Evolutionary psychology from a developmental systems perspective: comment on Lickliter and Honeycutt (2003)

Although agreeing with R. Lickliter and H. Honeycutt (2003) that evolutionary psychology lacks and should adopt a coherent developmental model to explain how evolved mechanisms become expressed in phenotypes, it is argued that adhering to the principles of developmental systems theory, despite enhancing evolutionary psychology, would not change appreciably its basic focus. The concepts of innateness and modularity, what is inherited and what evolves, as well as the possible role of developmental plasticity in the evolution of human cognition are discussed. It is proposed that evolutionary psychology can incorporate the developmental systems perspective into its theorizing, with the end result being a science that more closely reflects human nature.     

“Not Much to Praise in Such Seeking and Finding”: Evolutionary Psychology,the Biological Turn in the Humanities,and the Epistemology of Ignorance

This paper critiques the rise of scientific approaches to central questions in the humanities, specifically questions about human nature, ethics, identity, and experience. In particular, I look at how an increasing number of philosophers are turning to evolutionary psychology and neuroscience as sources of answers to philosophical problems. This approach constitutes what I term a biological turn in the humanities. I argue that the biological turn, especially its reliance on evolutionary psychology, is best understood as an epistemology of ignorance that contributes to a climate of hostility and intolerance regarding feminist insights about gender, identity, and the body.     

Evolutionary psychology: the emperor's new paradigm

For some evolutionary psychology is merely a field of inquiry, but for others it is a robust paradigm involving specific theories about the nature and evolution of the human mind. Proponents of this paradigm claim to have made several important discoveries regarding the evolved architecture of the mind. Highly publicized discoveries include a cheater-detection module, a psychological sex difference in jealousy, and motivational mechanisms underlying parental love and its lapses, which purportedly result in child maltreatment. In this article, I argue that the empirical evidence for these "discoveries" is inconclusive, at best. I suggest that, as the reigning paradigm in evolutionary psychology has produced questionable results, the evolutionary study of human psychology is still in need of a guiding paradigm.     

The Fifth R: Jesus as Evolutionary Psychologist

The historical Jesus seems to have known about human nature as described by evolutionary psychology. He addresses the dispositions of human nature that evolutionary psychology says are central: resources, reproduction, relatedness (kinship), and reciprocity. In doing so he answers Aristotle's question, how can human beings flourish? His answer opens a window onto the divine.     

Psychology and phenomenology: a clarification

Controversies are rampant in contemporary psychology concerning the appropriate method for observing consciousness and the role inner experience should play in psychological theorizing. These conflicting orientations reflect, in part, methodological differences between natural science and human science interpretations of psychology. Humanistic psychology and philosophical phenomenology both employ a human science approach to psychology that seeks to explain behavior in terms of a person's subjective existence. Maslow's and Heidegger's formulations are both fulfillment theories in that they specify moral values that suggest how life ought to be lived. Natural science methodology rejects the possibility that moral imperatives can be validated, whereas human science methodology allows phenomenological convictions to justify recommendations about a fulfilled life and a good society. The social role of psychology is analyzed within the framework of phenomenological convictions and scientific truth.     

Evolution and relationships: A call for integration

In this introduction to the special issue on evolutionary approaches to relationships, we first review some of the major theories and milestones that have shaped and informed modern evolutionary thinking. In doing so, we discuss some of the major evolutionary theories that are most relevant to interpersonal relationships, and we describe how these theories are structurally linked. We then discuss the importance of theorizing about and studying phenomena from multiple levels of explanation–ultimate, ontogenetic, and proximate. Several misconceptions that continue to plague evolutionary psychology are then discussed, and we suggest ways in which evolutionary psychologists have unwittingly created, perpetuated, or sometimes exacerbated certain misconceptions. We conclude that the science of relationships could benefit from an infusion of more evolutionary thinking, and we propose that evolutionary psychology could benefit by having more relationship researchers.     

EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY AND THE RATIONALITY OF FAITH

This paper evaluates the role that evolutionary psychology can play in examining the rationality of faith in the Christian sense. It is argued that because evolutionary psychology enables us to understand human nature, it can help us understand what faith is. I argue that faith is not a universal human instinct that all religions tap into. Rather, we must understand how the early Christian community used the basic building blocks provided by human nature in a particular way. It is argued that it is a misunderstanding of the nature of faith to assert that faith is intrinsically irrational. However, evolutionary psychology cannot tell us whether or not faith is rational.     

