In which I read about Evo Psych

I'm pretty skeptical of evolutionary psychology as a field. This is something I've explained to students after pointing out the problems in studies (or rather, articles based on press releases about studies) they quote to explain certain gendered behaviors as biological. I'm honest about my skepticism (though try not to mention the field and instead focus on the style of argumentation*) and respectful of their contribution and ask questions rather than make statements, but I use it as an opportunity to talk about the differences between basing conclusions on assumptions verses evidence and what "evidence" means in different contexts. In writing classes this leads to discussions about research and disciplinary differences, but I stress that if you can't back up your claims with research--whether studies or logical analysis--you will have a hard time convincing others of your claims regardless of the discipline. Unsubstantiated assumptions don't count in my classroom, so why should they count outside of it; we practice identifying assumptions and explaining warrants. In gender classes, this leads to discussions about how gender is constructed and mediated by culture. I emphasis that we don't have access to gender except through language and that gender can't be separated from culture (trying to do this is always fun), and we talk about the specific assumptions about gender and how they might be based in a specific culture. It helps to have a diverse student body for this exercise, as the cultural differences become apparent very quickly.

But I don't go out and read evo psych articles for fun. Usually when I encounter them, I read some snippet news piece about some horribly ridiculous conclusion about a behavior being genetic (for example, menopause evolved because of men not wanting to have sex with old, unattractive women**; I've been avoiding the college women have lots of sex articles that are popular now, so I'm not sure what the conclusion there is), then I go find the study in my uni's database and read it. Usually one of two things has happened (1) that's not what the study said and the reporters are either insane, unethically dishonest, or too uniformed or stupid to have been assigned this piece, or (2) it is what the study said and it identifies itself as being evolutionary psychology. I don't have enough experience to make any judgement about the whole field, but my limited experience flags that term for skepticism.

So, I was fascinated and appreciative of this piece of at Skepchick that offers a video and transcript of a panel at SkepchickCon (the science and skepticism track of CONvergence) that is critical of Evolutionary Psychology and differentiates it from Behavioral Psychology and Evolutionary Biology. So I'm sharing. There is not an evolutionary psychologist on the panel, but everyone has some experience with the field because of overlap with their expertise, and one person is a journalist. I would have liked to hear an evolutionary psychologist respond to their claims, but it seems unlikely one would have volunteered given the subject. They make a lot of good points, and I like the part where they talk about the context of studies and their participants. There's a bunch of good stuff about generalizations too, and I made a mental note or two for examples in my research class. I also very much liked this part:

Audience question 2: I did. It’s more for Indre. Is the current position of where the evolutional brain is now as opposed to men and women. You can see that women are much better multitaskers, far better memory than men, stuff like that.  

IV: No, you can’t. Absolutely not. There’s so much BS about female and male differences in the brain that it’s unbelievable.

I also made a note of the book they mention about the maternal instinct being a myth; I'd like to see if my library has it. But it's an interesting read/watch, so check it out. I learned stuff, and it helped me locate my skepticism better. I'm still not totally clear on what evo psych is as a field though--we behave in certain ways because that's how our brains have evolved? Except that's too general. I don't know. The criticisms are clearer.


*I've actually only said "I'm skeptical of evolutionary psychology articles" once. It was to majors in a gender class, and we were discussing the differences in what virginity meant and why it is valued differently for the characters in the pieces we were reading based on time and place of writing and the gender, class, and race of the character; and how the author's positioning might be an influence. I can't remember what the student said, but it was a general statement about women's virginity being biologically necessary based on an article she read. (You know how they like to generalize about "back then" sometimes, when "back then" means any time and place before the US in 1982). It was more of an "I read this thing" statement than an "I strongly believe this" statement. The female students were understandably upset by the virginity double standard, and I think they just wanted an answer less complicated than patriarchy.

**I actually read this when it was making the rounds, so I knew about it before reading this piece.