Host: Chris Holdhusen
We went with the broad topic of Evolutionary Psychology but hope that you'll each help narrow this based on what you are interested in within evolutionary psychology, or in showing the problematic aspects of evolutionary psychology. The associated contribution you make (article, chapter, podcast, reflections of your own, TED talk, etc.) will facilitate this. Please send your contribution to Sabine via email by Dec. 1. Those contributions will be posted below.
Some preliminary ideas to get us started thinking about this topic:
Lecture: "Evolutionary Psychology: An Introduction" - Dr. Diana Fleischman
Article: "Seven Key Misconceptions about Evolutionary Psychology" by Laith Al-Shawaf, Ph.D.
https://areomagazine.com/2019/08/20/seven-key-misconceptions-about- evolutionary-psychology/
From Sabine:
After having followed an array of pretty solid academic trains of thought (incl. entertaining articles & conversations with a couple of UM profs - Abhishek and also his friend Nathan, a neurobiologist) that debunk evolutionary psychology, I do still have interest in it, but more so from the perspective of what the field might do next to bring itself more up to speed with the methodology that biology and the other sciences assume as standard fare. I'm also very interested in how a couple of women (well-respected even by the naysayers of EP) are contributing to EP from an interdisciplinary approach. One is a philosopher, Janet Radcliffe Richards, and the other is an anthropologist and primatologist, Sara Blaffer Hrdy. Richards says EP isn't all bad, but is certainly asking the wrong questions, but that asking the questions it is at all will help us come up with better questions to ask. Hrdy is a hands on researcher interested in getting at, among other things, becoming more precise as to the sources of human propensity for working together/empathy/sharing; she attests that it has been wrongly assumed by the social sciences for too long that our empathetic/social human wiring derives from survival due to warring conditions that made humans work together in order to succeed more, which led to brains wired to work together more via evolutionary selection, and so on. Hrdy says that our empathy/social human wiring likely derives first from the way early humans raised their children, making us and our predecessors much more like tamarins and marmosets than like chimpanzees and gorillas. Sadly/interestingly, she finds that like tamarins and marmosets we are in such need for social support and shared care of raising children (alloparenting), that when we don't have it, abandoning of newborns, etc. occurs also in humans. This has never been observed to happen in other primates, except for tamarins and marmosets. Hrdy concedes that warring conditions later in our human history perhaps further solidified this already present social wiring.
One of EP's biggest critics is PZ Myers who is worth listening to here to understand the ways it seems that evolutionary psychologists seem to be often misusing or misunderstanding key principles of evolution. His talk (linked in previous sentence) is long, but I think useful to listen to for a primer in evolution. Perhaps it would have been best for our group to dive first into readings on evolution, historically and contemporarily, and then take on evolutionary psychology so as to be able to weigh in more informedly on how EPs are using/misusing evolution in their field. I know that I don't understand evolution enough, particularly where the field of evolutionary research is now, to use it to critique or weigh in on how the evolutionary psychologists are or aren't misusing it. Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish"concept is helpful in reviewing key concepts of evolution as well, and works particularly well for me since I generally disdain the humancentric approach of all fields, thinking us something special or fairly removed from the line of animals from which we've descended, brain/language/emotions/opposable thumbs/relationships included. PBS did a series on Shubin's concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8ttoKGxEKc
I'm throwing a lot at you here, so if you only have time for a couple of my contributions, these below are the voices I most wish you to hear:
Take a listen to Richards here via some Oxford lectures she gave on sexuality, particularly lecture #3 has to do with evolutionary psychology: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/12/janet-radcliffe-richards-on-the-past-present-and-future-of-sex-part-3/
And, watch Hrdy here giving a short lecture on her book Mothers and Others, which traces why and how humans came to be wired as socially oriented as we are, much more so than other primates. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsuuPMUIMEE
For those of you not keen on videos/audio, looking up papers or books by both Richards and Hrdy would be a great approach to hearing them weigh in on this topic too.
Mitch's Submission:
I must start by saying that I’m quite certain that I don’t have a very good grasp on evolutionary psychology. I have read, watched and listened to almost all of Sabine’s extensive background content but may, now, be more confused about what this field is than when I started. My thoughts, below, are, likely, naive, fallacious and full of biases and incorrect assumptions. I am looking forward to learning more on this topic from the better studied in our group.
I haven’t studied evolutionary psychology much. I find some of it fascinating but something about it also makes me queasy. The focus on nature over nurture. The confusion of correlation and causation. The broad generalizations and uncomfortable, maybe incorrect, conclusions.
Something about it reminds me of the great Douglas Adam’s puddle analogy, which he uses to refute the fine tuning argument for religion, below. It is very short and worth the watch.
In the case of evolutionary psychology, the merging of those two sciences requires some leaps of faith to the level that it could be used in place of religion in Adam's analogy. Is psychology the puddle, incorrectly believing that it fits perfectly in the evolutionary hole?
