How evolutionary psychology went viral

In order for anything to count as a "future experiment" with respect to something that takes as long as evolution does, the predicted phenomena would have to occur at least thousands of years from now, and you would have to control for all the socio-economic-cultural-political differences between now and then. Which would begin to sound like an impossible task, even you embarked on a millennia-long research project, because humanity is quickly approaching (and may already have gone beyond) the point where technology overtakes evolution.

Evolution of the regular type at least has billions of years' worth of fossil records to compensate for its lack of predictions for the future. The only thing EP has going for it, on the other hand, is a bunch of surveys, small-N experiments, and beloved-by-Cosmopolitan stereotypes about the contemporary courting behavior of affluent, predominantly white college students. That's like analyzing a tub of ice cream and then making bold claims about the fate of the Antarctic ice cap.

http://www.tylervigen.com

Since it's already difficult enough to produce falsifiable conjectures about an aspect of human psychology (sex/gender) that is directly related to those factors, it's not surprising that most EP researchers haven't even bothered to branch out into less closely related things.

Let's examine two claims:

1. "Group A is genetically predisposed to different behavior than Group B, to which I belong."

2. "Group A is culturally predisposed to different behavior than Group B, to which I belong."

You claim that making statement (1) indicates that I disbelieve in the personhood of people in Group A. I assume that you do not believe the same about statement (2)--that is, it's possible for me to notice that men are more likely to be murderers without claiming that women aren't people, as long as I accept "culture" as the only explanation for the difference.

I claim that both statements (1) and (2) are compatible with a belief in personhood of people in Group A. And this is much firmer ground, ideologically speaking. If presented with strong evidence of genetic differences between two groups, I am not forced to either deny the evidence or give up and accept that some groups aren't people anymore. I can simply say "even if the two groups are genetically different, this doesn't change a thing: personhood is not determined by someone's genetic similarity to me, people deserve respect, and prejudice is wrong even if it is somewhat predictive." Finally, in a situation where genetics clearly affect behavior or personality--for example, Asperger Syndrome--I don't need to shift around my values to claim that yes, autistic people are still people.

I often think that sex differences people perceive are exaggerated and/or misattributed to biology (including, but not limited to, genetics) when they are more likely cultural, but, believing that X (e.g., women) are different (either on average or categorically) from Y (e.g., men) is not inconsistent with believing that X and Y are both subsets of Z (e.g., people.)

Women and men are different, both physically and psychologically. That might not mean women are less capable or inferior, but saying there are no differences between the genres is just silly and disingenuous.

I don't understand misogynistic guys who say awful things about how dumb / shallow / whatever women are and then in the next breath talk about their sexual interest in them. I mean... if I thought all those demeaning things about women, I'd have a tough time being sexually interested in one. I'd have to go asexual or gay.

While this is undoubtably true, this is one aspect of the criticisms of EP where I can understand where they are coming from. This is due to the history of EP. I do capitalize EP to distinguish the strain of psychological thinking and research primarily flowing from a relatively small group of researchers who owe much of their intellectual heritage to researchers at UC Santa Barbara from the generic view of placing psychological findings into an evolutionary perspective.

The critics were right that EP is _basically_ rebranded sociobiology. Now sociobiology flamed out very quickly due to the backlash that EO Wilson received after the publication of his book Sociobiology in the mid 1970s. No only had adaptationist perspectives in biology not entirely taken hold, there were numerous academic disciplines almost fundamentally opposed to the idea that culture (and humanity) was not entirely arbitrary. Hell, in 1983 after Derek Freeman published his debunking of Margaret Mead's claims about the Samoan people, the American Anthropological Association passed a motion declaring his work unscientific and _irresponsible_.

This milieu where EP formed was absolutely toxic to any claims about a (universal) biological influence on behavior and held nearly to an axiom that talk of genetic variation which influences behavior was inherently racist, sexist, etc. Take the controversy over the Bell Curve, published in 1994. The entire book, save one chapter, dealt with claimed genetic factors which influence behavior that broke down by class or socioeconomic status. A lone chapter dealt with race. Yet the initial controversy and the book's legacy is that of being racist. Nevermind the fair more numerous claims about the role genetics played in arranging people into social and economic classes. The mere mention of biological variation influencing behavior was a tactical move that virtually no scientist would touch.

With this backdrop, EP was developed. Honestly, marginal scientists trudging away in the relative backwoods of academia began to synthesize a perspective on human nature that took our biological past seriously. The obvious route, and probably the most common route, focused on human universals. Anyone with a basic understanding of biology will understand the general thesis of this strain of EP. All humans everywhere dealt with a shared set of problems: (1) finding food and shelter to survive (classic selection) and (2) finding a mate so that you can pass you genes to the next generation (sexual selection). There are derivative issues which arise from our shared experience like being able to cooperate with non-kin to form basic societies or being able to detect cheaters in all realms where there is a risk of someone being a free rider.

Taking these basic claims about shared human experience, you can begin to apply them in slowly expanding circles to many facets of human behavior and psychology. But the core will always be about human universals. There will always be variation, but they are variations on universals. This is precisely why many who are unversed in the actual work of EP have the instinctual worry about EP focusing too much on the Pleistocene. The Pleistocene is a safe refuge for a perspective that develops in a hostile intellectual climate. It is also tactically a wise strategy. Focus on universals to gain credibility like say with David Buss's 1989 paper "Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures". Go broad or become smeared.

As you say, there is unlikely any researcher in EP who gives any sort of credence to the notion that our psychology was 'frozen in the Pleistocene', but especially historically, there was little place else to go. Beyond that, there are mounds of fascinating findings which only need to focus on how much our psychology has _not_ adapted that it has kept researchers busy for quite some time.

That intellectual heritage along with the fact that the gold standard in EP (legitimate cross cultural work) is extraordinarily hard and expensive combined with our infantile understanding of genetics makes doing serious work in understanding the ways that post-Pleistocene environments have shaped our psychology very, very difficult indeed.

Indeed. I've seldom come across a model that has given me more understanding of human nature. There are a lot of other dubious bits in the article and its a bit of a job to wade through 4200 words of it. I think part of the issue is that on a quick googling the authors fields appear to be Film Studies, the History of Art and Comparative Literature. Evolutionary psychology is a fundamentally a science subject and I'm not sure they really get it.

Jumping from this to "therefore evolution" is exactly as specious as jumping to "therefore culture." Actually moreso, because it's cultural by definition; the question is what sparked the culture.

The culture may, indeed, be rooted in biological predisposition toward the topics involved. It could also be rooted in biological predisposition toward shoving others out of a social club, and/or allowing oneself to be shoved out -- metaphorically or through literal physical force.

Or it could be rooted in a long history of self-serving decisions which have nothing to do with biology whatsoever, only people in power working to concentrate and maintain that power. Disqualifying half the race is quite a coup.

Yes, we have significant gender dimorphism in our hormones and neurotransmitters. It's very likely that at some level, that's relevant. But claiming it as the root cause is arbitrary non-sequitur. Causation has to be demonstrated, it can't simply be inferred.