The harms of ignoring the social nature of science

In this paper I argue that philosophers of science have an obligation to recognize and engage with the social nature of the sciences they assess if those sciences are morally relevant. Morally-relevant science is science that has the potential to risk harm to humans, non-humans, or the environment. My argument and the approach I develop are informed by an analysis of the philosophy of biology literature on the criticism of evolutionary psychology (EP), the study of the evolution of human psychology and behaviour. From this literature, I tease out two different methods of scientific critique. The first I call the “truth-detectional” approach. Those who take this approach are first and foremost concerned about the truth of EP claims as that truth can be determined by evidence. The second I call the “social-dimensional” approach. Those who take this approach talk about the production and truth of EP claims but within a social framework. On this account, the legitimacy and perceived legitimacy of EP claims are not separate from the institutional and social processes and values that lend to their production. I show that the truth-detectional approach risks harms to society and to the philosophy of science, but that the social-dimensional approach avoids these harms. Philosophers of science, therefore, should take a social-dimensional approach to the assessment of morally-relevant science.

     

The emergence and implementation of health goals

Abstract

Modern theorizing on goals is applied to an analysis of the implementation and the emergence of health goals. First, a model of action phases and its concomitant concepts of implemental mindsets and implementation intentions (Gollwitzer, 1990, 1993) are used to explore how the initiation of health goal directed behaviors can be facilitated and how the performance of health goal directed actions is enhanced. Second, recent theorizing on the psychology of thinking about the future (Oettingen, 1996; 1997) is employed to discuss conditions and processes of the emergence of health goals. It is suggested that contrasting positive fantasies about the future with reflections on the negative aspects of reality create binding health goals that reliably affect people's behaviors.     

A Reconsideration of Altruism From an Evolutionary and Psychodynamic Perspective

Altruistic behavior and motivation has traditionally been regarded as a defense mechanism defined by the vicissitudes of instinctual gratification. In this article, we suggest that there exists a substantial body of evidence from the fields of ethology, infant research, and experimental psychology to support the existence of an independently motivated altruism that is nondefensive in nature. We attempt to show how the view of altruism as a universal motivational system stems from the recent developments in evolutionary theory and contributes to our understanding of intrapsychic factors influencing human behavior in general and the process of psychotherapy in particular. It is not our goal to prove the existence of "pure altruism" that can never be derived from selfish motives. Rather, our thesis is that self-oriented and altruistic motivations are equal and essential partners in human evolution and development. It is the optimal balance of these two forces that is necessary for evolutionary advancement and for psychological health.     

Roles for software technologies in advancing research and theory in educational psychology

While reviews abound on theoretical topics in educational psychology, it is rare that we examine our field's instrumentation development, and what effects this has on educational psychology's evolution. To repair this gap, this paper investigates and reveals the implications of software technologies for researching and theorizing about core issues in educational psychology. From a set of approximately 1,500 articles published between 1999 and 2004, we sampled illustrative studies and organized them into four broad themes: (a) innovative ways to operationalize variables, (b) the changing nature of instructional interventions, (c) new fields of research in educational psychology, and (d) new constructs to be examined. In each area, we identify novel uses of these technologies and suggest how they may advance, and, in some instances, reshape theory and methodology. Overall, we demonstrate that software technologies hold significant potential to elaborate research in the field.     

具身心智对进化心理学的质疑与挑战

具身-生成心智倡导生命与认知的深刻连续性,它重新定义了自然选择,强调身体和生命活动对认知的关键意义,并指出每一个人都是经过文化适应的主体。它在心智进化的本质、认知的核心工作假设、人类本性与文化,以及基因、身体、生命活动与认知的关系等问题上都有着完全不同于进化心理学的理解,并对后者提出了质疑和挑战。     

Evolutionary psychology is compatible with equity feminism, but not with gender feminism: A reply to Eagly and Wood (2011)

I comment on Eagly and Wood's biosocial constructionist evolutionary theory (2011; DOI: 10.1007/s11199-011-9949-9). Although this gender feminist theory allows for evolved physical differences between men and women and evolved psychological similarities for men and women, it fails to consider evolutionary accounts of psychological sex differences. I hypothesize that gender feminists' reluctance to acknowledge that evolution has left different fingerprints on men's and women's bodies and brains stems from two common misunderstandings of evolutionary psychology: the myth of immutability and the naturalistic fallacy. I conclude that although evolutionary psychology is eminently compatible with equity feminism, evolutionary psychology and feminist psychology will conflict as long as the latter adheres to gender feminism and its unwillingness to acknowledge the evidence for evolved psychological sex differences. Gender feminism's dualistic view of evolution hinders the search for and understanding of the proximate and ultimate causes of inequality. Feminist psychology needs to evolve by embracing equity feminism, which has no a priori stance on the origin or existence of differences between the sexes.     

