Talk:Evolutionary psychology

---

There currently exists an Evolutionary Psychology Temp Page for the purposes of trying to provide an outline for the evolutionary psychology article and of minimizing the edit wars at the main article, as well.

---

Avoiding edit warring

At 03:50, 5, May 2014 Memillis removed the following for the reason "non-EP sources" which I gather means that all seven sources were removed because they come from beyond evolutionary psychology. I dispute both that all sources must have an EP focus, and that none of these sources has an EP focus. To avoid an edit war, I leave it to third party editors to restore these sources as appropriate. The evaluative diversity article has an entire section on evolutionary explanations for the existence of evaluative diversity, and my goal here is for the evolutionary psychology article to include evaluative diversity in its list of areas in which evolutionary psychology has been applied.

On the other hand, diversity of personality may be a polymorphism, like gender and blood-type, which would evolve to benefit our species as a whole.[67] Computer scientists can solve wider ranges of problems when their algorithmic toolboxes have greater evaluative diversity,[68] various evolutionary theorists have shown that evaluative diversity could have evolved as a polymorphism among humans,[69] and evaluative diversity has been shown to significantly relate with some aspects of personality.[70] In other words, we may have different personalities at least partly because such diversity can improve evaluation by teams (as in a democracy).[71][72][73]

[67] Dean, Tim (2012). "Evolution and moral diversity". Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 7.

[68] Santos-Lang, Christopher (2014). "Chapter 6: Moral Ecology Approaches". In van Rysewyk, Simon; Pontier, Matthijs. Machine Medical Ethics. New York: Springer. pp. 74–96.

[69] Sober, Elliott; Wilson, David Sloan (1998). Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

[70] Santos-Lang, Christopher (In Press). "Measuring computational evaluative differences in humans". WCSED Working Paper.

[71] Wilde, Douglass J (1997). "Using student preferences to guide design team composition". Proceedings of DETC ’97.

[72] Weisberg, Michael; Muldoon, Ryan (2009). "Epistemic Landscapes and the Division of Cognitive Labor". Philosophy of Science 76: 225–252. doi:10.1086/644786.

[73] Hong, Lu; Page, Scott E. (2001). "Problem Solving by Heterogeneous Agents". Journal of Economic Theory 97: 123–163. doi:10.1006/jeth.2000.2709.

Avoiding edit warring

Sonicyouth86, please discuss your proposed changes on the Talk page first. We apparently have very divergent views. Repeatedly reverting my edits back to yours without discussion / compromise here first amounts to edit warring. Memills (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from selective and unexplained removals of sourced content and rethink your strategy to introduce even more "rebuttals" to a section that has been criticized by multiple editors for its tendency to present "rebuttals" rather than "criticisms". Your explanation that something is "redundant" is unconvincing. Criticism of evolutionary psychology is the main article. The section "Reception" is supposed to summarize the content from the main article. I also noticed that you complain about redundancies but have no qualms about duplicating one more "rebuttal" (to a criticism that isn't even mentioned). And why do you remove references? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's see, the title of this section is... what?

I'm tempted to lob some ad hominems back. It is not an impressive approach, tho.

From WP:NPOVFAQ: "it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides."