Psychology is endlessly exciting, if not a little heavy on conjecture and broad generalizations. Evolution, too, is fascinating, but very linear, logical and lacking some of the creative passion of its more bubbly extroverted cousin. Combining these sciences is intoxicating, initially. Like a classical cover of a heavy metal song, it interesting, at first listen. Over time, the novelty wears off and you realize that the beauty and complexity of the classical, and the power and adrenaline of the metal, are both watered down and worse off with the genre merge.
It must admit that my discomfort might just be me obstinately holding onto beliefs and desires that I am not yet ready to part with. Many of the concepts of evolutionary psychology seem to circle around questions of free will. It is probably not correct, but I like to think that creatures with complex cognitive abilities are more than the sum of their parts (Not ants. Ants are just biological machines….I am special). I want to believe that each creature is unique being with a one of a kind personality and the ability to consciously make choices. I don’t believe in eternal ’souls’ but I like the idea that there is a fire inside of us that, while living at least, is not composed solely of cells and genes and predictable chemical interactions. The fact that I evolved from an ape doesn’t bother me in the least, it’s kind of cool. I’m even OK with the concept that every great ape has genetically instinctual fears (e.g., snakes), but the idea that ALL of my thoughts, dreams, desires, passions and fears are similarly evolved disturbs me. Possibly worse, I fear that, in writing that, it is transparent to all that I am making hasty generalizations and may be rejecting an entire valid field of science only because it makes me uncomfortable.
I can’t close without bringing this last item up. I do feel like some of the concepts in evolutionary psychology could be dangerous. The more uncomfortable conclusions remind me of how the pseudoscience of phrenology was used to fuel racism.
I try to watch news and opinion from sources with viewpoints different than my own. In those, I have seen concepts of evolutionary psychology used to justify racism, in particular, but, also, sexual preference and gender discrimination. It’s possible that some groups are putting a dishonest spin on the research to give their bigotry a veil of scientific validity…but they don’t have to stretch as far as I would hope. Dr. Fleishman’s discussion about how narcissism and psychopathy are expected and natural evolutionary adaptations for success in today's world, even if true, is something that society should try to overpower. If a society can ‘choose’ to overcome individual psychological ‘adaptations’, then is this really evolution at all, or just psychology and sociology? We could, maybe, hijack the evolutionary process and genetically engineer wings so we can fly…but we can’t think our way into that adaptation.
There is a lot of material out there to discuss on evolutionary psychology and racism, and it’s almost all depressing but, if you are interested, this is a short primer: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201801/the-psychology-racism
Skepticism and curmudgeonliness aside, I do find the topic fascinating. Who couldn’t like a good mix of psychology, anthropology, biology, sociology and evolution? The Dr. Diana Fleishman video had excellent content and ideas and I fell, instantly, for her bravery and ability to talk about almost any taboo subject. I got a chuckle when, about halfway through her presentation, she mentioned that her specialty was ‘disgust research’…well, that explains things. Anyway, I’m looking forward to learning more about this topic from the banter team.
From Isaac:
"Empathy is Tearing Us Apart" - https://www.wired.com/story/empathy-is-tearing-us-apart/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=onsite-share&utm_brand=wired&utm_social-type=earned&fbclid=IwAR0QhO7mucZVlD-1zPB_8khiN0s4CL5lsILM8VtwjhTVEtlHOB-YgjUEfks
Patricia Churchland podcast episode:
From Jivan:
From Isaac:
"Empathy is Tearing Us Apart" - https://www.wired.com/story/empathy-is-tearing-us-apart/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=onsite-share&utm_brand=wired&utm_social-type=earned&fbclid=IwAR0QhO7mucZVlD-1zPB_8khiN0s4CL5lsILM8VtwjhTVEtlHOB-YgjUEfks
Patricia Churchland podcast episode:
From Jivan:
EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY IN A NUTSHELL
"Our psychology has definitely evolved over the millions of years. Now we are stuck with it.
Origins of anger and fear. Long ago it was necessary for our survival to distinguish between an animal to run away from and animal to eat . If it was an animal to run away from we got scared and ran. "Oh what do I see in the bushes. It has ears. Oh. I remember that animal. It's a tiger. I'm scared." Run away! If it is an animal to eat if it was a and kill it. "There is a small edible animal. What kind is it? It is a Gazelle. Run after it. Get It! I'm hungry." If it another human in
our territory we get angry and think, "Kill him! That guy is going to eat my food. Kill him!"
Origin of love. You learn to get along with other members of your tribe so you suppress feelings you don't like about them and express feelings you like about them. This is the beginning of politics. With individuals it's the same. I'm attracted to that person. If I want benefits, I better do the game of suppressing my feelings I don't like about him or her. This is love.
Origin of empathy. Empathy is in a different category all together. It is a beginning of getting unstuck with the way our minds have evolved. True empathy is not measurable. If you try to measure empathy you are only measuring what it has to do with what a person is feeling and thinking. True empathy takes place before feeling and thinking takes over perception. It happens before we get stuck in the casket of concepts that have evolved. For example, a sadist knows the other persons thoughts and feelings but has somehow gotten stuck and loves torturing others. Does anyone know how we can experience true empathy?"
From Chris:
No comments:
Post a Comment