Evolutionary psychology is not the only productive evolutionary approach to understanding consumer behavior

I respond to Vladas Griskevicius and Douglas T. Kendrick (G&;K) and Gad Saad's (S) defenses of the view that Consumer Studies would benefit from the appeal to evolution in all work aimed at understanding consumer behavior. I argue that G&;K and S's reliance on one theoretical perspective, that of evolutionary psychology, limits their options. Further, I point out some specific problems with the theoretical perspective of evolutionary psychology. Finally, I introduce some alternative evolutionary approaches to studying human behavior that could profitably be adopted in consumer research.     

Feminism and Evolutionary Psychology: Moving Forward

The Special Issue on feminism and evolutionary psychology published by Sex Roles (Smith and Konik 2011) has elicited responses that advance understanding of the debate between evolutionary psychology and feminist perspectives concerning the origins of similarities and differences in the behavior of women and men (Smith and Konik 2013). The further challenges to evolutionary psychology mounted in these responses suggest that the Special Issue has intensified the debate more that it has resolved it. Moving forward requires that feminist psychologists not only add to the considerable body of empirical evidence that challenges evolutionary psychology but also produce alternative evolutionary theories that transcend the nature-nurture controversy that underlies the current debate. To this end, we refer readers to our biosocial constructionist theory in which culture and biology are intertwined in both distal evolutionary processes that shaped human psychology and proximal mechanisms that underlie differences and similarities in male and female behavior (Wood and Eagly 2012).     

Jung's view on myth and post-modern psychology

Post-modern psychology embodies two core themes, the social mind and the narrative self. Whereas the social-mind thesis seems diametrically opposed to Jung's position regarding human nature, the narrative-self thesis is associated with research and theorizing about personal myth and mythmaking in ways that could make contact with Jung's concerns. Jung's view is examined here with particular attention to McAdams' theory of narrative identity. It is suggested that the ostensible differences between Jung and post-modern psychology might reflect divergent interests, rather than necessarily irreconcilable worldviews.     

Terrorism in the Evolution Wars: Mass Media and Human Nature

Antievolutionist and New Atheist pundits invoke the specter of terrorism in widely distributed mass media. Notably, allusions to terrorism within such Evolution Wars communications are frequently associated with discourse on human nature, morality, and values. Such discourse includes references to substantive and relational traits linked with human distinctiveness, as well as the moral implications of evolution and religion. This paper examines broadcasts disseminated by the most media vocal Darwin skeptics and New Atheists, revealing the ways in which the dread of terrorism is married to discussions of evolutionary theory.     

The Origins of Face Processing in Humans: Phylogeny and Ontogeny

ABSTRACT— Faces are crucial for nonverbal communication in humans and related species. From the first moments of life, newborn infants prefer to look at human faces over almost any other form of stimuli. Since this finding was first observed, there has been much debate regarding the "special" nature of face processing. Researchers have put forward numerous developmental models that attempt to account for this early preference and subsequent maturation of the face processing system. In this article, we review these models and their supporting evidence drawing on literature from developmental, evolutionary, and comparative psychology. We conclude that converging data from these fields strongly suggests that face processing is conducted by a dedicated and complex neural system, is not human specific, and is unlikely to have emerged recently in evolutionary history.     

Selfish genes vs. selfish people: Sociobiology as origin myth

The sociobiological version of human evolution is criticized as excessively reductionistic and focused on reproductive competition. An alternative version of evolutionary psychology is proposed based on the premise that the most important feature of human evolutionary history is selection for small group living. The structural requirements of group survival can account for fundamentally social motives characteristic of the human species such as cooperation, conformity, and group loyalty.Adapted from a symposium presentation at the annual meeting of the Society for Experimental Social Psychology, October 13, 1990, Buffalo, New York.     

Trade-offs and individual differences in evolved traits

Comments on Evolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations (see record 2010-02208-001) by Confer et al. We applaud Confer et al.'s (February-March 2010) clarifications of the many misconceptions surrounding the use of evolutionary analyses in psychology. As they noted, such misunderstandings are common and result in a curious tendency of some of our colleagues to criticize evolutionary psychology without a firm understanding of evolution itself. Confer et al. also did an admirable job acknowledging current unresolved issues among evolutionary psychologists (e.g., the relative importance of group selection on humans). The above said, we disagree with their view that a current limitation of evolutionary psychology is its inability to explain phenomena "that appear to reduce an individual's reproductive success, and cannot be explained by mismatches with, or hijacking of, our psychological mechanisms by modern-day novel inputs" (Confer et al., 2010, p. 122). Mismatches between modern environments and environments of evolutionary adaptedness are only one set of explanations for seemingly maladaptive traits (Nesse, 2005). Another set involves evolutionary trade-offs.