Jump to content

Talk:Evolutionary psychology/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

computational theory of mind?

A couple detractors have brought up the computational theory of mind as if it's a weird tenet of EP not shared by science in general. I was under the perhaps-blinkered understanding that the computational theory of mind is the only tenable explanation for how the brain and mind are related to each other, tenable in terms of natural science, anyway. I know that there's an alternative to the CToM: that the mind is function of an immaterial soul. But that's not a scientific explanation. So if there' a tenable alternative to the CToM, please enlighten me. Right now I buy into the CToM because I've never heard of a scientifically tenable alternative. Maybe I've stumbled onto just the group of people to help me out of the intellectual hole I'm in. And once I see that CToM is a minority view harbored only by silly EP, I'll be happy to help y'all say just that in the article (because we're not just chitchatting here but actually trying to figure out what to make the article say). Leadwind (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

We are not here to educate you about cognitive science. This is not a forum nor a place for you to expand your horizons. The Computational and modular model of Ep is mentioned as being particular for EP in several sources - that of course means that it isn't shared by everyone. Computational models of the mind have been proposed by Putnam and Fodor neither of whom are EP'ers. Some Computational theories are modular while others are connectionist and/or based on neural networks theories. To get a glimpse of what it is you are missing by arguing against strawmen of your own device read this for example: Carel P. van Schaik, The Evolution of the Human Mind: Diverse Approaches, Evolutionary Anthropology 16:75–79 (2007). Or this: DAVID J. BULLER and VALERIE GRAY HARDCASTLE, Evolutionary Psychology, Meet Developmental Neurobiology: Against Promiscuous Modularity. Brain and Mind 1: 307–325, 2000.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
If you could tell me what the competing natural-science theory of mind is, I'd be able to look it up and cite it on the page. Can't you tell me what the competing natural-science theory of mind is? Leadwind (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I am assuming that you are able to read - that is why I gave you two references. You can't both plead ignorance and refuse to do the footwork when faced with source. We are not here to educate you as I have already stated. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem lies in the fact that the complexity of the human mind makes it difficult (I might argue impossible) to be summarized by a single psychological theory or philosophical assumption. Proponents of EP get frustrated by critics telling them what it is not. They essentially say: "well you tell me how it works." But it is not that easy - we can argue on very solid ground about how it does not work... but we are not so sure of ourselves that we would be rushed to make sweeping statements. Also remember that any explanation of the human mind must accurately be reflected in our neurobiological structure (unless we want to be Dualists)... you understand the complexity of the human mind when you begin to grasp the complexity of the human nervous system. Defining the mind is one of the most difficult questions a person could ask... though proponents of EP seem to believe that they have a simple answer. But I think the safest way to describe it, would be sticking to what our neurosciences have generally shown us: that there are phylogenetically 'old' mechanisms that are semi-hardwired and phylogenetically 'newer' mechanisms that are more plastic and capable of being radically shaped by the environment. This is the very 'general' perspective that I teach in my classes... though I am extremely cautious in wanting to take it much further. We just do not know enough to do that. The reason why there is no 'alternative' hypothesis, so to speak, is because researchers are aware of how little we know and are cautious in jumping to any kind of conclusion. It is also the case the correct explanation will not be a simple one - it will come with lengthy study and adequate understanding of our complex neurobiology. Logic prevails (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The computational theory of mind is more associated with cognitive psychology and information processing theory, where these ideas originated. EPers are more interested in ultimate questions (how an adaptation evolved and what is its adaptive function) rather than with proximate explanations (this psychological mechanism or neurological module works this way in real time). It is a stretch to include a criticism of EP based on the computational theory of mind. Fine topic though for the controversies page. Memills (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
EP makes arguments about domain-specific adaptations... like most sciences, they need to present a rationale that would enable them to do so (i.e. a rationale that would allow them to focus on domain-specific mechanisms vs. domain-general ones, or possible interactions between them). The rationale, as given by Cosmides & Tooby, Buss, and Pinker, rests on the computational theory of mind, which is assumed by them to be correct. If you do not have a rationale for your preferred method, you do not have grounds to make your hypotheses. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. There needs to be a rationale for the methods, and this rationale has been clearly presented by the field of EP - it deserves important mention here. Logic prevails (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
EP need make no claims about proximate mechanisms. It is a theory of the evolution of functional psychological adaptations. How these adaptations actually work on a proximate level, in the brain, is not their main focus. Darwin's theory of natural and sexual selection was similarly adaptationist in nature -- with no reference to proximate mechanisms (genes, etc.). Further, there is disagreement among EPers about the degree of domain specific vs. (somewhat more) domain general mechanisms, and how association areas of the brain connect the various psychological adaptations. Memills (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
By the way, let me add this, which may surprise and even give some comfort to some here. EPers openly acknowledge that a full, sophisticated understanding of behavior requires both ultimate (functional, evolutionary, adaptationist) and proximate (how the brain works, and interacts with environment input) understandings. They realize that EP alone is incomplete -- we do need to also know about how adaptations actually work in the real world in a proximate sense. I suspect Darwin felt the same way -- he knew about heritability and selection, but he had no idea of the actual proximate mechanisms involved (now known as genetics and epigentics). Until EP and the neurosciences compatibly merge and integrate, the picture presented by EP is incomplete. Now, it is basically a mathematics-derived theory and set of hypotheses. Memills (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
You are missing the point and seem to be arguing something different. If EP is making claims about "adaptive domain-specific mechanisms" located in the mind, they must assume that the mind is actually made up of "adaptive domain-specific mechanisms." This assumption is based on the computational theory of mind - this is explicitly stated by the EP authors that I listed. Saying that the computational theory of mind is a far stretch to mention in relation to EP does not make sense, as it would appear to be part of its foundational framework. Logic prevails (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Detractors like to criticize technical aspects of EP (modularity, computation) because they've totally lost on the main battleground: whether we have powerful, evolved social instincts (we do). Leadwind (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Your right Leadwind... theories do not need to have logical/rational starting points to justify areas of investigation or research methodology... this is just a technical detail that critics keep picking on because they are all cultural determinists... just a bunch of quacks that cannot bear the thought that genes might influence our behavior... glad you figured this all out. Thanks for enlightening. Logic prevails (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
"Detractors like to criticize ..." Leadwind, SO WHAT? Thi is not a chatroom. This is not a forum for you to decide whether EP is right or wrong, or for you to try to convince others whether EP is right or wrong. Editors' views are irrelevant. All that matters are significant views from reliable sources. Logic prevails has pointed out that some critics of EP point to evidence against modularity, and moreover that some advocates of EP argue that the mind is modular. As long as both claims come from reliable sources, both belong in the article. Your speculations as to the motives of certain people is simply irrelevant and disruptive. Let's focus on improving the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"Psychology" on EP

Maunus, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to do a little more work to help us understand what Psychology says about EP. Here's what you wrote, and I used this information to improve the page:

"Evolutionary psychology explains mind and behavior in terms of the adaptive value of abilities that are preserved over time by natural selection. Evolutionary psychology has its roots in Charles Darwin’s (1809–82) theory of natural selection, which inspired William James’s functionalist approach. But it is only since the publication in 1975 of Sociobiology, by the biologist E. O. Wilson, that evolutionary thinking has had an identifiable presence in psychology. That presence is steadily increasing (Buss, 1999; Pinker, 1997a; Tooby & Cosmides, 2000)." (p. 26)
"Critics of the evolutionary approach point out that many current traits of people and other animals probably evolved to serve different functions than those they currently serve. ... Complications like these have lead the critics to wonder how evolutionary hypotheses can ever be tested (Coyne, 2000; Sterelny & Griffiths, 1999). Testing ideas about the evolutionary origins of psychological phenomena is indeed a challenging task, but not an impossible one (Buss, Haselton, Shackelford, Bleske, & Wakefield, 1998; Pinker, 1997b). Evolutionary psychologists hold that behaviors or traits that occur universally in all cultures are good candidates for evolutionary adaptations." (p. 26-27)

Would be able to check the material again? The way you summarize it, above, the authors cite what the critics say without sharing the criticism. But when they say that testing EP is not impossible, the authors of Psychology are saying it themselves. Your summary doesn't say "Proponents of EP say it's not impossible." Your summary says it's not impossible. That's an important distinction, and one that's been lost with recent edits. Do they say that testing the ideas is possible, or do they merely say that proponents of EP hold that view? Leadwind (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It is irrelevant, even if Schater, Gilbert and Wegner say "it is possible" - that doesn't mean that we shouldn't include the criticism that it isn't possible, or that we should say "contrary to criticism it is in fact possible", it would only mean that we should say "others argue it is possible" instead of EP'ers say it is possible.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Maunus, I have to say that I admire you for reporting on what Psychology said even though it ended up on the pro-EP side. You could have misrepresented the source to fit your agenda, and you didn't. You are absolutely right that we need to cover the criticism, because our disinterested sources cover it. In fact, you've seen me add criticism from that book to this page. (Am I the only one who is willing to add both positive and negative things about EP? Why is that?) According to WP:WEIGHT, however, the viewpoint we readily find in these sources is our majority viewpoint. If we can't say, "it's possible to test these hypotheses," then we can certainly say, "According to the majority viewpoint, it's possible to test these hypotheses." That's the point of going to a disinterested source: to find out which side wins. Editors with minority views oppose the very idea that we should edit with a majority viewpoint in mind, but WP policy is pretty clear. Leadwind (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Schacter, Wegner and Gilbert would consider their statement to be "pro-EP" they are simply saying that in certain cases when hypotheses are well formed they can be supported by evidence. They are not making a general endorsement of EP or dismissing the criticism as unfounded.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
No general endorsement, that's true, but EP gets the nod over its critics. Leadwind (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

history of theory in the lead

The history of the theory was taken out of the lead. Leads are supposed to be able to stand alone as concise summaries of the topic, and other tertiary sources discuss the history of the theory, so we should address that in the lead.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leadwind (talk • contribs) 15:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

outline the evolution of emotions

Here's another big topic to cover. Most researchers consider our emotions to be evolved traits (not just cultural constructs). Trivers (I believe) links many of our emotions to the task of managing reciprocity within a social group: pride, shame, gratitude, etc. Certainly a mother's love for her children goes back one or two hundred million years, while our tendency to form male-female pair-bonds is a defining feature of our recent evolution (since we diverged from the chimp/bonobo line 7 MYA). Leadwind (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how do you know that the last common human/chimp ancestor didn't form pair-bonds? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Is that a rhetorical question? Or are you honestly curious about how scientists make inferences like that one? If you're honestly curious, I'll give you a hint: How do evolutionary scientists in general determine whether a trait existed in an ancestral population shared by multiple, later species? Leadwind (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
No, it isn't a rhetorical question. It is quite specific. And I don't need a lecture on 'inferences' - particularly when presented as statements of fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like maybe you've already made up your mind that this inference is weak. I wonder what expert opinion you're relying on. Anyway, based on your understanding of how scientists discern what traits existed in ancestral populations, can you guess how they figure that the ancient human/bonobo/chimp ancestor didn't do pair bonds? Leadwind (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Are you going to answer the question? And cut out the patronising tone - I'm not interested in 'guessing' anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
My track record with answering questions is pretty poor. By the time I get to an answer (on race, genes & behavior, gender differentiation, etc.), detractors are ready to jump in and say that my answer is irrelevant anyway. It leaves me a little gun-shy, and I get the idea that people are just asking me questions not so that they can actually learn something but so that they can ambush me (or ignore me if I tell them something they don't want to learn). So I can't tell if you really want to know how zoologists and ethologists do this sort of inference or if you just want me to take a stand so you can criticize it. So how about this deal: I'll tell you how experts know that the 10MYA chimp/bonobo/humans didn't do pair bonds if you agree not to criticize the experts unless you can find an expert of your own to do the criticizing. After all, I'm not just making this stuff up. I'm reporting on what the experts say. If you're willing to accept the wisdom of experts, that's fine. If you only accept the wisdom of experts when it tears down EP, then your question doesn't seem constructive. Leadwind (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Since I've no idea who these experts are (or even how you can be an expert on pair-bonding in 10MYA hominines), I'm in no position to state anything regarding their level of expertise. I will point out however that the scientific method doesn't generally work according to the principle that being an 'expert' makes you right - this requires such considerations as verifiability, appropriate levels of peer-review etc to be met, and on that basis, the comments of a scientifically-trained non-expert may be relevant. Furthermore, you seem to be trying to answer a more general question than the one I actually asked - I'm not asking about a general method, but a particular assertion - that "our tendency to form male-female pair-bonds is a defining feature of our recent evolution (since we diverged from the chimp/bonobo line 7 MYA)". Given the paucity of fossil evidence (if this can throw any light on the question at all), and the wide variation in social/sexual behaviour amongst living hominines, I just don't see how this could be asserted as a fact. So how do the experts come to this conclusion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying all experts are right. I'm just saying that you or I would be arrogant to reject what experts conclude without finding expert opinion on our side. It sounds like you're all set to discount expert opinion. But you've been patient with me, so here's the answer: traits that the three species in the clade share are inferred to have been present in the most recent common ancestor. Chimps and bonobos don't form male-female bonds. There is no other social ape in the world that pair bonds, nor do orangutans or gorillas. Pair bonding possibly helped men in a large bands not fight over women so much, largely replacing the ancestral status hierarchy which used to do the same thing for smaller groups. Leadwind (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Given that the Chimp-Bonobo split seems to have occurred only about 1 MYA, the argument from cladistics would seem less-than definitive - in any case we are discussing a 'trait' that the three species don't share. As for there being "no other social ape in the world that pair bonds", this may rather depend on your definition of 'ape' - Gibbons certainly seem to pair-bond, and I'm not sure how you can pair-bond without being social. Regarding your comments about what pair-bonding "possibly" did, that is speculation, not evidence. I note that you still respond by suggesting that I'm rejecting expert opinion (I'm not), rather than actually providing evidence that this is the opinion of experts. Can you give me a citation that actually states that "our tendency to form male-female pair-bonds is a defining feature of our recent evolution (since we diverged from the chimp/bonobo line 7 MYA)". If I had to speculate, given my level of knowledge of the subject, I'd say that is entirely possible, and I'd probably err on the side of saying I thought it more likely than not. I wouldn't assert it as fact though, and I've yet to see how one could make such an assertion. Given that it is inference, rather than demonstrable fact, one should not use it as 'evidence' to support further speculation (i.e. in EP), without making the speculative nature of the argument clear. (Incidentally, I think you might find that even the assertion that pair-bonding among humans is universal might be questioned by some - we are an awkward lot to say anything definitive about... Still, that is another issue, and I'm happy enough to leave that discussion for another time). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Gibbons is a good call. Maybe you're right and I'm using the term "social" wrong. I mean "living in a band" rather than as a nuclear family. Gibbons are monogamous, but apes that live in bands need some way to figure out which males get to mate with which females. And my speculation about pair-bonding replacing the status hierarchy is just speculation. There's more to it than that, anyway. As for expert opinion, the policy is to state as fact whatever your RSs state as fact (even if we're not really sure it's actually a fact). Leadwind (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, seeing as this is a talk page, I'll not ask you for your RS on this - but I still say I don't believe that there is enough evidence to state it as a fact, and I'd be surprised if an 'expert' did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

majority viewpoint

Maybe we should step back and agree on what the majority viewpoint is on EP. We don't have to agree on what's actually true of false about it. But we should be able to agree on what the majority opinion is (even if the majority opinion is an evil manifestation of Western racist bias).

Anyone want to take a crack at stating the majority opinion about EP?