And please do keep in mind WP:CRIT: "When incorporating negative criticism, the POV policy requires that negative material be presented in a balanced and fair manner. Additionally, the undue weight policy requires that negative criticism be presented in a way that does not draw excessive attention to the negative criticism." (emphasis added). Memills (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The criticism has been banished to a separate section and presented in a manner that marginalizes the criticism via double "rebuttals". As it stands now, the section fails WP:Structure and your most recent edits did not help. You removed secondary sources (Wilson et al. and Levy) in favor of primary ones (Pinker without page reference), added more "rebuttals" to nonexistent criticisms, and gutted the section until only one short and unspecified critical sentence remained which you "rebutted" with two longer sentences that were based on primary sources, and included one "rebuttal" to something that wasn't even criticized. If it were up to you, more than two-thirds of the "Ethical implications" section would consist of "rebuttals". This is against pretty much all of our core content policies. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, the WP "POV policy requires that negative material be presented in a balanced and fair manner." Fairness, in this case, involves rebutting criticisms that are clearly false, especially those have been empirically shown to be false. For example, statement that evolutionary psychologists work to justify "existing social hierarchies and reactionary policies" is counter to the fact that evolutionary psychologists are generally more political liberal than most folks. Since the criticism is false, it amounts to an ad hominem on the field (WP:Label) and is not notable. The "reductionism and determinism" of evolutionary psychology is no greater than any other science, which again, calls into question the notability of that criticism. If we want to talk about fairness, there is an entire article that explores the criticisms (both straw men and substantive) in depth, Criticism of evolutionary psychology. Memills (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires that negative material be presented in a balanced and fair manner. At the moment, the criticism is not presented in a balanced and fair manner because editors have been trying to prove that the "criticism is false". More specifically, WP:NPOV states that "back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents" should be avoided. A reception or criticism section is about the reception or criticism, not about the way that evolutionary psychologists have responded to it. Evolutionary psychologists have the entire article to make their case and they should not get two and sometimes three chances to tell their side of the story. You can write the article Criticism of the criticism of evolutionary psychology if you must but you cannot cut down further on the actual criticisms and introduce even more "rebuttals". For years editors have complained about your editing and the structure of the evolutionary psychology and criticism of evolutionary psychology articles. Just some examples: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Please do not refuse to listen to what other editors have been telling you for years. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you make me blush. But... I really cannot take all the credit. There have been many, many editors who have written and edited both this page and the associated criticism page to offer rebuttals to criticisms. I could make a list of them for you, with 30 diff links, but I've got a life outside of here...

And, as I have told you repeatedly, please cut the ad homimens. They only exacerbate the problem with your editing that the title of this section refers to (italics as ironic exemplars). Memills (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Just thought I would comment that the obvious 'pro-EP' bias that Memills holds is one that has been pointed out by more than a handful of editors over the years. I agree with Sonicyouth86, that this page does not present a neutral point of view. The structure seems to go like this: "Critics say x,y,z, but evolutionary psychologists counter that such arguments are straw men - see Confer et al." Leaving aside the point about evolutionary psychologist always getting in the 'last word,' it is obvious to me that the Confer article does not actually address most of the criticisms. Memills knows this, which is why he does not provide page numbers and why he does not cite how it does accurately address the issues.--Logic prevails (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

My interest is accuracy. Logic prevails, welcome back. You have already stated your antipathy toward the field in the archives of these Talk pages, nothing new there.

But, for a little light hearted diversion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_2TxDpYdLQ Memills (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The comical part about the video is the depiction of the critic of evolutionary psychology, portrayed as a football player who wears eye black and dabbles in cultural anthropology. Next time add some creationism to the stigmatized jock character and his interest in the social sciences and you're golden. A social psychologist would have a field day with the stereotyping in that video. It's a good illustration of the way sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists have misrepresented academic criticisms.

As for the accuracy part please read the archives and comments about your involvement. It may be tempting to dismiss those comments as "creationist" [13] or whatever but please read them. Then you may want to reread the Confer et al. paper and see that the paper never actually claims that some of the criticisms are "straw men". The paper never uses that expression. It is something a specific editor made up. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, with the ad hominems? Someone should program an "ad hominem generator" to make it easier (something along the lines of the postmodernism generator).

According to, er, Wikipedia: "A straw man... is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."

