Evolutionary Psychology: Science or Pseudoscience

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Article review
Conclusion
References

The term ‘evolutionary psychology’ has a relatively long history, spanning over the last two centuries. In his “principles of psychology’, James (1890) used the term in reference to the study of the human mind based on evolution theories. A number of researchers such as Tooby and DeVore (1987) and Tooby and Cosmides (2002) have extensively used the term is used in reference in developing schools of thought in science and psychology. However, in its standard application, evolutionary psychology refers to the scientific study of human behavior from a psychological and evolutionary perspective. It emphasizes on the evolution process in brain development and the associated psychological mechanisms. It pays a lot of attention to evolutionary principles of fitness and natural selection.

However, the application of this theory in scholarly work and practice has received criticism. Most critics argue that applying the idea of natural selection and fitness is controversial because a trait must be genetically derived (Ketelaar & Ellis 2010). This means that human behavior is not a genetically derived trait.

Thus, the purpose of this paper is to develop a comprehensive analysis of these debates in order to determine whether evolutionary psychology amounts to science or pseudoscience.

According to Brown and Richerson (2013), evolutionary psychology began when scientists attempted to apply the conventional theory of evolution to study human behavior. In their analysis, Hodgson and Knudsen (2008) have shown that the fields of economics and biological sciences have a profound influence on each other. However, they assert that social and biological sciences have developed conflicts and controversies between them. These researchers argue that it is important to develop a comprehensive understanding of the human behavior from an evolutionary perspective (Ketelaar & Ellis 2010). In this context, it is worth noting that this has not been achieved due to a controversy on the issue of using evolutionary theories to explain the complex human behaviors.

First, it is worth analyzing the arguments presented by the proponents of evolutionary psychology. According to individuals such as Tooby and Cosmides (2002), human brain has a number of highly specialized psychological mechanisms. They argue that these mechanisms were not complex during the early stages of human evolution. Accordingly, these mechanisms have evolved in response to a number of environmental pressures that have directed the evolution of human species. Moreover, proponents such as Tooby and Cosmides (2002) argue that the Pleistocene epoch is the most important stage for understanding the evolution of the complex human brain. In the evolutionary timeline, Pleistocene epoch is a period in which human ancestors were living predominantly in the African Savannah and mainly depending on hunting and gathering. They emphasize that various environmental and biochemical pressures acted on these ancestors, which increased the complexity of the brain and the consequent human behaviors (Ketelaar & Ellis 2010).

To explain this phenomenon, evolutionary biologists attempt to draw the idea of “domain-specific devices” involved in processing of information needed to provide humans with a global framework for mental adaptations. According to this model, the psychological mechanisms under cognition in humans are products of evolution based on the idea of “domain-specific devices” for information processing. According to the argument, natural selection acted on these mechanisms and favored those that were well suited to solve problems in specific domains (Ketelaar & Ellis 2010). Applying this idea, evolutionary psychologists argue that it worked in a similar way in aggression, choice for mates, morality and social exchange. Therefore, this provides some evidence that evolution processes have had a profound impact on the development of human brains and behavior. In essence, it is clear that the patterns of behavior exhibited by the ancestors of humans in the evolutionary timeline are relatively different from the patterns exhibited by the modern man (Ketelaar & Ellis 2010).

On the other hand, this explanation is prone to a number of errors that make it highly controversial. In general, there is no empirically derived information to support the idea of evolutionary psychology. According to studies on animal behavior, animals, unlike humans, do not have cultural transmissions. Thus, it is difficult to support evolutionary psychology from an animal perspective. In fact, it is difficult to establish whether certain behavioral traits are genetically derived because there are no controlled experiments for ethical reasons (Ketelaar & Ellis 2010). In addition, some attempts to study the behavior of twins have not succeeded in explaining how behavioral traits have a genetic component. Based on these findings, four major criticisms have dominated the debate against evolutionary psychology, making it look like a pseudoscience.

The first and most prominent criticism of evolutionary psychology states that evolutionary psychology is a form of genetic determinism. According to critics, evolutionary psychology fails to describe the interaction between the environment and human genes (Ketelaar & Ellis 2010).

However, proponents have attempted to defend the theory based on the notion that environmental pressures are only necessary to enhance the operation of genetic programs. According to Tooby and Cosmides (2002), universally occurring behaviors and traits provide evidence that evolutionary adaptation such as discern of kin from non-kin, cooperation with others and capacity to infer emotions on others developed alongside human evolution. In addition, they argue that the diversity of these aspects across individuals indicate a possibility of genetic linkages.

Secondly, critics argue that evolutionary psychology depends on guesswork. It is developed through a false hypothesis. Critic argues that little information is available to explain the nature and aspects of the environment during the Pleistocene era (Rushton 2005). According to a number of critics, evolutionary psychology depends of environment of evolutionary adaptation that does not refer to a single environment.

Nevertheless, proponents argue that the hypothesis can be proved through empirical studies. For instance, evolution has shown that the need to communicate with each other forced humans to develop speech, especially during hunting. They argue that studies of human speech development and evolution of the larynx supports this theory.

Article review

Introduction

The study by Sterelny (2012) is an example of the modern attempts to determine the value of evolutionary psychology. In this study, the researcher attempted to explain human behavior from an evolutionary perspective.

Hypothesis

The hypothesis was “evolution of the human brain and cognitive aspects provide them with unique behavior and behavior patterns”. The idea was to explain how evolution made humans unique. It argues that evolution provided humans with a unique brains and behavior patterns. The study derives the hypothesis from previous studies in psychology and evolution, which attempts to prove that humans had a primitive brain but evolution and environmental impacts improved its capacity.

Study question

The study question, though not well explained, involved an explanation on why humans have unique behaviors compared to other animals.

Study methods

The researcher tested the hypothesis by drawing information from various studies on human behavior, evolution and mental adaptations. They used a qualitative study that mainly focused on literature review as the study methodology. Literature developed between 1980 and 2010 was analyzed. Survey questions were used to derive information from the literature.

Conclusion

In general, the existing explanations such as adaptation of minds and environment to test the hypothesis are acceptable. In addition, the researcher considers the symbolic nature of the human brain to show that evolution is responsible for human’s unique behavior.

References

Brown, GR &Richerson, PJ, 2013, “Applying evolutionary theory to human behavior: Past differences and current debates”, Journal of Bioechonomics,vol 3, no. 1, pp. 124-148. Web.

Hodgson, GM & Knudsen, T, 2008, “in search of general evolutionary principles: Why Darwinism is too important to be left to the biologists”, Journal of Bioeconomics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 51-69. Web.

James, W, 1990, Principles of psychology, Henry & Holt Co, New York, NY. Web.

Ketelaar, T &Ellis, BJ, 2010, “Are evolutionary explanations unfalsifiable? Evolutionary psychology and the Lakatosian philosophy of science”, Psychological Inquiry, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1-21. Web.

Rushton, JP, 2005, Race, evolution, and behavior: A life history perspective, Springer, New York. Web.

Sterelny, K, 2012, “The evolved apprentice: How evolution made humans unique”, evolutionary psychology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 120-127. Web.

Tooby, J & Cosmides, L, 2002, the psychological foundations of culture, OUP, New York, NY. Web.

Tooby, J &DeVore, 1987, The reconstruction of homidi behavioral evolution through strategic modeling, Sunny Press, Albany, NY. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!