Of course, if you have a minority opinion, you might resist the very idea of looking for a majority opinion. If so, just find the WP policy that says "don't even look for a majority opinion" and I'll shut the heck up. Leadwind (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

EP is practiced by a minority of Psychologists. That makes the EP viewpoint a minority viewpoint within psychology. Psychology is practiced by a minority of academics working with human behavior making the psychological viewpoint a minority viewpoint within the general study of human behavior. It is obvious that with the amount of criticism that is being directed at EP that it is not the majority viewpoint that it's scientific foundations are unquestionable - Even EP'ers concede that the majority viewpoint disagrees with them, the majority viewpoint is what they call SSSM and political correctness, and it is the only thing that enables them to take the martyr role whenever some one criticises them. You are simply wasting our time here. Also you cannot take a single psychology textbook and use that to represent the majority viewpoint unless it absolutely states that "x is the majority viewpoint". That is misrepresenting sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Maunus, I edited WP a long time before I figured out how to discern the majority viewpoint. You do it by reading commonly accepted reference texts. Whatever viewpoint we find there is, per WP:WEIGHT, the majority viewpoint. If you don't believe me, then explain how we editors are supposed to discern the majority viewpoint on EP, if not via WP:WEIGHT. Since Psychology says that EP is testable, it's our duty as law-abiding editors to report that it's testable, as far as the majority viewpoint is concerned. EBO says it's testable and tested. It's true that the first EP folks were in the minority (and relished it). But they won, now they're the majority viewpoint. Leadwind (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
You should keep editing a little while longer as your ideas about how to discern the "majority viewpoint" are simply wrong. EBO doesn't say any such thing - I don't know why you keep misrepresenting that source. The psychology book also does not give a "majority viewpoint" it gives the authors viewpoint (mostly cognitive psychologists) - and the viewpoint they give isn't that all hypotheses generated by EP are testable - they say that "Testing ideas about the evolutionary origins of psychological phenomena is indeed a challenging task, but not an impossible one". That is somewhat short of a full endorsement of the testability of EP hypotheses. You are quite tendentious and unnuanced in your representation of sources I regret to say, please try to read with full comprehension and not just read what you would like sources to say.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Maunus, SLR is helping me with the "balance" policy, so maybe you can help me with this one. What does this policy mean: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts"? Another way to get at the same issue is this question: according to WP policy, how do we go about determining the majority viewpoint on EP? Leadwind (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Look, the Weight policy applies in cases where there is a clear distinction between majority and minority viewpoints - for example about fringe scientific theories. EP is not a fringe viewpoint, but neither is the EP critical viewpoint. Not all topics have a clear distinction between majority and minority viewpoints (e.g. political viewpoints). When there is n't a clear distinction between viewpoints we have to weight the viewpoints balancedly and not say that one is correct and the other is mistaken - this is clearly such a case. You apparently believe that EP has won and is now the majority viewpoint - I think this is clearly and evidently incorrect. And there really isn't any evidence that supports that idea - the textbook is critical of EP and clearly doesn't endorse it in general, but states that it is advancing in recognition, the few articles in EB that mentions EP are also fairly critical of it and also doesn't give the impression that EP's tenets are now nearly universally accepted. When you maintain that this is the case you make yourself guilty of misrepresenting sources and of giving undue weight to a particuar viewpoint. You said it yourself: if this really is a majority viewpoint it should be easy to find sources that state "While initially criticized EP is now generally accepted as the psychological theory that best explains human behavior" or something like that. You haven't shown any sources that say this, and you won't find any. Even the 2010 textbook "Evolutionary Psychology an introduction" starts by listing the most common criticism and responding to it - that is not how a majority viewpoint represents itself. That is how a viewpoint that is still contested represents itself.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Be careful, Maunus. You're being rather reasonable, and we might just make some progress if we don't watch it. Yes, EP is contested. I totally agree with you. Even Dennett has some constructive criticism of Cosmides and Tooby. I have always advocated for more coverage of the criticism, and I want to see more than we have. (That said, I have a very high standard for what sources are worthy of citation when covering a POV topic.) The only place you and I seem to disagree is on whether EP is now the majority viewpoint. So let's narrow the focus and just address the question of whether EP is testable. Both sources say it is. So let's say "the majority opinion is that EP is testable." I agree with you that neither source is a ringing endorsement of EP, but a plain reading of both sources says that EP is at the very least testable. Leadwind (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
As long as you keep misrepresenting sources, I think progress is unlikely. Neither of those sources support the idea that it is a majority viewpoint, they say that EP have found ways to deal with some of the issues that have been criticized. That is not the same as saying that everybody now is an Ep'er. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, you're right. I overstated the case. Neither of these sources is a ringing endorsement of EP. EP certainly hasn't converted the whole world. But let's set aside trying to agree on the big issue and try to agree on a little one. As far as the simple question of its testability is concerned, there is a majority opinion, and you and I both know what it is. Our options seem to be either stating EP's testability as fact (like Psychology and EBO do) or stating it as the majority opinion (a softer option in consideration of editors' feelings on the issue). It would be misleading, a disservice to the reader, and a misrepresentation of a source for us to say that EP is testable only "according to proponents of EP." I prefer the simple "EP is testable" statement, but can live with "According to majority opinion, EP is testable." Leadwind (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


And for those of you following along at home, here's the Encyclopedia Britannica article, which specifies that EP hypotheses have indeed been tested. And for everyone editing this page, I dare say it might pay to familiarize oneself with what a top-notch encyclopedia says on the topic of EP. Leadwind (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that some Ep hypotheses have been tested does not mean that EP is now a majority viewpoint that is such a logical fallacy, well in fact it is just a non-sequitur, that it is amazing you seem to be unable to see it yourself.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
It does not matter if the theories have been tested - they need to be falsifiable. It would seem to me that proponents are saying that EP is both testable and falsifiable, while critics argue that it is not. It makes sense to me that we present both sides. Logic prevails (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
See the EP Journals links on this page. Browse around the articles that put EP hypotheses to empirical tests. Assertions that many EP hypothesis are not testable is simply false, and it betrays a certain lack of familiarity with the EP empirical literature. Memills (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
That is beside the point. It is a so commonly occuring critique that even EP textbooks defend against it.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Anti-evolutionism itself is commonly occurring. Not impressive. Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it” Memills (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
'Anti-evolutionism' (don't know what this has to do with anything) is not a position seriously argued within academic circles. EP is. And as Manus noted, we need to mention the sources of critique so that the general public can look into both sides and decide for themselves. If you cannot agree with that policy then we have a problem. Logic prevails (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The Psychology textbook source says that EP can be tested, so we are dutybound to humbly report what the source says. Maybe it's a bad evil source and we shouldn't trust it, but we're just amateur editors following policy, and policy says trust your disinterested sources to tell you whether EP is testable or not. If someone would like to change that sentence to say something like, "Proponents of EP argue that...." then let's get consensus on any change before we deviate from what the source plainly says. Leadwind (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It is incredible! It is as if Leadwind has been hacked by Ed Poor!Slrubenstein | Talk 16:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

the disagreement, as described in disinterested 2ndary and 3rdary sources

Everyone who likes a minority viewpoint hates WP:WEIGHT. My policy is to follow WP:WEIGHT even when I personally disagree with the majority viewpoint, but I try not to disagree with the majority opinion in the first place because I'm no expert. According to WEIGHT, when we describe a disagreement, we do so in line with the secondary and tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.

So I just deleted Logic's addition to the controversy section. I haven't seen any disinterested source criticizing EP on the computational theory front. If disinterested sources don't cover it, WP shouldn't cover it. According to WEIGHT, it's not enough that you can find a scholar who says X is relevant to the controversy. We need to find a disinterested source that says "X is relevant to the controversy."

We've seen a psych textbook and a top-level encyclopedia both refer to the controversy over EP and both omit any reference to the CToM. Leadwind (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I supplied two excellent sources just above about other theories of mind, you should read them. The statement you removed was also sourced - we can't and souldn't source criticism to "disinterested sources" only to reliable sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem is, certain views are majority among proponents of evolutionary psychologists - but minority among academics. In fact, taking account of the social sciences and philosophers who study the mind (and the theory of evolution too!!) it appears that EP is itself a fringe view. Now, I strongly believe this article must present evolutionary psychologists' account of their own work. But to suggest that their critics are minority views ... because EPs do not agree with them ... is just twisted logic and a piss-poor way to write an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
"But to suggest that their critics are minority views ... because EPs do not agree with them." That would be a silly thing to suggest, and if you mis-read me that badly, it's no surprise that this POV battle is dragging on so long. The Psychology textbook and EBO are both disinterested tertiary sources, not pro-EP sources. I'm happy to add criticisms from both those sources, and I did so over the objections of MEM. If you detractors could find a similar disinterested source, we could use that, too. Per WP, the views we readily find in these sources represent the majority viewpoint. If you don't think that the textbook and EBO represent that majority viewpoint, then simply find a comparable source that disagrees with them. If you can't find a disinterested source that says EP is bad, that's because "EP is bad" is a minority viewpoint (as WP measures it). Life is easier once you accept the majority viewpoint and stop fighting it. Leadwind (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
There you go misrepresenting our policy again. There is no requirement that criticisms of EP come from disinterested sources. In fact, this idea of yours contradicts the whole point of NPOV, to include contrasting ven conflicting views. All that matters is that the view be significant and from a reliable source, not a disinterested source. WHat is important is that we editors write about these views in a disinterested way. Do not delete views that come from reliable sources, simply because you do not consider them objective or neutral; this is just a smokescreen for your removing views you do not like. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
There I go again! I know! Hopefully this will be the last time I misrepresent policy because this is the time you're finally going to explain it to me. The policy I keep misrepresenting is this one: "However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." That's why I put such a high value on secondary and tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. If this policy doesn't mean what I think it means, could you please explain what it does mean? Leadwind (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection to drawing on sources that provide accounts of the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. My objection is to any suggestion that specific points of view must be taken from such disinterested sources. I hope this is clear. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing that we can cite disinterested viewpoints. There was a time when you argued that there was no such thing as a disinterested viewpoint, so already you and I are halfway to agreeing on this policy. But I would still appreciate your interpretation of the policy that I quoted. You have repeatedly suggested that I might not have the best grasp on policy, so here is your chance to explain it to me. What does the policy mean, and what am I getting wrong about it? I think it means that one-sided RSs are of relatively low value in describing an open controversy, while disinterested secondary and tertiary sources that describe the disagreement are of relatively high value. Both sides can line up their respective champions to find support for their side, but the real trick is reporting what the neutral parties say. Base the controversy section not on regular old RSs but specifically on these special sources that policy tells us to use in such a case. You say I'm wrong. What do you think the policy means? Leadwind (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
You have time to sling insults at me, but you don't have the time to explain what this policy means. You accuse me of misrepresenting the policy but can't back up your accusation when we get down to brass tacks. Leadwind (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

How to avoid supposed 'POV wars'

Two main misunderstandings seem to be causing roadblocks in the editing. Can we please just agree on the following?

1) Not all critics of EP are cultural determinists.
2) EP is more than just the theory of evolution applied to the mind. In other words, there can be more than one way of applying the theory of evolution or evolutionary concepts to understanding the human mind.

I believe that both supporters and critics should be able to agree on those points as both can be easily sourced. If not, we need to clarify where the problem is. Logic prevails (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

We do not have to agre on anything concerning content. We simply have to provide good accounts of all significant views from reliable sources. What you or I believe about EP or about critics of EP is irrelevant and the less we discuss it the more we can focus on improving the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree Slr, but our own views seem to be getting in the way of "providing good accounts of all significant views from reliable sources." These two points seem to be very basic points that are well cited, yet editors continue to use wording that would dismiss them. Whether we like it or not, this page has been edited as of late, by only a handful of people. I believe that if we could agree with some of these points, there would be fewer issues. Logic prevails (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but it is a waste of your time and ours for you to try to convince anyone that these two points are right just as it is a waste of our time when any editor tries to argue that these two points are wrong (or persists in making claims to the contrary). The only way forward is to demonstrate that a source is reliable, and a view significant and relevant, and decide the best place in the article to add it. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
You are putting words in my mouth. I thought it might be helpful for us to agree that "there are reliable sources from significant viewpoints" to support the above positions. I recognize that the positions should not matter (only that they are sourced), but we cannot ignore the fact that in editing this page, they apparently do - and they are preventing us from making additions or changes that are neutral in tone and fairly sourced. The ONLY reason I am giving them special attention is because these points should be 'a matter of fact' insofar as they come from reliable and significant viewpoints, yet they are consistently arising as problematic through apparent 'edit wars.' Logic prevails (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Logic, thanks for clarifying. I'd love to see evidence for the second statement (another way to use Darwin to explain psychology) in a secondary or tertiary source that describes the disagreement from a disinterested point of view. Our best sources give the nod to EP as the way people do that. Leadwind (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This is hopeless - I am not even going to respond to that. Logic prevails (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

@Leadwind: Terrence Deacon's The Symbolic Species provides an evolutionary approach to the human mind that is classic, basic, Boasian anthropology and certainly not EP. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Boasian anthropology argues that facial expressions are not universal, so I'm not sure what you mean when you call this guy Boasian. Does Deacon's work contradict EP in some way? If all you people mean about alternatives to EP is that there are overlapping fields of research that apply Darwinian explanations to human behavior, that's true, but none of them are alternatives to EP. They're just neighboring research territory. So that's why I'm asking for a name of this alleged body of Darwinian research that is anti-EP, the scholarly tradition that Logic is apparently heir to. Leadwind (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Leadwind, you don't know enough about "Boasian anthropology" to tell anyone what "it argues" - much less someone who studied "Boasian" Anthropology at Columbia. In general you need to listen more and spend less time contradicting and erecting strawmen and posing malformed questions. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a cheap shot, and I take it back. It was Mead who derided the idea of universal facial expressions, and I was using her as a representative of Boasian anthropology in general. Leadwind (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Lots of cultural and semiotic anthropologists have contradicted the universality of interpretation of facial expressions, not just Mead.[1]. The many possible meanings of a wink is one of the basic examples of a context based approach to semiotics (Geertz and Ryle's Thick Description). But this is all irelevant to the discussion the point is that you have now been presented with a number of excellent sources where you can read about how evolutionary anthropologists and neurobiologists and cognitive scientists have argued in favor of models of the mind and behavior that are clearly and unequivocally evolutionarily based yet do not arrive at the same conclusions as EP regarding the way the mind works. You refuse to look at them, you pretend to argue that they are "not real alternatives" what ever that is supposed to mean and you basically are not being receptive to arguments, but instead keep on regurgitating the same non-sequiturs - what are we supposed to do here? ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
See, that was a good start. You're providing good information. The multiple meanings of a wink is evidence that facial expressions aren't universal. Since that doesn't contradict EP in any way, I'm not sure where you're coming from or what you think EP says. Thank you for providing an online source. I'm way more likely to read an online source than to go find a book. Your source says "Research demonstrates that facial expressions of emotion are both universal and culturally specific," which matches EP. Can you find any reference to the very different conclusions that non-EP researchers come to? I think all the people doing serious Darwinian work are basically in line with EP. Leadwind (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Leadwind, you asked for a source for anti-EP Darwinian research on the mind, and I provided you with one. Then you made a comment about margaret Mead that was simply irrelevant ... and repeat your request! And you wonder why it is increasingly hard for anyone to take you seriously? You asked for a source. I named it. If you genuinely cared about good scientific research on human evolution and the mind, you would take a break actually to read the book, but I am not going to hold your hand in your quest for, well, knowledge or ignorance, it is your life. However, let me just drop a little hint: the next appropriate comment from you would not be for you to ask if anyone can provide you with a request for a source for anti-EP Darwinian research on the mind. When someone answers your question, it is impolite (or just stupid) to ask the question again. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

My point of view is so clear and so straightforward, and I am so sure of its merit, that I can give you a hyperlink to a page that will describe my viewpoint. Your view is so fuzzy that you won't describe it, won't name it, and can't find any place on the web that even states it. If you held a majority viewpoint on this topic, you could explain your view readily. As it is, you can offer shallow answers but never a follow-up or an elaboration. Honestly, you're point of view isn't that far off. Fifteen years ago your viewpoint was reasonable, you were in the majority, and I would have been on WP with you editing the article to say that EP was bunk. Leadwind (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
There you do it again - it really is getting awfully tiresome. 1.st of all nobody cares about your point view. We care about the points of view given in sources. 2nd. you cannot ask questions and then repeat the question when given an answer that you can't be bothered to try to understand or investigate th merit of. Quit trumpeting the victory of EP and dedicate yourself to finding some actual sources that might support that point of view. Having a crystal clear view point about something this complex betrays superficial thinking, nothing more.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Critics do not need to state an alternative. EP is the side making assertions of how the mind works; the onus is on them to back up their claims, not for the critics to provide a more viable alternative. Essentially, EP is saying: 'here's how the mind works' while critics are saying: 'let's not be so hasty... upon critical evaluation, your claims seem to lack merit.' Critics are choosing the side of caution.
Defining the mind is not a simple process - there are no 'simple' alternatives. I am sorry that without educating yourself, it all appears 'fuzzy.' This is the cost of trying to understand something complex. Logic prevails (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The funny thing is, I do not think Leadwind even knows my point of view. But he seems intent on turning htis into a chatroom, rather than an encyclopedia... Slrubenstein | Talk 17:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
You said you think EP has spread in the US because of a racist bias in Western culture in favor of innatism. Tellingly, you can't offer any authoritative source for such a mean-spirited and self-serving interpretation. Personally, I favor the majority viewpoint, that EP has spread because its findings have been impressive. Leadwind (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
EP has spread because it tells captivating stories that hypnotize the dumb masses into thinking they are smart enough to understand themselves with little effort. It is a product of the consumer driven western bias toward quick fixes, instant cures, and instant explanations. You are a prime example - how many times have people pointed you in a direction to READ SOMETHING? Instead, you keep showing your ignorance as though it were some badge of honor. "A wise person speaks because he has something to say - a fool, because he has to say something." That sums up both EP and your comments on this page. I am sorry to anyone else that is trying to make legitimate contributions here, but if this kind of poor reasoning and mis-citing of sources is permitted to dictate the form of the page, I'd just as soon put my efforts elsewhere. Logic prevails (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Leadwind, are you a liar, or just stupid? I never said that I thought EP has spread in the US because of a racist bias in Western culture in favor of innatism. I admit I do believe that there is a bias in Western culture towards innatism, but I never said (1) I believe this is racist, or (2) I agree that this explains the spread of EP in the US, or even (3) that I do not believe many behaviors are innate. And I defy you to point out where I said any of these three things. Note too that my point was to distinguish between explanations some people give for why EP is popular, versus criticisms of EP. I thought I was making it pretty clear that this is not a criticism of EP. Your accusatory misrepresentation of my views is an insult. Moreover, your comment completely disregards my first comment in this threat, a comment that makes clear the view I have been espousing through this entire discussion. You either understand my words are are deliberately trying to libel me, or you cannot understand basic English. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

SLR, "are you a liar, or just stupid"? I thought we already established that I'm just obstinate. Maybe I'm reading between the lines, but didn't you say, "Second, attempts to explain why, if it is such bad science, does EP have such a strong toe-hold in US (and increasinly in UK) social sciences. Here is where I think the claims about 19th century eugenics is brought in; some people make a larger argument about a deeply entrenched bias in Western culture to explain human differences in terms of inherited traits, and the reason for this bias it is argued is the West's use of race to justify colonialist projects"? That sounds like explaining the spread of EP by appealing to a racist bias in favor of innatism. If that's not why EP has achieved majority status over the last 15 years, what is? The majority viewpoint is that EP has made impressive findings testing hypotheses, so what's you're minority viewpoint on why EP has spread? Leadwind (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Logic, I've got a top-notch online source that says EP's findings have been impressive. Maybe that's why EP has been spreading. Do you have a prominent source for your minority viewpoint on the topic, or (if you have no prominent source) is that a fringe idea? Remember, theories without a prominent proponents are fringe, and theories that you can't find supported in commonly accepted reference texts are minority at best. Leadwind (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Your statements on this page show that you are incapable of critical thought or hearing what others have to say. I will not waste my energy debating you on this. Logic prevails (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
At the very least please stop "reading between the lines." Slrubenstein | Talk 19:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The table is back...