Do Confer, et al., suggest that critics misrepresent evolutionary psychology? They do. In the abstact: "Some of the controversy stems... from misunderstandings about the logic of evolutionary psychology..." And in the body of the paper: some critiques are based on "...misunderstandings and mischaracterizations." Straw man args. About as unimpressive as ad hominems... Memills (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Memills, I would also encourage you to re-read the Confer article and properly cite your sources. Quoting an article that claims "misunderstandings and mischaracterizations." Does not make it so. In my view, the article erects its own straw persons in its description of its critics. If you want to use the paper, you need to cite specifically how Confer et al. claim their critics to be misunderstanding them, and how they specifically address the criticisms. In my view, they gloss over the criticisms without addressing them, then go on to explain their point of view, relying on some of the very same assumptions that critics are attacking.Logic prevails (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, "misunderstanding" and "misconceptions" are not necessarily straw man arguments. Confer et al. use the word "mischaracterizations" once but you neglected to mention the context. What Confer at al. actually write is: "One quantitative study of the coverage of evolutionary psychology in these texts came to three conclusions: (a) Coverage of evolutionary psychology has increased dramatically; (b) the 'tone' of coverage has changed over the years from initially hostile to at least neutral (and in some instances balanced); and (c) there remain misunderstandings and mischaracterizations in each of the texts." That was the result of one quantitative study, not Confer et al., and that study examined the coverage, not specifically criticisms, of evolutionary psychology. To give you one example: An introductory psychology textbook can contain misunderstandings and misrepresentation of some of the more creative claims of evolutionary psychology without actually criticizing the claims.

The evolutionary psychology defense section not only violates WP:Structure but also WP:Original research as Confer et al. never actually claim that criticisms are based on straw man arguments. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Restored this subheading per WP Response Section which states:

"An acceptable approach to including criticisms in Wikipedia articles is to separate the description of a topic from a description of how the topic was received. The latter section may be titled "Reception", "Response", "Reviews" or "Reactions". These sections include both negative and positive assessments. This approach usually conforms to the WP neutrality policy, because it avoids being "all negative" or "exclusively laudatory" about the topic."

Also, to avoid excessive reliance on the Confer article (and its various interpretations), I have added additional relevant references. Memills (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

We already have a section on how the topic was received. What you want is a section on how evolutionary psychologists receive the reception. A classic violation of WP:STRUCTURE, again. Btw your additional references lack page references and the attributions are highly dubious. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Not "dubious" (what does that mean?) -- check them out. These are all books or articles written by academic scholars responding to critics. Memills (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Read again and pay attention to the word "attributions", as in the claims that you attribute to the sources, not the sources per se, appear dubious. The Confer et al. source which you used for your "EP defense" section said nothing about "straw men" etc. in response to the specific criticisms mentioned here and there is no reason to believe that the new sources do. Also, there is the problem of missing page references and your continued violation of WP:STRUCTURE. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think there is no need to revisit the "straw men" issue -- that was already covered, above. These are general books/articles that cover multiple responses to multiple criticisms. They are included as general references, not for each specific issue -- thus, no page #s required. Memills (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate that you are not adding original research as you did in the past when you added a "evolutionary psychology defense" (reading WP:NPOV might help) in response to unspecified criticisms and attributed the defense to Confer et al. although the source did not support the claim. There is no evidence that the new sources support it. You should probably read WP:Citing sources in addition to the other policies I mentioned. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to re-read WP:AGF. Without it, feel free to read some of the books / articles referenced to verify their relevance for yourself (added bonus: it would help to make your contributions here more informed).

Again, you and Confer? We've discussed this to death. You correctly said that they didn't use the words "straw man," specifically. I agreed. But, as I again repeat myself, their prose suggested that critics indeed made straw-man type arguments. I even quoted them on this for you. Wanna see it again? Memills (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The sources that you added do not support the statements, hence your refusal to provide page numbers. The "evolutionary defense" section needs to be removed per WP:OR and WP:STRUCTURE. Yes, we did discuss your rather creative description of the Confer et al. paper, your belief that a mischaracterization is necessarily a straw-man argument, and the part "...misunderstandings and mischaracterizations" that you falsely attributed to Confer et al. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

First, you object to Confer. Then I add more refs that provide rebuttals to critics. Then you say "The sources that you added do not support the statements, hence your refusal to provide page numbers." Er... these are general references that respond to many claims by critics. Tell ya what: I'll add "etc." to make this a bit more clear. Memills (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

