychology to analyze the key ideas and themes in EP. From my perspective, it seems that the doubt that is cast on EP stems from the lack of hard evidence and data that helps change scientists' perspectives within the field of psychology. Of course, experiments would have to start small (i.e, fundamental EP ideas), but I am excited to see if this can help lay the foundation for other fields in psychology.
It will definitely take people quite awhile before they start accepting this new concept because, as mentioned in class, EP is the newest field in Psychology right now. I think this is just like any other concepts and theories; at first, people were really skeptical about them but they slowly found themselves accepting them. Therefore, I believe that, at some point in the future, EP will probably be accepted by most people but it's just the matter of when it will be accepted. I am also curious if there's any way to facilitate the acceptance of EP.
I understand the theory of intrasexual competition but I want to know if there is a bit more to it. I thought it was interesting to find out why we are attracted to symmetrical faces in class and I want to believe that there are similar reasons that drive peahens to want a mate with brilliant plumage. So does intrasexual selection hint to unobvious ways of finding a healthy mate or can we just take it at face value?
I think amanday's point is a really interesting one. I feel like both religion and psychology (at least at this point in time) both share the need for a strong group of followers to be taken seriously. And because of that I think Evolutionary Psychology, due to its controversial nature and lack of a robust following, would fall under the category of "cult" in the religion analogy.
-- Edited by mwiltsie on Monday 20th of January 2014 10:11:50 PM
I find it interesting (and in some ways unfortunate) that the time in which evolutionary psychology is emerging as a discipline coincides with the time in human history in which culture is arguably playing the biggest role in human behavior. Obviously this is because of the fact that both of these phenomena arose with the development of various technologies: those that allowed us to move forward in our understanding of evolutionary biology and those that have created a force of culture that is stronger than it has ever been in human history. This makes it somewhat more difficult to objectively study human behavior as it relates to our biology, as people might look towards cultural explanations before biological ones.
I can understand how people have problems accepting evolutionary psychology, and I'm very interested to see how it will progress as a science. Especially considering (as others discussed above) our general shift towards rejecting theories that aren't falsifiable and our increasing ability to gather empirical data that is more associated with other branches of psychology.
I am curious if evolutionary psychology will ever be widely accepted in the future. Could it become the new foundation for all psychology and its subsections? People's resistance to accepting evolutionary psychology reminded me of how people first responded to Darwin's theory of natural selection. After enough time and clearing up misconceptions his theory is widely accepted. Could evolutionary psychology have a similar fate?
-- Edited by rhiatt on Monday 20th of January 2014 03:54:52 PM
I don't believe it will ever become the new foundation for all of psychology but I do believe it will become more widely accepted. I think you make a good point that all theories are not widely accepted right off the bat and gain more support over time. I believe however that evolutionary psychology will never replace psychology as it is now but will still grow and form as a different entity.
Ive always understood that evolution was responsible for creating the variety of life on the planet, but I could never wrap my head around how vast amounts of time and certain individuals of species dying while others live would result in the wide variety of wildly different species that exist on the planet today. But the complex interaction between natural selection, sexual selection, intraspecies completion, intresexual selection, inclusive fitness and interaction with the environment adds so much more to the evolutionary process than dying and time. This added interaction between these many factors makes the whole thing sit easier with my brain. It was one of those Ah-ha! moments where things click.
That being said, I wonder if future evolutionary psych researchers will be able to separate which types of selections or interactions are responsible for which parts of evolution. Or perhaps these interactions are too complicated to ply apart causal specifics?
I've been wondering about whether or not there is such a concept as pure altruism, which is sacrificing something for someone other than yourself, with no expectation of any future compensation or benefits. Someone who really enjoys volunteering or community service may think that they are working to improve their surroundings i.e. helping the "group", and says he or she expects nothing in return. However, it can be argued that the personal gratification received from volunteering helps the volunteer feel better about him/herself and thus can be considered an indirect benefit. What do you guys think?
I think Ken makes an interesting point about true altruism in regards to volunteering. I really don't think that true altruism exists. Although one might think that they don't want anything in return, there is always something that is returned from sacrificing something. When you're volunteering with nature, such as cleaning up trash or planting trees, you are making your living surroundings better for your survival. However, when you are volunteering with "groups", there is personal satisfaction from it. It is like a confirmation to yourself that you are a good person.
I agree with Chi Chi. I believe the humans have desires that they subconsciously fulfill and sometimes mistake for altruism. I feel that by volunteering or donating to charity you feel a sense of satisfaction that makes the act your own self interest. And by just simply performing an act like volunteering you have less guilt for not doing it at all. Humans always have a motive for everything they do and I guess they subconsciously "keep tabs" on generosity and acts of kindness.