Memills, I see that you inserted the table again and added some sources... are you saying that this table appeared in the works you cited? Can you please clarify? Not to be a pain, but you have been evading this question for weeks now... can you please tell us where Darwin says what you claim he says in the 1859 source? The sources you cite should be verifiable and I am having a difficult time verifying that. Logic prevails (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Boy, the table sure is a sticking point. This is the sort of thing that makes a good RfC. Leadwind (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't find where Buss 2010 gives a table similar to this one, that is one of the sources given. Leadwind you keep talking about and rfc - if you have a particular topic that you would like to get the community's input about I encourage you to file an rfc.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
No need for an RfC, this is straightforward policy. What is the source from which the table is taken? All you have to do is provide the proper source. Speaking solely for myself, I would be satisfied in someone can provide a citation for this claim: "EP uses Nikolaas Tinbergen's four categories of questions and explanations of animal behavior." If no one can provide such a citation in the next couple of days I will remove the table. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Trigger fingers off the delete button. I recently added a table, "Products of Evolution," and referenced it. Check out the reference for the content of the table, as well as this link. Re the table "EP uses Nikolaas Tinbergen's four categories of questions and explanations of animal behavior" check the associated WP page that is linked, check Buss' Evolutionary Psychology textbook, or see this link. Tables are a concise way to organize and summarize information. All of the tables on this page are summaries of concepts presented in the referenced sources, and are well known, basic concepts covered in undergraduate level Evolutionary Psych 101. If the information in the tables seems novel, read the references or a good intro to EP textbook. Memills (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
We are not doubting that Tinbergen's questions exist, opnly that they are foundational for EP. Buss 2008 mentions them as a part of the historical treatment in which he describes the Ethology movement as part of the foundations of EP. He criticises the 4 why's for being behaviorist rather than cognitivist and for not developing a rigoorus framework for testing adaptive hypotheses. He does not suggets that the 4 questions are key to EP. Also Tinbergen and his questions are described elsewhere - there is no necessity of repeating them here in table format unless it can be shown that they are indeed considered key to evolutionary psychology itself - by a reference that explicitly connects Tinbergen to the foundation of EP.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Buss is not disagreeing with Tinbergen's 4 questions themselves as important distinctions, instead he was criticizing the ethology movement for not developing "rigorous criteria for discovering adaptations" and for focusing on behavior over cognition. However, he suggested that it did have positive effects by emphasizing the importance of biology to psychology, and "the glimmerings of evolutionary psychology itself may be seen" the ethological writings of Lorenz. Memills (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
That first link has nothing to do with anything - I won't argue the issues with it as I would probably get in trouble for turning this into a blog. Who constructed the table in your second link? (it was not clear). Was it a credible academic clearly labeling themselves as an EP? If it is a legitimate source, you should cite them. Regardless, you should know that this is not how you reference sources in psychology. The sources are not at all clear... in the table, the author writes their piece, then say at the very bottom: "The four Central Questions are BASED UPON Darwin e.g. 1859, 1871; Lorenz e.g..." What does that mean exactly? Is this a bibliographic listing of sources that a person might have read before constructing the questions? Regardless, it needs to be made clear. A bibliography is much different than a reference list. Your table, for example, would seem to be YOUR WORK, with bibliographic references to the sources you claim to have read. You ask us to read the references if information is unfamiliar. I have stated here numerous times that Darwin's Origin of Species cannot be summarized in the way that you have done so. Logic prevails (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Tables are great ways of summarizing established information. But you are using the table to forward a novel argument - this is a straightforward violation of NOR which is why the table should be deleted. Your links only prove that other people use this table to make points not about evolutionary psychology. E.g.: "THE FOUR CENTRAL QUESTIONS OF BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH USING ETHOLOGY AS AN EXAMPLE." Aside from the fact that this does not come from a source that meets our sourcing standards, the source does not even say what you claim it says. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
An important question is also whether these concepts are key to EP or to evolutionary theory in general.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

SLR deleted the Tinbergen information that MEM added, as promised. I have no objection. While I suspect that SLR might be a tad too suspicious of any positive statement about EP, it's important to play by the rules. Leadwind (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

So, you have decided to begin complying with policy. What do you want, a cookie? And feel free to suspect whatever you want ... I do not see how you can read your mind, but I also do not see why what I think matters. It is interesting how someone interested in psychology spends so much time projecting! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Constructive attitude, Slrubenstein. Deleting referenced material that has been stable on the page for years is getting close to vandalism. See: table. This is getting embarrassing -- read up on with an undergrad EP textbook before you go around knocking the china off the table tops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memills (talk • contribs) 18:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry to knock you on the head with the undergrad textbook again but neither Buss' textbook or Workman and reader's describe Tinbergen's questions as being foundational for EP. Also Tooby and Cosmides chapter "Conceptual Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology" in Buss' Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology does not mention it. In short your references establish that Tinbergen's questions exist, but not that they are seen as particularly foundational for EP - rather they are just a part of the general foundations of Evolutionary theory, which is not the intellectual property of EP. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Buss says "The ethology movement went a long way toward orienting biologists to focus on the importance of adaptation" and "the glimmerings of evolutionary psychology itself may be seen" the ethological writings of Lorenz. The Tooby and Cosmides chapter is an advanced scholarly contribution -- they would presume that most readers would already be familiar with Tinbergen's 4 questions and not need to repeat them. Memills (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I did not remove referenced material. Nothing that I deleted was referenced. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Put on your glasses. Memills (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Consructive attitude, Memills! I removed material because it had no source, and then you put it back with a source and claimed that I removed a source? Do you really believe people will fall for these shenanigans? Moreover, you provided a link to someone at U Michigan's personal web-page. This is not what WP considers a reliable source. Moreover, the source you provided did not substantiate the claim that EB builds on or uses Tinbergen's four kinds of questions. So it is not even a source for the claim being made. Memills, I know WP does not have the kind of peer-review process you would have to satisfy if you wanted to be published. But that does not mean this you are free to use WP to self-publish your own ideas. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

What is there not to understand about mis-citing? Memills, if you do not remove that blurb about Darwin and sourcing it from the 1859 book, I will be writing to your department head. This is unethical practice for any academic. For anyone questioning me, pick up the book... Darwin does not say anything about the mind as evolved adaptations. There are other peer-reviewed articles that even make specific note of Darwin's EXCLUSION of any discussion of the mind in his 1859 Origin of Species. What's the problem here? Logic prevails (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you maybe supply a reference to one or two of those articles Logic, that would sort of cinch the argument.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for my frustration in all of this. I feel very strongly about where the burden of proof should lie. If someone claims that Darwin said such and such, then when questioned by someone who has read the cited book, they should be obligated to defend their statements - so far, no one has been able to do that. It should not be necessary for a peer reviewed journal article to say 'Darwin DID NOT say such and such' before it is judged as improperly sourced. That said, here is what I could readily find: In a 2005 journal article by M. Derksen, titled: Against integration: Why evolution cannot unify the social sciences (Theory & Psychology, Vol 15,2: 139-162), he references p. 458 of Darwins Origin (near the end of the book), where EPs often quote him: 'the distant future, would be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation...' For those following this discussion, note that Darwin DOES NOT say that 'the minds of organisms are made up of evolved adaptations designed to help the organism survive.' He does not say that 'mental powers' are domain-specific or specifically adapted 'for' some particular function. In fact, non EPs, including neurobiologists, cognitive psychologists, developmental psychologists, and so on, can be considered to be doing just what Darwin envisioned. Derksen then states: "It is noteworthy that Darwin broached the subject of mind and evolution - it was the first and ONLY TIME [emphasis added] he mentioned it in the Origin - by speaking of psychology's foundations." So in context of a near 500 page book, he mentioned the word mind/mental only once. I do not see how Darwin's single sentence, in that context, can support the statement that currently stands in the table. Logic prevails (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
LogicPrevails, your strongly negative feelings about EP are getting the better of you. It is uncontroversial that Darwin believed that mental capabilities were evolved adaptations. The one sentence at the end of Origin makes this clear, and it is entirely consistent with his later books and other writings. And, by the way, I find your personal threat against me, above, to be entirely unacceptable. Do not engage in that type of behavior again. Memills (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
MEM, I also believe that mental capabilities are the product of evolution - what's your point? And if Darwin said it in a later work, then cite that piece, not Origin. I apologize for my other comment; it was inappropriate. As for my strong feelings, they are mostly about presenting accurate information, as many laypeople will go to pages like this to seek it out. Logic prevails (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
In descent of Man he does argue at some length that certain human emotions that promote learning from peers such as enjoying praise and disliking blame have evolved through natural selection. But again this isn't something that only EP believes, I think every non-creationist social scientist would agree with that notion. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

testability

Maunus' Psychology textbook says that EP hypotheses can be tested. It would be a violation of NPOV to misrepresent this book. Fifteen years ago, the Psych textbook would have said EP was bunk. If the book said the hypotheses can't be tested, we'd say they can't be tested. But the book says they can be tested, so we say they can. Andy points out that stating something as fact goes too far. That's a nice sentiment but it's not fully in accord with the facts. Maunus's textbook and EBO both state as fact that these hypotheses can be tested. Why should WP be unable to say what top-notch tertiary sources say? But I'm happy to offer a compromise, that we say "most experts say." It is the majority viewpoint that EP hypotheses can be tested, even if the point is still contested. Maybe the critics will turn out to be right.

It is basically a lie to cite the Psychology book as if it said "evolutionary psychologists assert..." That's what Logic wants it to say. It doesn't say that. If you have to lie to be happy about the content of this page, please reflect on that. Leadwind (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

1. The texbook does not say "Ep hypotheses can be tested". It says (and I repeat now for the third time): "Testing ideas about the evolutionary origins of psychological phenomena is indeed a challenging task, but not an impossible one". It says that it is not impossible to test ideas about evolutionary origins of psychological phenomena. It does not say that all EP's hypotheses are testable. It does not say that EP is itself on safe scientific ground. It does not even say that EP does in fact generate hypotheses it calls them ideas. And then comes the most importamnt part - the context. The textbooks cites a number of studies in support of the argument that "testing ideas about evoutionary origins of psychological phenomena is not impossible" - they cite (Buss, Haselton, Shackelford, Bleske, & Wakefield, 1998; Pinker 1997b) - all Evolutionary psychology proponents. In short what they are doing is saying that these authors say that testing ideas of evolutionary origins of psychological phenomena is not impossible - and these authors are all evolutionary psychologists. Obviously they are not arguing that this has pacified the critics, but merely that EP itself does not consider it to be an unsurmountable problem. Reading this as an endorsement of EP as being a majority view or as now being generally accepted as being a fully testable science is extremely tendentious. Especially since the next phrase goes on to say that "Evolutionary psychologists consider traits that are universal to all cultures good candidates for being evolutionary adaptations" - this is their description of how Ep'ers test evolutionary hypotheses: by using universality as a proxy.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
You don't seem to listen. Just because it can be tested, does not mean that it is falsifiable. Logic prevails (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure most of the critics make a distinction between testability/predictive power and falsifiability. Afterall very little knowledge in social science is falsifiable, generally predictive power is considered sufficient for a hypothesis being supported.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think we have all had a crash course in how POV-pushers operate. Maybe we have some good candidates for WP:DE here. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Manus, thank you for taking the time to provide that lengthy response. Logic prevails (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, just read the plain text. The authors themselves state in their voice that testing these hypotheses is not impossible. They don't say "according to EPers." When they mention critics, they say "according to critics." Why? Because they are neutrally reporting what the critics say but don't agree with them. But when it comes to testability, they offer their conclusion that the EPers have proven their case and that testing is not impossible. They directly say it's not impossible. You read that to mean "EPers say it's not impossible," but that's not what the text says. The whole point of going to a tertiary source that reports on the disagreement from a neutral viewpoint is to get some closure, a top-level view. WP says we should report honestly what they say. Even if you don't like it. In addition, EBO (as a commonly accepted reference text) represents the majority viewpoint, and they say that EP hypotheses have been tested. But you can't find a single comparable source that says EP can't be tested. On this point, our sources give the nod to EP. If your viewpoint prevents you from honestly reporting what your own textbook literally says, well... Leadwind (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

1. first of all: context matters as WP:RS can tell you. 2. as long as you are alone with your interpretation and even MEMills does not supprt your reading of the textbook (he has changed your proposed text twice) it is a bad idea for you to keep reverting - that is called editwarring. 3. you are not inserting the verbatim text of the book but are in fact writing that "a majority of scholars think that" which is obviously not supported by the source in any interpretation of its text. Your actions here are beginning to be disrutive and I think the next obvioous step if you keep editwarring and using non-sequitur arguments will be ANI with a request for sanctions against you.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
All quite reasonable. As for context, the authors are giving the nod to EP over its critics. They report on what the critics say, and then they say that the critics are wrong, it's not impossible to test these hypotheses. The context is "Critics say X, but they're wrong." I love that context. I wish we could just have everyone read that section of your textbook for themselves because it's a clear rejection of the critics. Thanks for reminding us how important context it. As for being disruptive, I was able to get a section on criticism into the lead in the first place. Thanks to me, the page is better than it was. As for "majority of scholars," I've said before we don't need that wording. We could just say "it's not impossible" as a factual statement (like your textbook does) rather than qualifying it at all. If you would rather stick to what the textbook says, then we should say "it's not impossible" with no qualification. But opponents of EP can't bear to read a clear statement in EP's favor, so I'm willing to soften it. Leadwind (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Again. they are not saying critics say X but they're wrong. And I am getting really tired of repeating what they actually say. They AGREE with the critics that testing evolutionary hypotheses is difficult and then they cite five Evolutionary Psychologists who say that it is difficult but not imnpossible.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
They say that testing these hypotheses is not impossible, and they put no conditions on the statement. They don't say "According to EPers..." If they don't say that, why should we? Maybe we could say something like "As evolutionary psychologists have demonstrated, it's not impossible to test EP hypotheses." But the authors of Psychology state plainly that it's not impossible to test the hypotheses. What prevents us from saying the same thing? It's POV to represent the Psychology source as not endorsing the EP view that testing it possible. Leadwind (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

gender

Hey, if there happen to be any professors of EP around, maybe one of them could add a good section on gender. It seems to be a big deal. It also demonstrates that EP addresses gender questions better than the SSSM ever did (at least according to the majority viewpoint).

The New York Times has an article related to EP and gender, here. NYT is a reliable source, so I guess EP must be on solid ground. That's the nice thing about ascribing to the majority viewpoint on a contentious topic: support for one's view abounds. Some of you should give the majority viewpoint a try, instead of proudly hanging on to outdated views, now in the minority. Leadwind (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The NYT is a peer-reviewed scientific journal is it? I'd never realised...
And I'm interested to know what expertise you claim to have on 'the SSSM' - you seem to be very keen on making unreferenced statements on this (whatever it is). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
HE is just trolling now and should be ignored.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The NYT's Science Tuesday is a mainstream source, and EP is mainstream science. In fact, this article is about the discovery of a possible new module, one that affects how a man reacts emotionally and differentially to an ovulating woman. There's no way that culture could train the brain to form a module to do this, so it must be evolved. Your idea that our cognitive modules are all formed by experience and none by evolution is a fringe theory and doesn't belong on the EP page.
If you want to learn about the standard social sciences model (SSSM), you can read this Encyclopedia Britannica page. John Money is also a prime example of the SSSM Leadwind (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Since I clearly know more about the realities of 'standard social sciences' than you (including that self-evidently, there is no single 'model'), I've no need to read an encyclopedia article on 'instinct'. If you are seriously suggesting that encyclopedias and newspapers are reliable sources for an article on a scientific subject, I suggest that you'd do better to spend more time on research, and less on making patronising comments about other contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
SSSM is a derogatory and illusory classification invented entirely by EP. It is a strawman. According to EPers, everyone but themselves accept this model. According to everyone else, no one accepts this model. Logic prevails (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary Linguistics unrelated to EP??

"Until EP and the neurosciences compatibly merge and integrate, the picture presented by EP is incomplete." (20:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC) by you Maunus)

Manus, how can you say that "the notion that evolutionary linguistics (...) related to EP is problematic(...)"!?? when Luc Steels and his Fluid construction grammar is in fact exactly this (especially the notion of emergent grammar from a multi-agent perspective where none of the agents will speak exactly the same language!) -i.e. an integration of EP and autonomous agents who generate languages and grammars?!? DancingPhilosopher 15:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DancingPhilosopher (talk • contribs)
Evolutionary linguistics is practiced by many linguists who are not coming from an evolutionary psychology stand point, and many of whom completely deny that there is any evidence for the EP hypotheses of the development within the framework of a modular mind E.g. Michael Tomasello and several others working in the functionalist tradition. Luc Steels may be doing Evolutionary Linguistics from an EP standpoint but evolutionary linguistics did not spring from evolutionary psychology nor does it have any necessary or logical connection to it. I am reverting again. You also removed citation needed tags and wikilinked instances of Language to evolutionary linguistics. Also why are you quoting me and where did I write that and in which context?·Maunus·ƛ· 15:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Looking in my contribution history I didn't make any postings here on feb 17 at 20:24. Where did you get that quote from?·Maunus·ƛ· 15:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Dancing Philosopher, we are really going to need some references, and not just to other wikipages. This is a tough topic because tempers run so high, and you need to play straight. Maunus is right that it was bad for for you to remove that Citation Needed tag. That's usually the sort of tactic preferred by the losing side of a debate. Obviously, however, you are right that when our page wikilinks to "language," it should be linking to the language article that overlaps with EP, which is evolutionary linguistics article. Good work on catching that! Leadwind (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Darwin the evolutionary psychologist

Let's be fair to Darwin. In Descent of Man, he said that our social instincts are instinctive or innate, and that our conscience or moral sense likewise evolved as an adaptation. Google the book yourself or see "social feelings are instinctive." He believed in the psychic unity of humanity and in natural selection as the creator of our shared human nature. He really was ahead of his time. Leadwind (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Funny, Boas believed the same thing. Maybe this is not about Darwin at all. Maybe what this is really about is psychologists who are tired of being accused of being a "soft-science" or pseudo-science especially at a time when more an more funding goes to the life and physical sciences, and less to the social science. Maybe this is just a ploy to reclassify psychology as a life-science, so it can get more funding? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Previously, you said that the innatist viewpoint results from the racist bias of Western culture. But once it's revealed that Darwin was an innatist, you say Boas was an innatist, too. As for me, I'm still waiting for you to provide a link to any authoritative source that agrees with you against EP. Leadwind (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Darwin never used the phrase "psychic unity of mankind" - Boas used that phrase because he had it from his mentor Adolf Bastian. It meant then that no human group is inherently of a different psychic quality from any other - it was a counter attack on racism. When Tooby and Cosmides use that phrase to refer to the idea that all of human kinds sychological traits are adaptively selected they are in effect giving a sarcastic nod to the Boas. Boas was not an innatist (at least he didn't think anything interesting was innate, he was interested in cultural differences), but he was the one who brought the concept of psychic unity of man to the US. Now you owe me 6 dollars for this small lecture on the history of anthropology. You could have saved that money if you bothered to read books yourself. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
If Boas was not an innatist, why does SLR say that Boas considered the social feelings to be instinctive? Leadwind (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Because there's a difference between saying that humans have an instinct to be social and saying that all of human behavior is instinctive.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Leadwind, if you cannot understand simple English, please find a native English speaker who can help translate this for you. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
"Because there's a difference between saying that humans have an instinct to be social and saying that all of human behavior is instinctive." Who's the odd-ball who say all human behavior is instinctive? Is that what you think EP says? I've never met anyone like that. Find them for me and I'll set them straight. Darwin didn't just say we have an instinct to be social. He said our social feelings are instinctive. Big difference. Gould disagreed with Darwin and said that our social instincts were socially constructed (the standard SSSM line). I wasn't aware the Gould was at odds with Boas. Leadwind (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Where did Gould say humans have no social instincts? Or, where did he say that social instincts are socially constructed? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
In Against Sociobiology, Gould argued that the genetic bases of behavior are limited to basic biological actions such as eating and sleeping, but not mating or interacting socially with other humans. It's especially telling that even though individuals in our blood line have been mating for hundreds of millions of years, Gould avoids suggesting that we might have any instincts related to passing on our genes. He said that aggressive behavior results from aggressive cultures rather than from any individual traits (but I can't find the quote). See also the treatment of Gould in Pinker's Blank Slate. It's a little bit mean to pick on Gould because 35 years ago he was in the mainstream. In 1976, there was some reason to believe that he was right. It's just that science has moved on since then. Leadwind (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I repeat: Where did Gould say humans have no social instincts? Or, where did he say that social instincts are socially constructed? You have not answered the question. The letter you link does not support your claim. Once again you are proving either that you do not know how to read, or simply lie about what you have read. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Standard social sciences model

Andy, I apologize. You asked what makes me think I'm some kind of expert about the SSSM, and instead of answering your question, I gave you a link to where EBO defines the SSSM. My bad. I'm used to providing hyperlinks to solid sources, I acted out of habit, and I didn't answer your question at all.