First, you violate WP:STRUCTURE by adding a "defense" by evolutionary psychologists and then WP:OR by misrepresenting Confer. Then you restore the section and add a bunch of new "rebuttals" to critics, thus violating NPOV again. "These are general references that respond to many claims by critics". You are basically adding a list of books as a recommended reading list. You do not specify which criticism are "straw men" or misunderstanding and why, you just want to get in the last word, a blanket characterization of criticism as wrong. How would you feel about a "Critics response" to your "Evolutionary psychology defense" section where we could list a bunch of book recommendations and say "Scholars have addressed many of the justification by evolutionary psychologists (see, for example, books...). Among their rebuttals are that some explanations misrepresent the criticisms, are based on an incorrect nature vs. nurture dichotomy, are based on evolutionary psychologists' ignorance of basic principles of empirical research, an overactive imagination etc." --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have no problem with that. (In fact, there are a whole list of anti-EP books noted at the lede of the Criticism of evolutionary psychology page.

Do you not wish WP readers to know about books/articles by evolutionary psychologists wherein they respond to critics? Again, I repeat myself: WP policy clearly states that this section include both sides of a debate. Memills (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

WP policy states the exact opposite. Read WP:STRUCTURE and WP:NPOV (throw in WP:OR and WP:COI for good measure). WP readers do not need a vacuous "rebuttal" ("oh, how they misunderstand us!") on top of the specific "rebuttals" in the subsections and they don't need a response to the "rebuttals" and a "rebuttal" to the response to the "rebuttals" and so forth. What they need is an article that explains what evolutionary psychology is and then summarizes how evolutionary psychology was received. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

What part of this do you not understand?

Again, from WP:CRIT specifically related to this "Reception" section: " ...(a) section may be titled "Reception", "Response", "Reviews" or "Reactions". These sections include both negative and positive assessments. This approach usually conforms to the WP neutrality policy, because it avoids being "all negative" or "exclusively laudatory" about the topic."

...but, again, I repeat myself. Memills (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Memills has added some information about the defenders or evpsych. Sonicyouth says that the structure is bad. Let's find a way to include Memills's information in a better structure. The "defenders" material represents a sort of overview (of one side). Let's balance that with "detractors" at put it at the start of the "Reception" section. Then we can have a fair structure. Start with the detractors and defenders in general, then touch on specific points in the subsections that follow. Right now there's no introduction to the Reception section, and it deserves one. Then we get to use the information that Memills has provided us, and it's no longer capping the section as if it were a conclusion. Let's figure out how best to include his information rather than trying to exclude it. Leadwind (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Please shoot me; I'm editing this haunted page again. I went ahead and wrote a brief intro to the reception covering some basic criticisms from Rose and Rose, to balance Memills' pro-EP material. I could also fold his "concluding" material into the intro, where it wouldn't seem like the "last word" on the issue. Leadwind (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks Leadwind for suggesting a compromise. Memills (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Differentiation between this article and Evolutionary psychology of language

There is a great deal of similarity between this language section in this article and Evolutionary psychology of language.

Please see: Talk:Evolutionary psychology of language for questions/thoughts about greater differentiation between the articles.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Accurate representation of sources / Edit warring, revisited

Sonicyouth86, again, especially in light of the discussion above re edit warring, please discuss here before you engage in multiple reversions.

As I asked when I reverted your edit (before you thereafter reverted it back), please discuss your concerns here.

You claim misrepretation of sources here as justification for your reversion. I don't see it -- please explain.

To the contrary, I see misrepresentation of Thornhill and Palmer, as well as a misrepresentation of what the Naturalistic Fallacy is in the prose (and incorrect use of the term). The purpose of my edit was to correct these errors. Memills (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Your attempts to misrepresent what Richardson and Wilson et al. say about Thornhill and Palmer's theory were discussed here. As for the blog post by Kurzban: Surely you can see that he says nothing in response to Richardson and Wilson et al. or their argument. Please do not add and edit war to keep your original research. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are quite confused about some of the content.

You apparently wish to misrepresent the thesis of Thornhill and Palmer's book. If Richardson and Wilson et al. misrepresent Thornhill and Palmer, there is no reason why that should not be pointed out.