I'm an expert on the SSSM because I was formally trained in it and I followed it proudly for years. I studied Psych and Soc is college in the 80s, when sociobiology was discredited and EP, per se, had not yet been established. My biology prof taught me that differences in gender roles were entirely cultural. That's how far the SSSM reached in those days, all the way into the bio department! We believed, with Marx, Boas and Mead, that culture was autonomous from genes, as was demonstrated by John Money's infamous case of the little boy raised successfully as a girl. We loved the SSSM because it made racism and sexism not just wrong but scientifically untenable. We were incensed if people supported innatist views. So I know all about how to look at data from the SSSM perspective, and how to look at data that indicate a genetic influence on behavior but see it as cultural instead.

Maybe no one believes in the SSSM any more, but as I live and breath we sure bought into it 25 years ago. Thank goodness EP came along and corrected the overstatements of Gould, Rose, and the rest of the people who hated an evolutionary understanding of human behavior. These days even the people who hate EP find the SSSM impossible to defend. Today, even detractors of EP agree that the social feelings are instinctive, the very idea that discredited sociobiology. Leadwind (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is a gross misrepresentation of the social sciences (and maybe biology to - but what your biology prof taught you about gender roles hardly counts as a 'standard social science model', I'd have thought). As for Marx, I fail to see how he could have said anything about genes. If you have evidence that Gould, Rose, or Mead actually stated that "culture was autonomous from genes" I'd like to see it - in Mead's case, her controversial work Coming of Age in Samoa is actually predicated on some aspects of sexuality being innate, and deals with how this innate sexuality interacts with 'culture': "I have tried to answer the question which sent me to Samoa: Are the disturbances which vex our adolescents due to the nature of adolescence itself or to the civilization? Under different conditions does adolescence present a different picture?" (quoted in our article, but I can find the original if you need it). All this suggests that, as has previously been suggested, the SSSM is nothing but a straw man, a dubious spin put on elements of the social sciences, misrepresented as a 'norm'. Or, to put it more bluntly, a lie. If this is how evolutionary psychology presents itself as a viable alternative, it says little for its credibility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Not sure where to start... How about Marxism? Marx opposed the traditional idea that the social structure was natural (in line with human nature). Marx said that the society makes the man, so the Party can make a new man by re-ordering society. Consequently, the Soviet Union officially rejected Darwinism and genetics. Sociobiology was opposed most strongly by Marxists, such as Gould. (Was Gould really a Marxist and did it influence his scientific thinking? Read online.) As I can attest, the SSSM promised us Leftists that we could readily replace capitalism with a culture of sharing and peace, if only we could set social policy. The connection between Marxist intellectuals and the SSSM isn't really in dispute, is it? Leadwind (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Are you claiming that Western social science is now, or ever has been, dominated by Marxism? As for the rest of your comments, they are utterly irrelevant. I'm not interested in debating social science as a leftist conspiracy, but as science. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Lets just ignore him please, that way we can focus on the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I know this little thread is off-topic, but Andy asked for the source of my expertise, and I provided it. Plus, there are some editors who apparently doubt that the social sciences could ever have been so dismissive of social instincts. If you still don't believe that culture-only thinking dominated the social sciences of the 20th century, look up B. F. Skinner's behaviorism. He thought that human behavior was the product of local conditioning, and that one could readily re-order human life by changing reward structures. Leadwind (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
You are incorrect in how you are presenting Skinner and are clearly talking outside of any expertise you might have. Logic prevails (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
In 1976, Skinner said, “Russia after fifty years is not a model we wish to emulate. China may be closer to the solutions I have been talking about, but a communist revolution in America is hard to imagine.” The positive reference to China puts him in the same camp as Lewontin, Rose, and Kamin who (in Not in Our Genes) named Mao as a welcome revolutionary practitioner and theorist of social change. Yes, it's embarrassing what smart people said 35 years ago, and frankly hard to believe. Leadwind (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
So basically, your 'SSSM' is nothing other than a conspiracy theory about Marxist domination of the social sciences, backed up by cherry-picked examples from Skinner, Gould, Rose etc - none of whom are social scientists. Utter garbage, and if you are teaching this, frankly I'm appalled. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Andy, please do not feed the troll. Remember, this is they guy who thought Marx did not believe in genes (which is like saying Rembrandt didn't like Impressionism). All Leadwind has demonstrated before is that he is ignorant of Freud, ignorant of Darwin, ignorant of Marx, ignorant of Gould, and ignorant of Boas. Expertise? He either went to a crappy college, or was a crappy college student, but so what? His expertise should never have been made an issue. All that maters is he repeatedly makes false statements that he cannot support with accurate quotes from appropriate sources. Any time someone points out what mistakes he has made, his response is to say even more ignorant or confused things. What's the point? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Personal attacks, is it? For my part, I don't think you critics are stupid. I think you're sticking up for equality and dignity, and the only problem is that you're just about 15 years behind when it comes to current thinking on EP. In any event, I've answered Andy question, and I don't see any point in returning insults with more insults. If, on the other hand, you can ever find any top-notch tertiary source that describes the controversy from a neutral viewpoint and says EP is wrong, let us know, because we could add that into the article. Leadwind (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Addition of a warning notice at the top of this page: This is not a controversy or objections page

A WP Administrator recently saw fit to put the Evolutionary Psychology page under full protection mode (no editing during a cool down period) and gave the reason as a "Long-running edit war."

The main Evolutionary Psychology (EP) page is not a debate page. Like the main Evolution page, this page is about the discipline itself, it is not a point-counterpoint running argument between evolutionary psychology researchers and the critics of the discipline. General theoretical debates are more appropriately reviewed on the Evolutionary psychology controversy page, and, more generally, on the Objections to evolution page. (Note that some of the same issues in contention here, such as "testability," are also objections to evolutionary theory itself, but are only covered on the Objections to evolution page, not on the Evolution page.)

As I noted several sections above, this page has a history of remaining stable for months. Then someone who has recently read an article or book critical of EP comes here and tries to rework the page to correct what they perceive to be the fundamental theoretical errors of the discipline itself. Some of these editors either have an obviously meager understanding of the field or clearly have a long standing alternative theoretical ax to grind (and grind it on the main EP page itself, not, more appropriately, on the Evolutionary psychology controversy page). Some have a certain degree of chutzpah to edit a WP page that covers a conceptually and empirically complex scientific discipline without the foundational background of having first cracked open an undergraduate level evolutionary psychology textbook.

Other, similarly affected pages about evolutionary theory have warnings to editors that are posted conspicuously at the top of their Discussion pages. The basic message of these warnings is for editors to refrain from turning those pages into debate pages.

This notice appears at the top of the Talk:Evolution page:

Warning
WARNING: This is not the place to discuss any alleged controversy or opinion about evolution and its related subjects. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, which is about evolution (not creation science, not creationism, and not intelligent design to name a few), and what has been presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature about it. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. If you are interested in discussing or debating over evolution itself, you may want to visit talk.origins or elsewhere.


This notice appears at the top of the Talk:Natural selection page:

Important notice: If you wish to discuss or debate natural selection itself (as opposed to the article), you may do so at talk.origins. The Discussion page for Natural Selection is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article, pursuant to Wikipedia policy on talk pages. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks, regardless of your ideological position, may be deleted at any time, as is the rule for all Wikipedia articles and talk pages.

In order to avoid rehashing the same discussions, some common points of argument may be addressed at Wikipedia's Evolution FAQ. Please visit that page first if you have any objections generally along the lines of "this article should include criticism of natural selection, or evolutionary theory". If your concerns are not addressed there, or if you have any substantive objections to the FAQ, you are free to bring up those objections on this talk page. However, please understand that currently the information in the FAQ is considered consensus and factually accurate.

To help to avoid turning the main EP page into a debate page, as well as to help to reduce long running edit wars over fundamental theoretical perspectives, a similar warning at the top of this Discussion page would likely be helpful as a "heads up" to editors. Memills (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a misunderstanding of how wikipedia works to think that if a topic is controversial the controversy should be kept separate form the description of the topic itself. WP:NPOV clearly and unequivocally describes that an article must include all notable views on the topic balanced according to weight- it strongly discourages creating separate articles or sections for criticism or controversy as this very easily turns into pov-forks. The criticism of EP is relevant to the description of EP and should figure in the "main" article alongside EP's own description of itself. Now, this does of course not mean that this talkpage is a general forum for discussion of EP's merits or lack thereof - it is only a place to discuss how to improve the article. This does somethimes include discussion of how to weigh the different viewpoints against eachother, of how to phrase mentions of criticism or praise etc., but this should only be tolerated when the aim is clearly to improve the quality of the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. 'Natural selection' is an overwhelmingly-accepted scientific theory, and as such, debates over its validity don't belong in an article on the subject. 'evolutionary psychology' is a contested minority viewpoint amongst sections of the scientific community, and as such, any debates about its validity are entirely appropriate topics for the article itself. I would consider any attempt to add such a messagebox as an attempt to enforce a particular (minority) POV, and a clear violation of Wikipedia norms (and, incidentally, a breach of scientific ethics). A scientific theory that relies on Wikipedia bureaucracy to defend it is hardly worth defending... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
You are making my point. Why do you think this page was put "full protection mode?" A WP Administrator apparently believes that the edit wars on this page are not constructive and are not within the bounds of WP policies. That needs to be taken seriously.
"'Natural selection' is an overwhelmingly-accepted scientific theory." Indeed, and evolutionary psychology is itself grounded in the theory of evolution, and is derivative of it. Unfortunately, as such, it is subject to many of the same criticisms by anti-evolutionists (including the claim of being "unfalsifiable").
However, the majority of biological and psychological scientists believe that, like all other body organs, the brain is also an evolved organ. Darwin himself held this opinion. It does not serve Wikipedia if, instead of describing EP such that those in the field would recognize as accurate, the page becomes is a long series of debates between evolutionists and those who believe evolution is irrelevant or insignificant to developing a complete understanding human behavior (e.g., social constructionists, post-modernists, cultural determinists, etc.)
How can the concerns of the WP Administrator who put this page in full protection mode be addressed? Placing a page in full protection mode is pretty rare -- the Administrator's concerns about edit wars on this page need to be taken seriously. I'm afraid that if we cannot resolve these concerns, the issue of a placing warning box to discourage turning this page into a debate page may need to go to a RfC. Memills (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
"the majority of biological and psychological scientists believe that, like all other body organs, the brain is also an evolved organ". Indeed. As far as I'm aware, none of the critics on EP voiced on this talk page have ever argued otherwise. And neither have I seen much evidence that anyone is suggesting that "evolution is irrelevant or insignificant to developing a complete understanding human behavior". The debate is about the extent to which EP can tell us anything about the brain as an 'evolved organ', and the degree to which 'human behaviour' can actually be explained according to the methodology of EP. Are you really suggesting that scepticism about a particular aspect of 'evolutionary science' is comparable with a rejection of it as a whole? This is almost as ludicrous as Leadwind's rejection of 'social science' as a Marxist plot. If you can't defend EP against criticisms from a mainstream scientific perspective (which is what has been occurring here), one would have to conclude that perhaps this is because proponents of EP aren't entirely sure that it is mainstream science. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
You are not addressing the concerns of the WP Administrator. Instead, you are just continuing the edit war that prompted the WP Administrator's lockdown of this page. The issue at hand is how to reduce edit wars on this page.
Here is a proposal for a warning box for this EP Discussion page, based on the other two noted above:
WARNING: This is not the place to discuss controversies or opinions about evolution itself and its related subjects. The main Evolutionary Psychology (EP) page is not primarily a debate page. Like the main Evolution page, this page should be primarily focused on describing the discipline itself. It is not a point-counterpoint series of running debates. General theoretical debates related to EP are more appropriately described and reviewed on the Evolutionary psychology controversy page, or, more generally, on the Objections to evolution page.

This page is for discussing improvements to the main EP page such that it accurately represents the discipline of evolutionary psychology. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks, regardless of your ideological position, may be deleted at any time, as is the rule for all Wikipedia articles and talk pages. In order to avoid rehashing the same discussions, some common points of argument may be addressed at Wikipedia's Evolution FAQ.

Memills (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


POV-pushing garbage, based on an entirely false premise. This looks to me like an admission that EP cannot withstand criticism from within a mainstream science perspective. If this is indeed what you are arguing, I'm going to suggest that the [[category|pseudoscience]] template should be applied to the article. You can't have it both ways. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The comparison to the Evolution page is apt. The Evolution page includes a summary of the controversy over evolution in the cultural responses section. Criticisms about EP are similar to criticisms of evolution in general ("you can't test it," "it presents a base view of human nature," "it disagrees with my ideals," "the people who support it are bad," etc.). Encyclopedia Britannica and Psychology both report on controversies (as do Dennet, Pinker, etc.). It's contrary to WP policy to restrict criticism to a "criticism" page. Am I really the only editor here who wants to cover both EP's successes (e.g., proven testability) and the criticisms? Leadwind (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
No, the criticisms of EP that have been discussed here have been based on its validity as a science. It is only the endless misrepresentation of such criticisms by some proponents of EP that might make it appear otherwise. The comparison with criticisms of evolution in general is utterly bogus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

history in the lead

We used to have two sentences about the history of EP in the lead. Our Psych textbook and EBO both refer to the history of EP, and leads are supposed to be complete summaries, so I intend to add references to history back into the lead. Can anyone name a policy-related reason why I shouldn't? After all, we're all here to improve the article, not just fight for our respective viewpoints, right? Leadwind (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you should try giving an outline of the changes you propose here on the talkpage before instating them, in that way we can agree upon a formulation and how best to use sources beforehand.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You know, Maunus, if you and I agreed on something, we could improve this page pretty quickly. So are you inclined to agree that a summary of the topic should include a brief history? If not, I'll ask for some policy of comparable authority to WP:LEAD, but I probably wouldn't belabor the point. As for your question, all I intend to do is cite your own Psych textbook, and restore two sentences that (I believe) MEM deleted. Leadwind (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not against including information about the history of EP in the lead. But if the particular sentence you are talkign about was removed by someone else there was probably a reason for that. What is it specifically that you propose to include?·Maunus·ƛ· 21:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You know, your summary of the Psych textbook was so useful that I was just summarizing what you said. You've got the textbook, how about you take a crack at summarizing the history of EP, based on it? Then you don't have to worry about me getting it wrong. Leadwind (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Maunus? How about it? Your textbook summarizes the history of EP, so our lead should, too. Would you care to give it a shot? After all, you're here to improve the page, not just undercut EP, right? Leadwind (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

improvements

Improvements we could make to the page:

Add history to the lead.

Add gender role hypotheses to body.

Add culture/gene co-evolution to body.

Add sexism/racism criticism to criticism section.

Anybody have other ideas or preferences? Leadwind (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's another possible addition: social chemical exchange. Humans have evolved the ability to transmit and detect chemicals in tears, semen, sweat, and who knows what else. Women select mates partly based on unconscious reactions to a man's MHC (for improved immune function in offspring). Another section might be on aggression. Evolutionary psychologists look at human males as built for some amount of aggression (not as much as chimps or gorillas), and the fossil record suggests that right-handed hominids have been hitting each other with rocks for a long time.
Anybody else want to suggest any improvements to the page? Leadwind (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I thought women chose partner's primarily based on social status? Thats another EP finding.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
"...the fossil record suggests that right-handed hominids have been hitting each other with rocks for a long time." Source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

As a peace offering to the anti-EP crowd, I could add a bit where Dennett criticizes Cosmides and Tooby for exaggerating the modularity of the mind. The pro-EP people will likely admit that Dennett has standing to offer criticism, and the detractors will be happy to see criticism coming from a decidedly pro-Darwinian source. The book Darwin's Dangerous Idea probably counts as a secondary source that describes the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. Leadwind (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how Dennet can qualify as "disinterested" in any sense of the word.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Leadwind, I cannot speak for anyone else here, but I would prefer you to step away from this and let other folks work on the page. Based on your involvement here, I would not trust you to accurately present the 'critic' side anymore than I would trust you to present the 'EP' side. Logic prevails (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we focus on improvements we can make to the page? OK, here's another topic to add: emotions. Most researchers now conclude that emotions are evolved instincts, and Trivers links many social instincts directly to the maintaining relationships of reciprocity.

Does anyone else have suggestions for making improvements to the page? Leadwind (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Addition of a warning notice at the top of Discussion page: This is not a controversy or objections page

A WP Administrator recently saw fit to put the Evolutionary Psychology page under full protection mode. The reason for doing so was a "Long-running edit war." (See: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Evolutionary_psychology&action=history )

Edit wars on this page can be intense, and sometimes appear to be exacerbated by some editors' strongly held personal, political, philosophical or even religious perspectives.

One possible way to reduce the edit wars on this page is to place a warning to editors at the top of the Evolutionary Psychology Talk page to note that the page is not primarily a debate page. Rather, controversies are more appropriately explored on the Evolutionary psychology controversy page, which is dedicated to exploring most any criticism of the discipline, including philosophical and political objections.

More on the rationale for placing such a notice, as well as objections to doing so, can be found here:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Evolutionary_psychology#Addition_of_a_warning_notice_at_the_top_of_this_page:_This_is_not_a_controversy_or_objections_page

Here is a (slightly) revised proposed notice post for the Evolutionary Psychology Talk page:

Important Notice.: This is not the place to discuss controversies or opinions about evolution itself and its related subjects. In order to avoid rehashing the same discussions, some common points of argument may be addressed at Wikipedia's Evolution FAQ. Like the main Evolution page, the Evolutionary Psychology (EP) page should be primarily focused on describing the discipline itself, its theories and empirical findings. General philosophical or theoretical debates related to EP, the nature versus nurture debate, political perspectives, or debates regarding evolutionary theory itself are more appropriately described and reviewed, respectively, on the Evolutionary psychology controversy page, the Nature versus nurture page, the Evolutionary theory and the political left page, or the Objections to evolution page.

The purpose of this Talk page is to discuss how the main EP page can be improved such that it accurately represents evolutionary psychology as a scientific discipline, including empirical tests of its hypotheses. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks, regardless of your ideological position, may be deleted at any time, as is the rule for all Wikipedia articles and talk pages.

The basic question is whether placement of such a warning to editors is appropriate as a means to avoid turning the article into a debate page, and to reduce recurring edit wars. Memills (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

more of the same nonsense (see above Talk:Evolutionary psychology#Addition of a warning notice at the top of this page: This is not a controversy or objections page- the reason this is a 'debate page' is that those who have tried to WP:OWN it have failed to provide compelling evidence that their pet subject is defensible as mainstream science. And where exactly are "religious perspectives" evident on this page? Unless you are suggesting that EP is a religion (an interesting idea, but one I'd need to look at further before necessarily agreeing), I've seen no theological, spiritual, or other related arguments here - just good old scientific scepticism, as mirrored in general Wikipedia policy - you make a claim, you provide evidence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
@Memills: I have been ignoring this page for a while so I might have missed something, but I have not seen anyone doubt evolution here. The edit warring and nonsensical debates are based on misconceptions of how Wikipedia works (it's not a forum, and we don't use silly articles as references, and we don't float topic-related ideas on talk pages). There would be no benefit from putting a warning at the top of this page when WP:NOTFORUM applies to all pages. The correct approach would be an RFC/U or WP:SHUN—don't discuss anything off-topic. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Andy has been saying here. There are at least a few editors who have been concerned with how information is being presented on the page. It would seem that there is a POV bias in favor of EP and a reluctance to accurately present the current state of the field with accurate mention of its critics. I have also raised concerns about mis-citing or misrepresenting sources and others have brought concerns about introducing original research. To me, these are the issues leading to supposed edit wars. When an editor makes a change or brings up a concern about accurately presenting the information (especially when it may show a crack in the EP theory), defenders jump in with assumptions that those editors are anti-evolution, cultural determinists, or followers of the supposed SSSM. This is nonesense. Personally, I would be thrilled if EP proponents could simply recognize that EP is more than just evolution applied to the mind. I have been tirelessly stating that many critics accept that the mind is an evolved entity - please stop misrepresenting the other side of the debate. It is also not acceptable for you to keep stating "like the main evolution page..." and other such nonesense, since EP is not synonymous with the theory of evolution. Let this theory try to stand on its own merits. Logic prevails (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

As I have stated above it is a misconception that the article should only describe the discipline and its empirical findings. The locking of the page was due to Leadwind's propensity for editwarring by reinserting his preferred edits with out gaining consensus for them first, and reverting others edits for which there were ample consensus. It was not due to questions of whether or not criticism should be presented in the article. There is no way to bypass WP:NPOV - notable criticism of EP goes in the article. Is the criticism notable? Yes, very much so. ALl of the thbree introductions to EP that I have by now laid my hands on include full chapters of rebuttals to the criticism - that means that authors who write introductions to Evolutionary Psychology find the criticism notable enough that they have to include it, and defend the discipline against it. Of course the wikipedia article must also include the criticism then - and of course we cannot include it simply from the EP view but in a balanced treatment that states which arguments are used against EP and which arguments EP use to defend itself.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. A good example of what keeps derailing progress on this page is one of Leadwind's most recent comments: "If, on the other hand, you can ever find any top-notch tertiary source that describes the controversy from a neutral viewpoint and says EP is wrong, let us know, because we could add that into the article." Leadwind consistently presents this discussion as "It is either right or wrong ... you either believe it is right, or believe it is wrong." Leadwind is after truth and thinks anyone who questions him is questioning the truth of EP. But Wikipedia is about verifiable views, not truth. Memills might be right that we need a warning, but his ideas of what has gone wrong here are really misplaced. The problem is not a discussion of the controversies surrounding EP. EP is a minority view within the sciences, and it is a mistkae to compare this article (or our aspirations for this article) to the article on Evolution; evolution has long been established as the paradigm for research on biology. EP is very far from establishing itself as the paradigm for research on human behavior or the human mind, and a good article on EP has to explain why. Among other things scientists question its interpretation of Darwin, the testability of its hypotheses, and the habit of evolutionary scientists to ignore or misrepresent the existing research on specific topics. These are important not only because they address core elements of EP but because the manifest core elements of modern scholarly research (I mean, by explaining issues such as these clearly, we are also better-educating readers about science. My basic criteria for inclusion in articles on scientific topics is: what is within the bounds of normal scientific debate, and what is outside the bounds of scientific debate?) These all must be presented in the article and I think the main question right now is how to organize the article so that its controversial status is clear, but in an NPOV way. In short we need to stick to our core principles: NPOV, V< and NOR. We need a warning template for this page that warns people not to use this page to forward unverifiable claims or to violate NOR especially through SYNTH, which has happened a lot here. And most of all we need to warn away anyone who comes here to argue that EP is either "right" or "wrong." That is not what WP articles are about and any attempt to discuss whether it is "right" or "wrong" on this page can only derail constructive discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
SLR, that's a rather long-winded way of saying that you can't find sources comparable to those that favor EP (Encyclopedia Britannica, New York Times, Psychology textbook, Pinker, Dennett, etc.). Leadwind (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
That is not even close to what I said. Troll as much as you want to, but do not misrepresent what I wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The long and short of it is that if you could just find mainstream sources that agreed with you instead of with me, you wouldn't have to go on at such length to build a case against what the mainstream sources say. Leadwind (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The only time I ever provided sources, I provided mainstream sources. But where have I gone on at great length to build a case against what any source says? I have never argued "against" a mainstream source, I have only insisted that multiple points of view be represented? Do you really see no difference between being a POV-warriro and trying to comply with NPOV? You write "that agreed with you instead of with me" and you prove my popint: you are trying to use WP as a chat-room, as a forum. None of this is about me versus you. You think editing Wikipedia is a competitive sport, and you bring the whole project down. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Leadwind, I think you grossly misunderstand what is and is not a credible way of representing both sides of a scientific debate. Are there more mainstream articles and books detailing the supposedly enlightening discoveries of EP, compared to those that critique the field? Yes, absolutely. But those findings do not in any way reflect the general attitudes within the larger field of psychology. As others have stated, EP is a small sub-field. Most psychologists do not subscribe to it, though they might not outwardly critique it either - maybe they are busy doing their own research. I do not know what other mainstream sources of critique you are looking for... you can easily find 50-100 peer reviewed journal articles that critique some aspect of EP and by now there are at least 8-15 whole books that do the same. No one here is looking to argue the 'truth' (whatever that means), but rather to accurately present the various sides in the scientific debate. Logic prevails (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
This is not a debate page, or an "objections to," page. It is primarily a page to describe evolutionary approaches to study and to better understand psychological phenomena.
Research that includes evolutionary, adaptationist perspectives appear with increasing regularity in the major, mainstream psychological science journals. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of articles in peer reviewed scientific journals, and many hundreds of books, that examine psychological phenomena from an evolutionary perspective. A scholar.google.com search using the keywords "evolution" and "psychology" returns more than half a million hits; using the search terms "psychology" and "adaptationist" turns up more than 5,000 hits. A search of books at Amazon.com using the terms "evolutionary psychology" returns 1015 hits, more than does a search for "evolutionary anthropology" with 739 hits.
Evolutionary biology was met with many similar criticisms to those against EP, which continue to this day, and that is why the evolution, and related pages, on WP have a Notice to Editors at the top of their Talk pages. Memills (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
All of which is of no relevance whatever when the discussion on this talk page concerns itself, as it does, with whether Evolutionary Psychology is being accurately represented in the article, with its controversial status within the sciences duly noted, and without the far-reaching and largely unsourced claims about its significance giving a false impression of its significance. Furthermore, it needs to be stressed that the article isn't about 'psychological phenomena from an evolutionary perspective', but about EP specifically - its methodology, its findings, and the validity of such findings. This attempt to misrepresent critics of EP as critics of evolutionary theory is less than conducive to civil discourse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Evolutionary psychology is indeed the broad, interdisciplinary study of 'psychological phenomena from an evolutionary perspective.' Evolutionary biology focuses on the body, evolutionary psychology focuses on the mind/brain. Workman and Reader's textbook, Evolutionary Psychology, begins with: "The fundamental assumption of evolutionary psychology is that the human mind is the product of evolution just like any other body organ, and that we can gain a better understanding of the mind by examining the evolutionary pressures that shaped it." (p. 1) And, as noted by the researchers in the discipline itself:
* The Human Behavior and Evolution Society (HBES) defines itself as "a society for all those studying the evolution of human behavior. Scientific perspectives range from evolutionary psychology to evolutionary anthropology and cultural evolution; and the membership includes researchers from a range of disciplines in the social and biological sciences."
* The European Human Behaviour and Evolution Association (EHBEA) has a similarly broad self-definition: "an interdisciplinary society that supports the activities of European researchers with an interest in evolutionary accounts of human cognition, behaviour and society."
* The NorthEastern Evolutionary Psychology Society is a "society is designed to facilitate interactions among scholars who study psychological questions from an evolutionary perspective. Given this relatively broad charge, we welcome scholars from multiple disciplines (e.g., anthropology, biology, literary studies, psychology, sociology) with a diversity of research and theoretical interests."
* The premier, highly cited journal in the field, Evolution and Human Behavior defines itself as "an interdisciplinary journal, presenting research reports and theory in which evolutionary perspectives are brought to bear on the study of human behavior, cognition, and culture."
* The journal Evolutionary Psychology is "concerned with evolutionary approaches to psychology and behavior."
It is inappropriate attempt to impose your own definition on the discipline. Whatever your definition may be, it is clearly at odds with the definition of researchers in the field, as indicated by their scientific societies and their journals. Memills (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
"It is inappropriate attempt to impose your own definition on the discipline". It would be, if I was - instead I am taking the definition that the article itself gives, which isn't a description of a "broad, interdisciplinary study", but instead a very narrow definition based on core principles that few outside the EP core seem to accept - most notably in reference to the 'modularity of mind' issue where "Human psychology consists of a large number of functionally specialized evolved mechanisms...". If the article looked at the broader field, rather than at core EP, it would be much more credible, in my view. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
MEM, I am not sure what you are saying here... are you suggesting that these broad INTERDICIPLINARY organizations are synonymous with EP? Logic prevails (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I am saying that those in the discipline, regardless of their own personal preferences for particular sub-theories, would define evolutionary psychology as broadly as do the definitions above -- any investigation that uses an evolutionary / adaptationist approach to understand human emotion, motivation, cognition, and their distal effects on behavior and culture. That is a very big tent. I am open to revisions that more broadly define the discipline.
Having said that, though, the statement "Human psychology consists of a large number of functionally specialized evolved mechanisms..." would be accepted by most all evolutionists, as they would agree with a similar definition of evolutionary biology as applied to the human body: "The human body consists of a large number of functionally specialized evolved mechanisms..." EPers would agree that the body is not composed of general purpose silly putty, nor is the mind. Even so-called "general purpose" processors must have some structure and decision rules, otherwise they would operate randomly (or, more accurately, not at all). Although there is disagreement in the discipline over the degree of specialization vs. generality of some psychological adaptations, that is really not a huge point of contention in the field. The main points of interest of those in the field are identifying psychological adaptations. And whether they are generally facultative or obligate, what information triggers their activation, their decision rules, their interaction with other psychological adaptations, and their emotional, motivational or cognitive outputs. Memills (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
So, "those in the discipline" do not really follow the core tenants outlined by EP theorists (e.g. Buss, Cosmides & Tooby), but would rather agree with the more general evolutionary perspectives offered by the convergence of approaches including anthropology, sociology, etc? I do not think EPers state their theory like that at all.
As for the statement "'Human psychology consists of a large number of functionally specialized evolved mechanisms...' is accepted by most all evolutionists" is clearly false. I have been citing work by psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, neurobiologists, etc. that do not define the mind in that way - You cannot pretend that they do not exist. Even if you wanted to prove your statement more generally, you would first need to survey the population as to their general evolutionary beliefs, then read some EP definitions of the mind and then ask them: "would you agree or disagree that evolution works THIS way." As to your statement: "General purpose processors must have some structure and decision rules, otherwise they would operate randomly (or, more accurately, not at all)..." Yes, I would agree, but only if you assumed that the mind's function involved "processing information" by way of domain-specific decision rules. This is why in this article, we need to be clear what EPers state in their model of the mind. Logic prevails (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
As I said, evolutionary psychology is a very big tent. And, like most scientific disciplines, there are a variety of specific interests, pet theories, and disagreements among the investigators. D.S. Wilson promotes group selection, which the majority of the field rejects. Tooby and Cosmides promote the idea of many very specialized psychological adaptations, while others in the field suggest that the modules are fewer in number and are more flexible (evo-devo), some interpret findings from a computational theory of mind (which apparently you disagree with) while others care little about how adaptations are instantiated in the brain. All of these investigators meet up at conferences, call themselves evolutionary psychologists (or, a specific sub-field related to their interests, e.g., evolutionary neuropsychologists, evolutionary economists, evolutionary anthropologists, etc.), and they pretty much manage to get along without resorting to fisticuffs. Basically, they view other evolutionists / adaptationists as colleagues working under the same basic meta-paradigm.
The primary opponents of the field are those who dislike what they see as undesirable potential political implications of evolved psychological adaptations, those who subscribe to a "blank slate" version of the mind, those who believe in entirely content-free, structure free "general purpose processors" (whatever those are), those who believe that culture supersedes and transcends the influence of psychological adaptations, as well as those who have a non-materialist and/or non-evolutionary view of the mind. Memills (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
We clearly disagree on who the 'primary opponents are.' It would seem that until we do, this page is prone to 'edit-warring.' I have been providing sources from numerous critics who fall outside of the narrow categories you would like to put them in. They are NOT opposing EP on grounds of the theoretical implications, their wanting a culturally determined or 'blank-slate' definition of the mind, or their defending non-materialist ideas. I would advise you to read about your critics, so at least you can know what they are saying. Regardless, it would seem to me that when we mention them here, they must be represented accurately. Logic prevails (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Do edify, but do so on primarily on the Evolutionary psychology controversy page where such debates are more appropriately fleshed out and thoroughly discussed. Memills (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Note to outside reviewers responding to this RfC: The commentators so far in this RfC section (including myself, but with the exception of Johnuniq), have been active recent participants in the edit wars that prompted the full protection mode of this page, and this RfC. Memills (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
A further note to outside reviewers - Memills remark above is at least questionable. I for instance have only edited the article five times in its history. I assume this revert for example is uncontroversial: diff. Of the remaining four edits, I can see only one which could be remotely seen as 'edit warring' - I fail to see how this constitutes me being one of the supposed "active recent participants in the edit wars", and I expect Memills to redact that statement, or provide evidence to back it up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Are you referring to me, Memills? Can you provide actual edit-difs from the article history that support your claim? What exactly did I do that prompted page protection? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, the irony. It was the WP Administrator who put the page under full protection mode who made the characterization of a "Long-running edit war." You would need to ask the WP Administrator exactly what comments, from whom, prompted his/her opinion that there was an edit war. However, let me revise my comment: The commentators so far... have been active recent participants in "the spirited discussions" on the Talk Page. Memills (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
What is the irony? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

improvements to the article?