Your suggestion that evolutionary psychologists "commit" the Naturalistic Fallacy: The use of the term "commit" is incorrect, and it betrays a misunderstanding of their concerns and a misrepresentation of the source.

I suggest that we would do well to have a neutral 3rd party review this issue. Memills (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You are confused about the entire reception section. The reception section summarizes how evolutionary psychology (including Thornhill and Palmers explanation of rape) was received. Richardson and Wilson et al. have criticized Thornhill and Palmer's hypothesis. It is irrelevant that you think that the criticism is unjustified. What matters is that you refrain from misrepresenting Richardson and Wilson et al. just because you believe that they misunderstand evolutionary psychology and Thornhill and Palmer. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

We agree -- "It is irrelevant that you think." That's why we include references in WP.

Again, as I'm sure you read above, "If Richardson and Wilson et al. misrepresent Thornhill and Palmer, there is no reason why that should not be pointed out" (supported by references) ...but I repeat myself.

What matters is that you refrain insisting that I have misrepresented Richardson and Wilson et al." when, in fact, I have not. Memills (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You have repeatedly misrepresented the two sources, see Talk:Evolutionary_psychology#Section_.22Ethical_implications.22. You need to understand at least two things. a) WP:STRUCTURE: The reception section is where the reception of evolutionary psychology belongs. It is not the place to defend evolutionary psychology from them bad stoopid creatio... critics. b) WP:Original research: You need reliable sources that state that Wilson et al. and Richardson misrepresent Thornhill and Palmer. But remember WP:STRUCTURE in your attempts to prove critics wrong. You can try to write the article Criticism of the criticism of evolutionary psychology and see where it gets you. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"You need reliable sources that state that Wilson et al. and Richardson misrepresent Thornhill and Palmer." Er... no, I don't. The original reference, Thornhill and Palmer, can be used. To wit: "Although the question whether rape is an adaptation or a by-product cannot yet be definitively answered… " (Thornhill and Palmer, p. 84). They also have an entire chapter titled: “Human Rape: Adaptation or Byproduct?”

And, as I noted previously above, per WP:Crit "...section may be titled "Reception", "Response", "Reviews" or "Reactions". These sections include both negative and positive assessments." Responses to criticisms are appropriate in a Reception section.

So, let's focus on accuracy, and see where it gets us.

If the two of us cannot come to an agreement on these issues, I suggest that solicit a 3rd opinion -- WP:3O. Memills (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The original reference, Thornhill and Palmer, says nothing in response to Richardson and Wilson et al. It says nothing about the reception of evolutionary psychology in general and the reception of their hypothesis in particular. Do you understand that the section "Reception" needs to be about the reception of evolutionary psychology, not another place to describe EP concepts? Nope, responses to criticisms and responses to responses to criticisms and responses to responses to responses to responses to criticisms... are inappropriate per WP:STRUCTURE. I understand that you want to prove them wrong with an awesome rebuttal like "They are wrong, and they use straw-man arguments, and they don't understand evolutionary psychology" and that you want to have the last word but you need to respect our content policies like WP:OR and WP:STRUCTURE. For years editors have tried to explain to you why your contributions to EP related articles are problematic. The next step is a WP:RFC/U. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

As I have noted before, you tend to lob out ad homenims. Please stop -- that is not helpful. Please, also, do not put words in my mouth. I have responded to your concerns without making personal attacks on you, what you may or may not believe, and, I have assumed good faith. I ask the same of you.

At this point, as I previously suggested, I think it is time to request help from a neutral third party WP:3O. I will put in a request there. Memills (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

As I have noted before, you claim that criticism A is wrong and demand to have your opinion included in the article. When I tell you that you need references you suggest to use your understanding of a reference that doesn't say anything about criticism A. When I explain to you that WP:OR is non-negotiable and that your contributions have been criticized by multiple editors, you accuse me of lobbing out "ad homenims" [sic] or something. How predictable. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, my...