Anybody else have any suggestions as to how we could improve the page? That's our job as editors, isn't it? Leadwind (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I will be adding back in a section on Cultural Evolution / Memetics / Dual Inheritance Theory (Gene-Culture Coevolution). These topics are covered in Workman and Reader's "Evolutionary Psychology" textbook (chapter 13), as well as Buss' textbook "Evolutionary Psychology" (also chapter 13). Memills (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see that, and trust that you can add high-quality material to the page. Leadwind (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I would still like to accurately present information on the page (e.g. the Darwin stuff), but I guess I am just a stickler for details... Logic prevails (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

How about we agree to include the material from Maunus's textbook. It covers the relationship between EP and Darwin, and we can hardly find a better source that a psych textbook. Leadwind (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
See my comment re this in the next section below. Memills (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

kleinbo and laland_a

We need information for these two references. Currently, the citation tags are invalid. Leadwind (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Also Boyd and Freeman. Leadwind (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


Language and communication

Theories of the evolutionary origin of language and communication and its evolutionary origins is an area I know more about than other areas related to this topic, and the section was factually erroneous and misrepresented what we know about the topic, and also demonstrated no clear relation to EP. Pinker is basically modifying Chomsky's theory of language as a universal "language acquistion device" into the modular mind theory (Chomsky is not adverse to this). The only work Chomsky has done specifically in the field of evolution of language is his work with Marc Hauser and W. Tecumseh Fitch - neither of whom are evolutionary psychologists per se - they are evolutionary biologists working with cognition - they share some approaches with Pinker, and he certainly uses theirs, but they should not be willy nilly lumped as Evolutionary Psychologists. I think there is nenough EP material written to write a useful section about how EP understands language - but it has to be done in a way that is coherent and shows explicitly which contributions belong to EP and which originate outside of the discipline and are simply adapted by EP to fir the Ep framework.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reworking this section -- much improved.
Minor quibble with you -- I believe Hauser would indeed self-identify as an evolutionary psychologist. Hauser takes a distinctly evolutionary approach to cognition, and more recently to morality, and he attends many of the EP conferences. Lots of folks not specifically in psychology per se make such a self-identification, including some biologists, sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, neuroscientists, and economists (the economist Herbert Gintis comes to mind).
EP is best characterized as the broad interdisciplinary study of psychological / cultural phenomena approached from an evolutionary / adaptationist framework. Memills (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Well if a source describes him as such I would not be adverse to calling him that, but right now I am not even mentioning him in the section. Since the argument of the Hauser, Fitch, Chomsky paper is quite specifically about the ability to produce recursivity as a basis for human language and not really about evolutionary psychology.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
But Tomasello and Givón approach cultural phenomena from an evolutionary framework, yet are decidedly not Evolutionary Psychologists - so that broad definition does not hold. It is a specific kind of evolutionary approach.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Maunus, I'm happy with the material that you added, but if we're going to delete information already there, let's agree on why. Also, the material you added implies that the majority of researchers think that the human brain has no special capacity for acquiring language, even among children. That seems like a stretch, given the evidence for a genetic proclivity to pick up language. Is that actually what the source says? Leadwind (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I am going to remove the material again. It is wrong - that is reason enough. You are also misreading the text I have written it does not say that a majority of scholars say that humans have no innate capacity for acquiring language - it says that the Ep explanation is not the majority viewpoint - I don't think there is a majority viewpoint at this stage, there are several competing theories. All of those theories agree that they humans have an innate capacity for learning language - saying otherwise would require denying reality. What the text I have written actually says is that a majority agrees that it is not necessary to believe that it has a specialized innate module of language acquisition, and that it is not necessary to believe that most of grammar is innate as Chomnsky and Pinker does. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
According to the majority opinion: "It is therefore clear that all normal humans bring into the world an innate faculty for language acquisition, language use, and grammar construction." "Language" on EBO. Leadwind (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I have made it more clear that all language specialists believe that humans are innately disposed to acquire language and that the question is whether this requires a specialised language module or not.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we also have to be careful about lumping together "language acquisition, language use, and grammar construction." I look to Maunus for expertise on this, but while I think all anthropologists believe humans evolved an innate capacity for all these things, the big question for evolutionary theorists is, what were the selective forces acting on the elements required for language construction and language use. What does an "innate capacity" for grammar? I think a belief in this goes back to Kant, and I was taught it was central to Chomsky. But Tomasello and Deacons seem to believe something quite different from Chomsky. Either "innate capacity for grammar construction" is such a vague phrase that people can interpret it to mean very different things (modulear or non modular?) or what? All languages have grammars, so obviously we all have a capacity for it ... I think we have to be really clear about what are the key questions EP and evolutionary scientists are asking ...Slrubenstein | Talk 13:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
One would have to deny reality in order to argue that humans don't "have an innate capacity to learn grammar". The question is whether this means that most of grammar is innate or whether we just have a general capacity of learning to use complex symbolic systems through experience and exposure alone. EP definitely adopts Chomsky's model suggesting that most of grammar is universal and innate - this has been continuously challenged by contradictory empirical findings.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
You need to be careful with the wording, as there are very important disagreements. Generally speaking, EPers would believe that language is 'module-like' in structure and that it evolved because language solved particular problems in our evolutionary history. However, others believe that language instead emerges from environmental input interacting with neurobiological components that may exist for other evolutionary reasons and are not unique to language alone. It is suggested that certain components (e.g. Striatocapsular area, associational areas of the dorsal and ventral streams, Brocas & Wernickies area, etc.), with help from the environment (e.g. formation of functional Hebbian synapses; neuronal pruning within critical periods), produce the phenotype of language. Logic prevails (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


Culture and evolution

This section should be a general summary of evolutionary approaches to culture - it should be a summary of how those theories have been applied by Evolutionary Psychologists. I am going to start working on this section soon and it will likely involve removal of a lot of material that does not directlt claim a relation to EP. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The terms "evolutionary psychologists" and "evolutionary psychology" should not be capitalized. Apparently you have a copy of the Workman & Reader EP textbook. Their chapter on culture is an excellent overview on evolutionary approaches to the topic. Memills (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
It is a fine chapter. I am a little surprised that not much of the research they describe actually originates in EP and I am thinking about how to angle it to describe the particularly EP view of those studies. It also does misrepresent a few things in the opposing camp (e.g. they talk as if Kroeber's notion of the superorganic ever had any traction - it was rejected as unsound by both Boas and Sapir as soon as it was published). I shall try to stop capitalizing evolutionary psychology - if I forget please correct me. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

merge two lists of principles

Thanks, MEM, for providing a reference for Buss's list of principles. I'd like to merge the two lists of principles into one list. That would be more encyclopedic. A tertiary text such as WP should digest the information that experts provide rather than merely laying out two similar versions of the same concepts. Leadwind (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Rather than try to merge the two (it might be a tad awkward?), perhaps select one to keep, and indicate that this definition is similar to the one by... (and include a link or ref to it). Memills (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
How about I attempt a merger and we see whether it's awkward? If it's awkward, then I'll abandon the merger, as you suggest. Leadwind (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's the original material, in two lists filled with big words.

  1. Manifest behavior depends on underlying psychological mechanisms, information-processing devices housed in the brain, in conjunction with the external and internal inputs that trigger their activation.
  2. Evolution by selection is the only known causal process capable of creating such complex organic mechanisms.
  3. Evolved psychological mechanisms are functionally specialized to solve adaptive problems that recurred for humans over deep evolutionary time.
  4. Selection designed the information processing of many evolved psychological mechanisms to be adaptively influenced by specific classes of information from the environment.
  5. Human psychology consists of a large number of functionally specialized evolved mechanisms, each sensitive to particular forms of contextual input, that get combined, coordinated, and integrated with each other to produce manifest behavior.

Pioneers of the subject Leda Cosmides and John Tooby consider the following five principles as critical:

  1. The brain is a physical system. It functions as a computer with circuits that have evolved to generate behavior that is appropriate to environmental circumstances.
  2. Neural circuits were designed by natural selection to solve problems that human ancestors faced while evolving into Homo sapiens.
  3. Consciousness is a small portion of the contents and processes of the mind; conscious experience can mislead individuals to believe their thoughts are simpler than they actually are. Most problems experienced as easy to solve are very difficult to solve and are driven and supported by very complicated neural circuitry.
  4. Different neural circuits are specialized for solving different adaptive problems.
  5. Modern skulls house a Stone age mind.[1]

And here's my combo list, with an attempt to make the language more accessible to the lay reader.

  1. The brain processes information, generating appropriate behavior in response to external and internal inputs.[2][1]
  2. The brain's organic, neural mechanisms were shaped by natural selection.[2][1]
  3. Different neural mechanisms are specialized for solving adaptive problems in humanity's evolutionary past.[2][1]
  4. The brain is suited to solving problems that recurred over deep evolutionary time,[2] giving modern humans Stone age minds.[1]
  5. Most contents and processes of the brain are unconscious, and most problems that seem easy to solve to the conscious mind are actually difficult problems solved unconsciously by complicated neural mechanisms.[1]
  6. Human psychology consists of many specialized mechanisms, each sensitive to different classes of information or inputs. These mechanisms combine to produce manifest behavior.[2]

Again, a tertiary source is supposed to combine primary and secondary sources, not just repeat them. I tried to do work that's neither pro-EP or anti-EP, but just a better read for the reader. Leadwind (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Pscyh textbook

Some of the useful and neutral material that Maunus summarized from the Psychology textbook has been lost in the shuffle. Here again is Maunus's summary.

"Evolutionary psychology explains mind and behavior in terms of the adaptive value of abilities that are preserved over time by natural selection. Evolutionary psychology has its roots in Charles Darwin’s (1809–82) theory of natural selection, which inspired William James’s functionalist approach. But it is only since the publication in 1975 of Sociobiology, by the biologist E. O. Wilson, that evolutionary thinking has had an identifiable presence in psychology. That presence is steadily increasing (Buss, 1999; Pinker, 1997a; Tooby & Cosmides, 2000)." (p. 26)
"Critics of the evolutionary approach point out that many current traits of people and other animals probably evolved to serve different functions than those they currently serve. ... Complications like these have lead the critics to wonder how evolutionary hypotheses can ever be tested (Coyne, 2000; Sterelny & Griffiths, 1999). Testing ideas about the evolutionary origins of psychological phenomena is indeed a challenging task, but not an impossible one (Buss, Haselton, Shackelford, Bleske, & Wakefield, 1998; Pinker, 1997b). Evolutionary psychologists hold that behaviors or traits that occur universally in all cultures are good candidates for evolutionary adaptations." (p. 26-27)

I'll be adding the history material to the lead because the lead should be able to stand alone a concise summary of the topic. Leadwind (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, but this one point has been brought up before... should we trust EPers to say whether their approach is NOT impossible to test? That is, by presenting it this way, you automatically dismiss those critics who assert that it IS impossible. I would prefer an addition that clearly states who is saying it is not impossible (i.e. EPers). Logic prevails (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
It makes no sense to make any blanket statements. Some EP hypotheses can be falsified (we know be cause they have been as Confer et al point out), but that doesn't mean that all EP hypotheses can, or that there aren't more general problems about the general adaptational reasoning. The quote from schacter et al makes a general statement that it is difficult to tests ideas about evolutionary origins of psychological phenomena - but quote Buss, Haselton, Shackelford, Bleske and Wakefiled and Pinker as arguing it is not impossible. In anycase it is not the case that the general question of EP as a scientific endeavor has vanished - as I have shown several books published form academic presses last year expressed these same reservations.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
IMHO, this objection it among the weakest of the critics -- almost makes them look a bit silly. As noted earlier, the same criticism is *still* directed at general evolutionary theory (as noted on the WP Evolution FAQ). Empirical tests of EP hypotheses are being published all the time -- there is a great body of literature already extant. The main issue is this: can an EP approach generate hypotheses that more parsimoniously explain the empirical data than do alternative non-evolutionary hypotheses? In many cases, evidence is accumulating that it apparently can (although I'm sure some critics would dispute that as well). Memills (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Has EP found a way to substantiate their modular claims of genetically informed information processing mechanisms on a biological/genetic level? No? In fact it actually contradicts some of it? Which approach is being silly here? As for the 'empirical testing,' we all know very well that interpretation will be biased according to the assumptions within the paradigm... there is nothing silly about questioning some of the assumptions of EP. But I digress. Logic prevails (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
imo this criticism is very well founded, but probably only concerns a certain segment of Evol Psych - the part that simply churns out speculative just-so stories like "language evolved to allow people to make social contracts", "jeaolusy evolved to make men keep control of their off spring", "women live longer because longlived grandmothers served an evolutionary function by doing child care" etc. This stuff exists and it makes EP look silly. But I think there are also more serious kinds of evo psych. As Fitch says "there are strands of EVolutionary Psychology that are suggestive of pan-adaptionism"·Maunus·ƛ· 02:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

MEM added "Along with W.D. Hamilton's (1964) seminal papers on inclusive fitness, ..." Unfortunately, that sentence is cited to Psychology which (check me Maunus) doesn't mention Hamilton. So it's not kosher to construct the sentence such that it looks like Schacter is saying that Hamilton helped establish evolutionary thought in psychology (even if he actually did). Maunus, if Psychology mentions Hamilton, we're OK. Otherwise, we could break that information off into a separate sentence: "W. D. Hamilton's seminal papers on inclusive fitness (1964) provided a basis for a neo-Darwinian understanding of psychology," or something. Leadwind (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

treatment of ev psych

I sort of think that this material might be worth adding to the page:

Over the past 15 years, evolutionary psychology has grown from being viewed as a fringe theoretical perspective to occupying a central place within psychological science. Courses in evolutionary psychology are being offered at many colleges and universities throughout the United States and, indeed, in countries throughout the world. Evo- lutionary psychology is now covered in all introductory psychology textbooks, albeit with varying degrees of ac- curacy. One quantitative study of the coverage of evolu- tionary psychology in these texts came to three conclu- sions: (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 (Cornwell et al., 2005; Park, 2007).

It's from Confer et al. If Maunus and the other detractors would prefer, they would be welcome to do the adding, paraphrasing it as they like, rather than my doing it. It's a nice piece of information because it dovetails with Maunus's textbook, which says that the footprint of EP has been steadily increasing. And we're dutybound to follow the guidance of tertiary sources that describe the disagreement neutrally (as Maunus's Psychology does). Leadwind (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, intro psych textbooks are not always the best places to find accurate info about EP -- the authors sometimes have meager background in EP (psych is an extremely broad discipline). The best places to find more accurate and updated info are undergraduate evolutionary psychology (not intro psychology) textbooks. These include the textbooks by Buss (his new 4th Ed is available now), as well as Gaulin & McBurney, and Workman & Reader. All have the same title: Evolutionary Psychology. I highly encourage editors who wish to contribute to this page to get a copy of at least one of these. Memills (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
However, Psych textbooks can be a very good way to see how EP is viewed within as you say a broad fild. I think leadwind's suggestion is good, as long as the source is not used as if it were a neutral view of EP, and instead were used as a way to see how psychology, the broad discipline, in gneeral, views EP. That is, identify it ias the view that it is. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The Confer et al article was co-written by Buss and is EXTREMELY biased. I have read it thoroughly and have used it as a critical talking point in one of my classes. I would prefer we not look there for an accurate summary of the field or its critics. Logic prevails (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Simply because the article doesn't conform to your particular biases does not mean that the article is biased. The authors present empirical support for many of the claims in the article. Again, this page needs to accurately represent what EPers say about EP (not what critics of EP say EPers say). Confer, et al., is an excellent article about what EPers actually do, and do not, say. Memills (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Logic prevails that the Confer et al article is biased in favor of EP. I also agree with Memills that this makes it an excellent source of the EP viewpoint. We can definitely use it to describe what EP says. We can't use it todescribe what their critics say - but we can use it to describe how they respond.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes Manus, I would agree with that. Logic prevails (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What's your evidence that Confer is biased in favor of EP? If Confer is biased, then you detractors should be able to find a reliable source that contradicts it. Theoretically, it's possible that EP actually deserves positive treatment, so positive treatment alone isn't evidence that the source is biased. After all, WP's Evolution page isn't "biased" in favor of evolution, it's neutrally in favor of evolution. Maybe Confer is likewise neutrally in favor of EP. Leadwind (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What's my evidence? We'll for starters, it was written by EPers. It will naturally have an EP bias. I don't need to find a reliable source to say that it is biased. By that same logic, you should find a reliable source to say that it is not. My only point is that we should not view this source as a neutral place to accurately portray the critics. Logic prevails (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
If you don't have any actual evidence that the paper is biased, then it's hard to exclude the possibility that the paper is neutral and the bias you're registering is located somewhere else. Leadwind (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course it is biased it is written by Buss and is graduate students. It is structured as a rebuttal. By definition it is biased.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

changing cited text

A new editor on the page sees fit to alter cited sentences without providing an RS to support the alteration. Misleading the reader about what a source says is bad form. (It's the same sort of thing that biblical literalists do all the time on bible-topic pages. See Massacre of the Innocents for a current example.) A recurrent editor on the page sees fit to do the same. If we're going to diverge from what a source says, let's get consensus first because usually we should be stick to what a source says. Leadwind (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The recent edit you reverted was appropriate. Although the source uses the word "impressive" in relation to the research, matters of opinion should not be reproduced as WP content without attribution. --FormerIP (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
"matters of opinion should not be reproduced as WP content without attribution." Really? Where's the policy that says that? To me, this sounds like the anti-Catholic editors who refuse to let the Catholic Church page say that the CC has been a decisive force in Western civilization, even though neutral accounts say that it certainly has been. If neutral Encyclopedia Britannica can say that EP findings are "impressive" and that the Catholic Church has been a decisive force in Western civilization, what policy keeps us from saying the same thing? Leadwind (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Leadwind read WP:PEACOCK. "impressive" is not a word that can beused without it being used to express someone's subjective judgment. Things are not impressive, they are impressive to someone. Furthermore you are quoting the text out of context it acytually says "Similarly, the relatively new discipline of evolutionary psychology can easily go too far in extending evolutionary principles to human behaviour. Extant behavioral traits in humans were not shaped by the current environment. Rather, the environmental context in which humans evolved was probably quite different from that of the modern world. People in ancestral societies lived in smaller groups, had more-cohesive cultures, and had more stable and rich contexts for identity and meaning. As a result, it is important to be cautious when using present circumstances to discern the selective bases of human behaviour. Despite this difficulty, there have been many careful and informative studies of human social behaviour from an evolutionary perspective. Infanticide, intelligence, marriage patterns, promiscuity, perception of beauty, bride price, altruism, and the allocation of parental care have all been explored by testing predictions derived from the idea that conscious and unconscious behaviours have evolved to maximize inclusive fitness. The findings have been impressive. As with other species, however, it is important to critically evaluate and avoid overextending the evidence." The authors Dickinson and Koenig are expressing their evaluation of some studies. There is no automaticity with which we simply include statements of opinion in the article lead. It requires that we have a consensus that this particular wording is sufficiently representative and notable to be included. In this case three editors say it isn't.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

expand mating section

One of the hottest topics in EP is male and female mating strategies. The article currently discusses jealousy and ovulation cycles, but there's a lot more to cover, including the really basic mammalian dichotomy between the eager male and the coy female. This is the area where EP promises (or threatens) to help people see how their everyday lives are shaped by our evolutionary past. We should at the very least cover the most basic dichotomy of male/female mating strategies, and there are a lot more details other than jealousy and ovulation cycles to cover, too: incest avoidance, perception of beauty, relative age of mates, intrasex competition (especially males v. males), the shape of the penis, bonding hormones in semen, spermicide in semen, MHC compatibility, Madonna-whore dichotomy, long-term pair bonding, pair-bonding over offspring (especially sons), etc.