You state: "you claim that criticism A is wrong and demand to have your opinion included in the article." Nooo.... A very careful, close reading of my comments above will reveal that I suggested that Thornhill and Palmer can be used as reference. Did you see that? Did you see their quote that I included? Referencing what Thornhill and Palmer actually wrote is not by any stretch of the imagination WP:OR. It is just proper sourcing.

Thornhill and Palmer: "The moon is NOT made of green cheese."

Richardson and Wilson: "Thornhill and Palmer say that the moon IS made of green cheese."

According to Sonicyouth86 we must now find a reference that says: Smith and Jones say that Richardson and Wilson are wrong when they say that "Thornhill and Palmer say that the moon IS made of green cheese."

Actually, we can simply say: Thornhill and Palmer say that "The moon is NOT made of green cheese." (ref, page #) Memills (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is changing here and it involves the same old problems. The "Evolutionary Psychology Defense" section is nothing more than a Pro-EP polemic that lumps critics into one large grouping and effectively dismisses them out of hand without engaging the real issues in any depth. The quote about holding backward-facing guns is outrageous (is that even from a peer-reviewed published source?). Based on MeMills' approach, I wonder if we should add another section titled: "Critics' Reception of Evolutionary Psychologists' Purported Defense." Also, why does the introductory paragraph still say "controversies of EP," even though the page it refers to is "criticism of EP"? The field is more than controversial, it has specific criticisms against it. It seems appropriate to label it for what it is (though no doubt MeMills will take issue with that).

I have said this before: that MeMills has been trolling these pages and is invested in ensuring that evolutionary psychology is seen favorably and that any issues about its reception are dismissed out of hand. This is anything but a NPOV. I have peer reviewed publication in this area, and could no doubt offer some useful contributions to outlining the issues of the critics, but I would not dare come back to this page until MeMills was significantly outnumbered or banned. Logic prevails (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"Let's hope it isn't true. But if it is, let's hope it does not become widely known."

So... the best way to deal with editors with whom you disagree is to attack and silence them? Your previous efforts on this page (in the archives) to suppress the inclusion of appropriate information has been stunning.

My objective here is (a) accuracy, and (b) airing of both sides of the debate, both on this page, and on the Criticism of evolutionary psychology page. Your already acknowledged antipathy toward evolutionary psychology is not a basis for suppressing information about it on WP.

The old paradigms that evolutionary psychology challenges don't die quietly. However, the tide is gradually turning (see, for example, this article by Jerry Coyne). Memills (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

(Outdent) Hi, I'm jumping in to provide a third opinion as per the request on WP:THIRD. The request pointed to an archived discussion but this thread seems to touch on more or less the same issues. I've read the archived discussion and it appears there are two distinct issues: 1) Whether Thornhill and Palmer view rape is a form of mate choice that increases reproductive fitness, and 2) the "naturalistic fallacy" issue.

Starting from the first one, Wilson writes on page 673, fourth paragraph, line 10 that T&P don't condsider that a very plausible hypothesis, rather merely a theoretical possibility. Therefore based on the Wilson source, it doesn't seem correct to say T&P view rape is a form of mate choice that increases reproductive fitness.

Concerning the second item in dispute, Wilson says in the abstract that evolutionary psychologists mention the "naturalistic fallacy" as an erroneous way of thinking, which sounds like cautioning against it to me, rather than "invoking" although I can also see the thinking behing "invoking" in the sense that the naturalistic-fallacy card is played.

Overall in terms of the shortness of the text in question, it strikes me to ask whether T&P or Wilson need to be mentined by name at all. Why not simply say that critics say EP theories may have unwanted ethical consequenses, that EP caution against the naturalistic fallacy, and that some see that cautioning as a way to forestall legitimate discussion? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Sounds good to me. Memills (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence citations bibliography for updating this and other articles

Insofar as evolutionary psychology relates to topics discussed in the field of psychology in general, and to topics related to human cognition and intelligence, you may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

A recent article of interest

Peters, B. M. (2013). Evolutionary psychology: Neglecting neurobiology in defining the mind. Theory & Psychology, 23(3), 305-322. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)