Maunus, you seem to have access to an EP textbook. Would you favor us with a summary on this topic? Or would anyone else like to jump in?

I'm sure that some editors don't like the idea that our sex lives might be shaped in so many ways by our evolved instincts, but if we stick to solid sources we should be OK. Leadwind (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is likely important to expand the EP view with regard to mating, though I would caution against presenting findings from related disciplines as though they might have originated from EP. Sex hormones probably do not need to be covered here, since they were not discovered by EP or investigators working under its theoretical assumptions. It seems to me that there is a difference between masculinizing or sex hormones, for example, and hypothesized neurobiological mechanisms for rape avoidance or male preference for blonds. Logic prevails (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Logic and I agree we need more on this topic. Anyone want to pick this up? Leadwind (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference to Controversy in Lead?

There's an entire article titled Evolutionary psychology controversy that's never referenced until the end of this article. It would be too tangled to insert criticism through this article, and keeping the controversy separate is appropriate, but it also seems fair to mention the controversy early on. EP has been one of the most hotly debated topics in academia in the past 20 years, and a casual reader would have no clue about the debate until the end of the article. The critics may be wrong, or they may be right about some things. Failing to mention that this is controversial topic in the lead seems misleading. It doesn't accurately portray the state of knowledge and discourse regarding EP.

This issue may require discussion before placing a link to Evolutionary psychology controversy in the lead. Feedback from other editors is appreciated. Jj1236 (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think its a very good idea.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Critics may like the idea. However, the "Overview" section is a brief abstract of the discipline. The same rationale for keeping the focus of this page on EP, not a running point-counterpoint debate with critics, applies as well to the Overview. The Overview sections of other controversial disciplines, including the Evolution page, have no such link(s). There is already a Controversies section on the main EP page, with a link to the EP Controversy page -- quite sufficient for an encyclopedic entry.Memills (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
MEMills, even Reader and Workman's Introduction spend substantial time describing opposing view and how Ep relates to critics. To give an adequate and neutral description of the topic the article needs to do this as well. It is not neutral to only describe one view on the topic. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Within the scientific community, there is little debate (relevant to a general audience) about the fundamental axioms of evolutionary theory. In sharp contrast, there is ongoing intense debate about evolutionary psychology. A more apt analogy is to race and gender. It might be that biology has something to contribute to most discussions of race and gender, or not. The level of analysis matters, and some levels (e.g. socializing and enculturation) can largely disregard biological details as irrelevant. That's not to say biological differences don't exist at all, just that they don't productively inform many frameworks or other levels of understanding. Is race best understood as a biological or a social phenomenon? It depends on what questions you want to answer. Many people think the latter, and have honest reasons to prefer a cultural level of analysis for race and gender. Likewise, human minds can be understood on multiple levels, and it's perfectly reasonable to argue that evolutionary biology is not relevant to many of these levels. The article makes it quite clear the EP has been proposed as a fundamental paradigm for unifying the study of minds through evolutionary biology. It would be deceptive not to better inform readers that this paradigm is controversial and has substantial scientific and philosophical opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj1236 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Correct.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Memills, your wanting to view EP as synonymous with general evolutionary theory is getting tiring. No one here is disagreeing about whether evolution shaped the human nervous system. Stop trying to draw parallels that are not there. An acceptance of general evolutionary theory does not assume acceptance of EP, nor does rejection of EP prevent one from accepting the general tenants of evolution. I will again point out that EP is a particular WAY of applying evolutionary ideas to studying the mind - there are other ways of doing so. It only makes sense to warn the lay reader that there is significant controversy around the field - in both its theoretical assumptions and its methods. Logic prevails (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Correct.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
MEMills presumably knows what he's talking about when he says defines EP broadly. People who hate EP want to define it narrowly, but if there were an RS that told us to define it narrowly then that would really help. In general, our sources do treat EP as the most general approach to the evolution of human psychology. The Social Behavior article on EBO, for example, names EP as the (only) way to apply evolutionary analysis to human psychology. Same with the Instinct article. If there are competing ways to apply evolution to EP (ways that actually compete, not complement), find an RS that says so. (That's the big weakness you detractors can't get over: your lack of RSs.) EP has moved to the center of social science, so naturally it's broad. Remember, until Sociobiology, there was no presence of evolutionary thought in psychology, and Gould, et al, bitterly hated the introduction of such evolutionary analysis. All of this supposed non-EP treatment of how human psychology evolved must owe its origin to sociobiology and EP. Leadwind (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
EP has not moved to the center of social science. It hardly has a presence in social sciences. It has become more common in psychology. These misconceptions do not become true by repetition.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Jj1236, welcome to the page! It's my habit to ask the detractors of EP for two things: RSs and policies. (For one reason or another, I usually have to ask over and over.) So let's get started. You say "In sharp contrast, there is ongoing intense debate about evolutionary psychology." Really? Find an RS that says so. Maunus's textbook doesn't. It says that, despite the criticisms, the one notable criticism of EP ("not testable") is false. There are lots of people who hate EP, but that's different from an actual debate. That said, yes, I want to cover the controversy. As a neutral editor, I catch heat from both sides, the people who say we can't say anything good about EP, and the people who say we can't say anything bad about it. (It's lonely in the middle.) Currently the article doesn't say anything about how evil, racist, and sexist EP (reportedly) is, and I'd like to fix that. But first, how about a source for your claim that there's an ongoing debate? Leadwind (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes it does, the textbook Evolutionary Psychology Introduction also spends a substantial part describing the controversy. I think it is about time you stop misrepresenting sources. You are getting so tiresome to listen to, like a broken record. Several EP critical books were published last year from respectable presses, entire articles in peerreviewed journals by EP'ers are dedicated to answering arguments from their critics. You cannot turn that into "no debate". Please just stop pushing that science fiction story where everybody has accepted that EP is the new paradigm. You are wasting our time Leadwind. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Here, I think, is an important distinction that many are missing.
The "debate" often really has to do more with differences between researchers in interests and emphasis, rather than disagreement about whether the brain evolved, and whether it shows evidence of adaptive function. Most all would agree with the latter. However, some folks are more interested in studying proximate rather than ultimate (evolutionary) level of analysis, and, of course, they believe that what they study is of more importance. Also, as exemplified by the unsigned comment above, some folks are more interested in cultural change independent of evolved psychological adaptations, and how we can change cultures for the better (reduce racism, etc.), and they are less interested in our human nature may produce cultural commonalities ("evoked culture"). I would disagree that there is "intense, ongoing" debate about EP. Rather, there are folks who have different interests, and are approaching the study of human behavior from different cells of Tinbergen's table of questions. Much of what is interpreted as "debate" barely qualifies for such a moniker -- rather it is more akin disciplinary turf wars to "my area of interest is more interesting than yours." Similar interdisciplinary dissing is common between and within many disciplines (e.g., psychiatrists dissing clinical psychologists and vice versa, between cultural and biological anthropologists, between those focused on treatment (say, surgeons) vs. prevention (fitness experts)).
If EP is wrongheaded in its basic assumptions, the critics have little to fear -- over time it's irrelevance will be demonstrated empirically. It is rather disconcerting when critics seem to be saying, "stop doing research on this..." That is always a red flag.
Final comment. Note how the discussion about a really simple question posed at the outset of this section has transformed, yet again, into a general debate. This is not a forum.
I stand on my comment above -- what is proposed here is overkill. It has a histrionic premise: "Oh, my EP is so scary and dangerous, we need to be sure that Mr. Innocent Layperson who reads the Overview is aware that there is a raging controversy about whether it is even a science! Lions, tigers, and bears, oh my!" Please. The next proposal, I'm afraid, will be "We must change the title of the Evolutionary Psychology page to include a warning label -- "Evolutionary Psychology (Caution -- that evil, dastardly discipline that has it all wrong!)" Memills (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
That is false. The premise for including description of the controversy is not "histrionic" it is policy. I don't think any of the persosn you are arguing with here are afraid of EP - that is a strawman that you are attributing to the critics (for some of which it may actually apply, but certainly not all ) and to your fellow editors here (where it is certainly not applicable). The reason to include the debate is the fact that there is a debate and the our policy WP:NPOV requires that all notable viewpoints on a topic be included in the article. It is not a question of whether EP is evil or requires a warning (strawman again) it is a question of including all the notable viewpoints some of which (not a few) happen to be unfavourably disposed towards EP as a discipline. The mere fact that there is a controversy (and there is as the articles by Confer and Suplizion and the books by Buller, Rose, Richardson attest and the fact that even introductions to EP spend substantial space adressing the controversy corroborates) - requires that the controversy be covered in the article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Memills, again you misconstrue the critics. First you would like to conceptualize them all as 'cultural determinists' or pushers of the invented 'Standard Social Science Model.' Then you try to say that they have axes to grind, are uncomfortable with the consequences of EP, or are pushing non-materialism. Now you want to say that it is all really about some kind of 'turf war,' common to all fields? The majority of critics are not arguing from any of these perspectives. There are too many peer-reviewed journal articles and academic books on this issue to ignore. There IS an ongoing academic debate - we should not need to argue about that. Logic prevails (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The issue here is not whether there is controversy. It is whether a link to the EP Controversy page needs to be included in the Overview. Overview = overkill. Show me another WP page that has such a link.
You can get a sense of how many social scientists really understand EP by asking a simple question: "Do you know what inclusive fitness means?" A stunningly large number will say: "Inclusive what?" In fact, I just had lunch the other day with a colleague, a neuropsychologist, who didn't know what it meant. (Of course, more sophisticated critics do have a more firm grounding in evolutionary theory.)
For those old enough to remember, this "debate" is reminiscent of the behaviorism debate in the 1970s, mostly prompted by B. F. Skinner's book "Beyond Freedom and Dignity." That was mostly an academic cultural and turf war -- it had little to do with empirical evidence. It had a lot to do with folks' philosophical positions on human nature. EP similarly has a lot to do with folks' pre-existing ideas about human nature. When some perceive that EP is at odds with their view of human nature, a strong response may ensue -- one that is often more visceral than intellectually nuanced.
The behaviorism debate subsided. Learning theory is no longer controversial -- it was embedded into psychology, but the behaviorist refusal to look into the "black box" (the mind/brain) was replaced by cognitive and neuro- psychology. Overall, the EP debate has been subsiding, but gradually. It is becoming more mainstream, and adaptationist-informed empirical articles appear with increasing frequency in mainstream journals. Memills (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually according to the MOS ther article should not have an "overview" section at all. It needs a lead that summarises the body and then it needs sections that each treat a discrete aspect of the topic in a neutral way. Neutral here means including all notable viewpoints, that means both side if there is a disagreement. Since we have an entire article on the controversy that article should be summarised in a section of this article, and in the lead. Other spinnout/daughter articles of this article should also be summarised in separate sections. We can discuss whether the lead should have a link to the controversy article, but we cannot discuss whether the lead needs to summarise the section about the controversy. It has to in order for the article to conform to pur policies.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

MEM - I am not sure what point you are making with your testing of persons knowledge of 'inclusive fitness,' thought it is consistent with your preaching that critics read and thoroughly understand the foundational texts of EP. We hear much the same from religious practitioners who consider atheists to be misguided and uninformed - they always counter that the doubters should read and then re-read the holy texts that will show them the 'truth.' However, one does not need to understand the subtle nuances, terminologies, or myths of a theory to reject it. For example, I do not need to intimately read the Qur’an or the Holy Bible, in order to refute the existence of a holy place in the sky. I think the critics position has nothing to do with being at odds with their view of human nature and everything to do with it being at odds with science and logic. Logic prevails (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Your strongly negative feelings against EP are, again, getting the better of you, LogicPrevails. The "preaching" comment is close to an ad-hominem. Again, you need to ask yourself, what are your motivations for being here -- to accurately present EP, or to bury it?
I haven't asked anyone of read the "holy scriptures" of Darwin, Hamilton, Williams, Trivers, Dawkins, Symons, Daly & Wilson, or Tooby & Cosmides. I have recommend reading an undergraduate evolutionary psychology textbook so that WP editors can make accurate contributions about what EP does, and does not say, on the main EP page.
As noted by Robert Kurzban at the outset of his recent book "Why Everyone (Else) is a Hypocrite" (by the way, highly recommended): "First and foremost, (EP is) a scientific endeavor, committed to the usual principles of hypothesis generation, falsification, and so on. I mention this here because ill-informed but vocal critics seem to have missed this." The "nonscientific" charge is probably the weakest claim of critics -- almost embarrassingly naive.
Inclusive fitness is the bedrock theory of evolutionary biology and psychology. The fact that so many social scientists, and EP critics, haven't a clue as to what it means betrays a stunning lack of depth of their understanding of the discipline. Memills (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
That honestly does sound fairly preachy Memills. In any case it is of no relevance which criticism you, me or Kurzban find to be weak or strong - what matter is that it is there. Also I don't think LogicPrevails has as strong feelings against the discipline as you might think - I think he is reacting to your rhetorics that do suggest very much that you believe that EP is the only way to combine psychology and cognitive science with evolutionary theory. It demonstrably isn't - none of the critics of EP are anti-evolutionists or cultural determinists as you more than imply - they all believe that human mental faculties have evolved adaptively. They just dont buy EP's conclusions regarding what that means for our minds and our behaviors. I agree that a large part of the issue is that many social scientists find proximal explanations a thousand times more relevant than distal ones. But it does not account for all of it - part of the reason is also that many are annoyed by Ep's tendency to think of it self as the only evolutionary theory while not taking other evolutionarily grounded frameworks seriously, and the logical leaps that lead to modularity theories based on flimsy evidence and lastly EP's often flat rejection to incorporate evidence and conclusions from other disciplines. This is all possible to find in sources and it all needs to be explained from both sides.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
LogicPrevails himself has here previously stated his negative perspective on EP.
As I have mentioned previously, the characterization of EP as narrow is simply untrue -- it is very broad and highly interdisciplinary. Let us know the evolutionary approaches to behavior that you believe that EP flatly rejects. And, if there are modern evolutionary approaches that are not grounded in Hamiltonian inclusive fitness, do share. Memills (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing in basic evolutionary theory that can be used as an argument for a modular theory of mind against for example a connectionist one. And no connectionist would put the evolutionary origin of the human brain intoquestion. An evolutionary approach to the mind that is not based on the modular mind theory is not Evolutionary Psychology, but it can very well be an evolutionary approach to psychology. EP may be broad and interdisciplinary, but it is not all encompassing - and if you now decide to argue that evolutionary psychology does not require the modular mind approach that consitutes watering down the concept of evolutionary psychology to a state where only religious forms of psychology can be said to be outside of it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Connectionism is not, per se, an evolutionary theory of the mind, it is a proximate theory of how modules self-assmble. Connectionists pretty much leave unanswered how the capacity to develop neural nets evolved, what evolved adaptations there are that allow such neural nets to operate. They certainly don't operate randomly.
A modular theory of mind (whether based on proximate ideas re neural nets, or something else is based on the premise that, just as the body could not be made up of general purpose silly putty, neither could the brain. Can you imagine a non-modular body? A body without organs, a "general purpose physiology machine" with a general purpose biochemistry that can handle any physical challenge? I can't. The possibility of a general purpose brain, without multiple modules that interact hierarchically, is equally implausible.
Neurological processing of visual information is perhaps a good example. There are many levels of visual neurological submodules, starting with basic visual scene detectors (edge detectors, motion detectors) to intermediate (alive or dead? human or non-human? a face?), to integrative (a face that I know? yes. oh, it's my grandmother!). I think we can all agree that there is no magical domain general agent that can conclude "It's my grandmother!" without the input from sub-modules. And that even higher order modules must have some structure and operate by certain rules with some regularity given typical gene-environment developmental trajectories (evo-devo).
I think the argument is that connectionists erroneously think that EPers believe that adaptive modules are "hard-wired" into the brain by genetics alone, rather than by the interaction of genetics and environmental input. However, evo-devo suggests that while they are not hard wired, typical gene-environment interaction produce generally similar psychological adaptations among humans. The assembly of the brain during development is not random, it is not without genetically guided developmental structure.
If what some folks label "domain general" is the same thing as what other folks label a higher order "meta-module" then the disagreement is mostly semantic. And, if some folks are interested in studying the operation of "lower level" modules ("how and why is sugar sweet?"), while others are more interested in the "higher level" ones ("how can we recognize the faces of kin, and why is it important that we be able to do so?), no problem. No problem either if some folks are interested in studying proximate causality while others are interested in studying evolutionary causality.
Long story short -- connectionism is not an alternative evolutionary approach to the mind/brain. It is primarily a proximate approach to understanding neural ontogenetic development, and it leaves how such phenomena evolved largely unanswered. Memills (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The question is this do connectionists believe in evolution? Is connectionism compatible with evolution? Yes, on both accounts. Is it compatible with EP and the modular mind theory? No. It is of course correct that connectionists do not generally take interest in how the brain evolved (although i know of one study that does). But Evolutionary neurobiologists have no problems subscribing to connectionist theories of mind rather than EP. As far as I know neurobiological evidence does not favor the modular mind theory. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
MEM, you are again building strawmen - no one thinks the mind/brain is entirely domain-general 'silly-putty' - Skinner would even refute that claim. Its hard to know where to start with your other claims... this really should not turn into a debate page. You are incorrect to suggest that this is a problem of 'semantics'... again, read what the critics are saying. And unfortunately, not everyone would agree that EP is entirely scientific. The mostly modular view of the human mind favored by EP did not arise from the physical sciences. Noam Chomsky was reported to have said: "EP is a philosophy of mind with a little bit of science thrown in."
You need to be careful in your interpretation of neurobiological evidence. While you are correct in pointing out that there are V1 neurons that respond to varying line orientations and movement (there is hard biological evidence for this), you are incorrect in making the jump to genetically pre-programmed neuronal detectors for 'alive or dead,' 'human or non-human,' and so on. You cannot take evidence arising from primary cortical areas and assume that the rest of the brain works the same. Tertiary, secondary, and associational areas are poorly developed at birth and are more flexibly shaped by environmental forces. This is one of the key criticisms of EP: they are accused of 'cherry-picking' findings from the neurobiological sciences that fit with their theory, while ignoring or misrepresenting the rest. There is NO neurobiological evidence for genetically programmed sociobiological modules that do some of the things EP would like them to do. And yes, I know the interactionist view of EP. They are happy to give brief mention about how culture and environment shape and influence the human mind, but when they do, they quickly attribute the most causal mechanism to some kind of invisible module of adaptive function, such as when Confer et al. go on to talk about 'evoked culture.'
As to my personal views... they will influence my edits only insofar as I want the critics to be briefly mentioned and accurately portrayed. I think it important for the lay reader to be aware that there is a debate, so that they can investigate and decide for themselves what to make of it all. Logic prevails (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Like MEM, I'd like to ask the detractors for the sources on which they base their depiction of EP. EP is the central body of theory and research that connects evolutionary theory to human behavior, and no related body of research contradicts it. Britannica agrees. Before sociobiology and EP, evolutionary thinking had basically no serious presence in psychology. All the evolutionary thought that the detractors think is opposed to EP actually resulted from EP. Thank goodness that sociobiology and EP saved us from the standard social science model. Detractors want to define EP very narrowly, but just try finding a source that defines EP that narrowly. EP? That's where it's at. 14:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Your response is not even worth responding to. You are either incorrect or misguided in almost every sentence you wrote. As to the sources used to depict EP... they are the same ones you have been using to describe it in this very article. Logic prevails (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

race

Pinker discusses race in the context of EP, so it seems like a fair topic. Here's the cited information that the page once had, all of which was deleted.

Evolutionary psychology concerns itself mostly with human universals, the shared psychology that humans evolved as a species.[3] In contrast, genetic difference is the subject of behavioral genetics.[3] Since humans differentiated into races only within the last fifty thousand years or so, genetic differences among racial groups are minor compared to what humans all have in common. Genetically, humanity is a "small" species, meaning that human genetic variety is so limited that it resembles the amount of variety found in a species with a small number of members.[3]
Even so, just as there are physical differences among races and ethnic groups, there may be innate psychological differences between between one population and another.[3] A hot-button issue in this area is the difference in measured IQ among blacks and whites in the US.[3] In this case, evolutionary psychologists emphasize that differences between populations are primarily the result of culture, while similarities between populations are attributed to a shared evolutionary history. Steven Pinker, for example, finds that the much-discussed black-white IQ gap in the US does not call for a genetic explanation.[3] And as Noam Chomsky points out, even if we did find genetic differences in IQ from one race to another, that would not justify discrimination.[3]

If Pinker thinks it's relevant, and race is a recurrent issue in the EP controversy, we should probably include something like this. Leadwind (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Race does not seem to be a recurrent issue in the Ep controversy - EP generally deals in universals rather than between group differences. And in your quote Pinker says that the IQ gap does not need a genetic explanation so he doesn't think its relevant for EP.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Leadwind, I think the question of whether a topic should be covered on the EP page, and, if so, how much emphasis it should be given, can be answered pretty easily. Check the index of an undergraduate level evolutionary psychology textbook and see if the topic is covered. If so, check how much space in the textbook is actually devoted to the topic. If there is little or nothing, there is little rationale to include it here.
With respect to race or racism, there is no index entry in the Buss textbook. In the Workman & Reader textbook there is only mention of it with respect to critics of EP.
It might be an appropriate topic for the EP Controversy page, but doesn't deserve much space here. At most, perhaps a mention that EP generally considers racial differences pretty minor against the backdrop of an evolved human nature, or, in the section on Groups, how race might be one indicator of possible in- vs. out-group membership. Memills (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Memills. The only racialist psychologist I know who is working with an evolutionary framework is J. Phillipe Rushton and he is not an evolutionary psychologist but rather works within Sociobiology. Pinker totally downplays the race issue, merely mentioning that it is possible that there are psychological differences that match physiological ones, but that the universal issues are much more important and interesting. 18:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)·Maunus·ƛ·
That is incorrect. Researchers such as Lynn, Kanazawa, Templer, Jensen, and Arikawa also use evolutionary explanations for race differences.Miradre (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Lewontin's Fallacy, see that article. For a more general discussion, see race and genetics.Miradre (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
But none of those use evolutionary frameworks of explanation as Rushton does, which is what I was saying - you are confusing different disputes here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
That is possible but if so I think others may well make the same mistake so an explanation would be appropriate. Why would these researchers, who all argue that the evolutionary pressure on intelligence was higher in certain geographic regions compared to others (those with colder climate, or those with more novel geographic features, or those allowing higher population density), not be using a evolutionary framework? Miradre (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I have not seen Jensen, Kanazawa or Lynn use a Darwinian framework to explain the proposed racial IQ gap. Rushton explicitly does so and draws on Sociobiology in doing so. I know Lynn uses Rushton's work as a theoretical base for his own, but I don't remember him spending much time actually developing the proposed evolutionary causality of IQ disparities.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Here are some sources supporting my statement.Templer, D; Arikawa, H (2006). "Temperature, skin color, per capita income, and IQ: an international perspective". Intelligence. 34 (2): 121–139. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.04.002.>Kanazawa, S. (2008). "Temperature and evolutionary novelty as forces behind the evolution of general intelligence☆". Intelligence. 36 (2): 99–95. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2007.04.001.
Ok, there seem to be others than Rushton. There are however also Evolutionary Psychologists that reject the idea of race all together such as Francisco Gil-White, who argues that racial and ethnic categories don't reflect reality but that the near universal trend of seeing them as natural categories is itself the result of an adaption. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Then we can present views from both sides.Miradre (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Lewontin. I remember being a believer in the SSSM and being so grateful that he proved race wasn't real. MEM has a good point. When race gets covered, it's in the context of criticism. In fact, my source (Pinker) covers race in that context. It seems as though we should cover the race issue as part of the controversy coverage. Britannica names racism as a vice of which EP is accused, as does Pinker, as does Workman & Reader, as do some of the assembled editors on this page. So race moves to the controversy section, where it belongs. Maunus has Workme & Reader. Maybe we'll be luck and he'll favor us with a summary. Leadwind (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not going to do any more of your reading for you. If you want to be a serious player here, you'll have to get your own hands on books and do some actual research that doesn't rely on what ever snippets you can find available online. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Maunus, it's not for me. It's for the reader. Isn't that who we have in mind when we edit, the reader? You and I worked together profitably with your Schacter summary. You summarized and I put the summary on the page. Why can't we keep working together like that? Leadwind (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I have better things to do with my time than supply you with data for you to misunderstand and misrepresent. If you want to play research then the minimal effort is to get to a library. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Now that's hardly fair. I've added a lot of material to the page from a number of different RSs. If we added it up, I suppose I've added more than you have in the last couple months. And I'm not the only one who'd like to see a summary on the topic from a top-notch source, like yours. Why not share? Leadwind (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

centrality of evolutionary theory in social science

Francis Fukuyama is using evolutionary thinking as the basis of a top-to-bottom analysis of the development of human civilization. Read online. The NYT is an RS, and Fukuyama is a notable expert, so maybe this book deserves some coverage on this page.

Here's a good line: "(Fukuyama) explicitly assumes that human social nature is universal and is built around certain evolved behaviors like favoring relatives, reciprocal altruism, creating and following rules, and a propensity for warfare." Leadwind (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you suggesting that Francis Fukuyama is an expert on, and why do reliable sources consider him relevant to EP? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Francis Fukuyama is not an evolutionary psychologist, or indeed any kind of psychologist. He may be an expert, but not on this topic. The NYT is a reliable source for somethings, not for all, and we do not include something because it is written in a reliable source, but because it adds valuable information to the article, and contributes to develop a fuller understanding of the topic for the reader. What would including this particular bit of information contribute to the goal of describing EP?·Maunus·ƛ· 17:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
In any event, anthropologists have long argued that H. sapiens evolved to be highly social. The more data we have on primates in the wild and of a fossil record, the more sophisticated he modles. Nancy Tanner is one good example. Terrence Deacon is another, maybe the most sophisticated. But I doubt you can find any intro to anthropology textbook, at least since the post-war period, that does not say something about humans evolving a disposition towards sociality. There is evidence against favoring relatives, however, and I know of no one who has put together an argument for favoring relatives with actual evidence. I bring this up just as another examplke of a point many have made, that one of the major problems with EP is that it ignores the solid research that non-psychologists have done on these questions. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
EP claims to be able to serve as a central way of understanding human behavior, informing the social sciences and integrating them with biology. Fukuyama is a highly notable scholar who demonstrates that one can use the new concept of a universal, evolved human nature to inform a monumental reassessment of the development of civilizations. Before sociobiology, evolutionary thought had basically no real place in the social sciences (per Schacter), which is why the social scientists attacked sociobiology so fiercely. Now evolutionary thought has a central place in re-evaluating human history. When a highly notable scholar releases what appears to be a magnum opus based on a style of analysis that was forbidden just 15 or 25 years ago, well, that's relevant to this topic, I think. YMMV. Leadwind (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
"Before sociobiology, evolutionary thought had basically no real place in the social sciences". Utter bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't be mean. Just show us a textbook that says that evolutionary thought had an important role in the social sciences before 1975. Maunus's textbook says that it was only with Wilson's Sociobiology that evolutionary analysis entered psychology, and we all know how well the social scientists embraced sociobiology when it first appeared. Maybe you're not old enough to remember the fierce opposition to the idea that even basic behaviors such as mating strategies might take their features from natural selection. Anyway, Fukuyama's evolution-oriented analysis is explicitly at odds with the traditional anthropological approach, which features thick description rather than a search for human universals. Leadwind (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but it is not relevant for this article.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
"[T]he traditional anthropological approach... features thick description rather than a search for human universals.". Really? Tell that to Claude Lévi-Strauss. If structuralism isn't about 'human universals' I've no idea what is....
In any case, if you want to cite Fukuyama as being relevant to the social sciences, you need to find sources from within those same sciences that say so, not just some random hype from the NYT. (and BTW, I'm in my mid 50s, so am "old enough to remember" lots of things - don't make assumptions without evidence) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Leadwind, you need to be careful about what you take from textbooks; especially single sources, as they can be incorrect. Both Freud and even Skinner put their theories in the context of evolution. They were very familiar with Darwinian concepts - including the notion of natural selection. This was no doubt an important finding, but the founders of psychology did not make a panacea of it - that is, they viewed 'adaptation' more generally; they did not try to explain nearly every mental process as discrete and invisible genetic adaptations. You make it sound as though modern psychology completely ignored evolution up until Sociobiology and EP. This is grossly incorrect. Logic prevails (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Marvin Harris's introductory textbook on anthropology Culture, People, Nature integrates evolutionary theory. So does Alex Alland's To Be Human. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It's one thing to say that people evolved or even that we have instincts that we evolved. Freud said that. But the breakthrough of sociobiology was to explain behaviors as adaptations, to explain how natural selection would have shaped them. Freud's death instinct wasn't any kind of adaptation. Thanks to sociobiology, psychologists can no longer talk about "instincts" that didn't improve inclusive fitness in the ancestral environment. Skinner attributed human behavior not to psychological adaptations but to conditioning. Harris's and Alland's books seem to both post-date sociobiology. If they actually analyze human behaviors as adaptations, that's thanks to E O Wilson. Sociobiology stirred up a firestorm of controversy because it actually applied real evolutionary analysis to human behavior for the first time. Now maybe I'm wrong. (It's happened before!) so what I'm asking for is an RS that says I'm wrong, not a couple of EP-hating editor that say I'm wrong. Leadwind (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
My views about EP have nothing to do with the above statements, though perhaps yours do. It does not matter whether YOU consider EP to be the best thing since the invention of lightbulb - the views of editors do not matter. I was challenging the accuracy of your statement that evolutionary thinking was not a part of psychology until Sociobiology. Have you ever read Freud, or do you only know him by what you may have read online or in an introductory textbook? Big difference. He did think in terms of evolution. Likewise, Skinner considered both classical and operant conditioning principles to have been acquired through our evolutionary heritage. Again, it does not matter what you think of these approaches and whether or not YOU think they represent ways of 'incorrectly applying' evolutionary principles or whatever. Likewise, it is not for you to say what is a 'real application of evolution,' as your opinion does not matter, and the opinion of scholars is divided. The point to be made is that evolution was a part of psychological thinking before Sociobiology. You cannot debate that. Logic prevails (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This page is not about sociobiology, it is about EP, the interview with Francis Fukuyama does not even mention EP and so per policy there is no way to justify its inclusion. Also Logic and leadwind - get a chat room, if you want to discuss the degree to which Skinner and Freud used evolution. Its irrelevant for this article.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

overview section must go

Standard WP policy is not to have an overview section. Instead, the lead is properly the overview. The question of whether to cover the controversy in the overview is moot: it's covered in the lead, and there should be no overview.

Possibly the material in the overview can be repurposed into a more narrowly focused section. Some material might better fit in the lead or in some other section of the article. Some of it might frankly go away. Leadwind (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

agreed.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Maunus, sometimes I lump you in with the other critics of EP who are editing this page, but in all fairness you demonstrate more concern for creating a good page than any of them seem to, so thanks. My first proposal is that we move the list of principles to the top of this section and maybe call the section Principles. Then we have subsections for each of the related principles: natural selection, adaptations, Stone age mind, modularity, and computational theory of mind. Most of the material in Overview would fit under one subsection or another. Some of it (e.g. about the history of evolutionary biology) can go in the history section. Some of this material simply duplicates material found elsewhere. Leadwind (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

recent work on EEA

Here's a New York Times Science Tuesday article about weapons, pair-bonding, and cooperation in the ancestral environment, with reference to several evolved psychological adaptations in modern humans (e.g., following another human's gaze). The EEA section on this page looks like a good place for some of this. Leadwind (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We need actual reliable sources here and a better article structure, not willy nilly covering from news media. Also the article doesn't mention EP and one of the experts is a prominent anti-EP theorist.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

evolution of language

This material was deleted from the language section.

The development of fully modern behavior in H. sapiens, not shared by H. neanderthalensis or any other variety of Homo, is dated to some 70,000 to 50,000 years ago. The development of more sophisticated tools, for the first time constructed out of more than one material (e.g. bone or antler) and sortable into different categories of function (such as projectile points, engraving tools, knife blades, and drilling and piercing tools) are often taken as proof for the presence of fully developed language, assumed to be necessary for the teaching of the processes of manufacture to offspring.[4][5]
The FOXP2 gene affects vocalization, and the human version of the gene is unique. This version evidently appeared between 10,000 and 100,000 years ago, and it may have been critical for the development of human speech, society and cognition.[6]

Apparently Maunus doesn't want people to know when language evolved? He mentions the FOXP2 gene but won't tell the reader what it is, even though it's policy to explain jargon. Leadwind (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all we don't know when language evolved. We don't know if Neanderthals had language. Secondly it is irrelevant, because that information does not have any bearings on EP. If readers want to know when language evolved or what FOXP2 is they can follow the wikilinks. FOXP2 is also irrelevant for EP because it is not a finding of EP nor does it support a particularly EP understanding of the evolution of langauge. FOXP2's role in linguistic behavior and developments is fully compatible with all of the alternative theories for the evolution of language - inclusive Chomsky's spandrel theory.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Logic prevails (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, you might be surprised to learn that the 2008 edition of Workman & Reader references both the unique version of FOXP2 that humans have and the recent appearance of that gene in the human genome. Maybe you personally think neither fact is relevant, but an EP textbook thinks they both are. Since this material appears in an EP textbook, I don't imagine there will be an objection to my adding it to our Language section. Leadwind (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That certainly depends on how you propose to add it. Also I own the 2004 edition of that textbook, so I sure hope I won't be surprised. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
How about you read Workman & Reader and summarize what it says about FOXP2? Then you won't have to worry about me messing it up. Leadwind (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Your recent rephrasing of my summary of workman and reader misrepresents the statement of the source. The statement clearly is that the modular theory is only one of several theories none of which has conclusive support. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • (Work,am & Reader's (2004) sole mention of FOXP2)"Certain forms of SLI appear to be genetic in that they run in families (as is

the case for the KE family). The pattern of inheritance suggests that it is the result of a single dominant gene on an autosomal (i.e. non-sex) chromosome (see chapter 2). More recent research suggests that the gene responsible for SLI lies on chromosome 7 (the same chromosome where the Williams syndrome deletions occur, see chapter 5). Specifically it appears that the damage is in region 7q31 in an area comprising 70 different genes that was called SPCH1 (Fisher et al., 1998). Recent research (Lai et al., 2001) suggests that the crucial gene might well be a gene named FOXP2. Is this the grammar gene? Almost certainly it is not. As we have seen before, the disruption of a single gene can have wide-ranging effects on behaviour (pleiotropy), but this does not mean that that gene is for a particular behaviour. As psychologist Richard Gregory has pointed out many times, removing a component from a radio can result in the radio howling uncontrollably, this does not mean that the component is a ‘howl suppressant’."·Maunus·ƛ· 11:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

inclusive fitness

I deleted a whole section on inclusive fitness from the research section because it's a virtual duplicate of the same topic covered in the general theory section. MEM restored it, thinking I was referring to the parental investment section as the duplicate, but look earlier in the article at the inclusive fitness section. We don't need to name Hamilton and explain his formula twice. If there are particular findings that are connected to inclusive fitness, they should go here, but we don't need a second explanation of what inclusive fitness is. Leadwind (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the section again. Bear with me -- interactions with kin is a major topic in EP, and deserves it own section. I'll edit this section to reduce redundancy with info presented earlier, as well as add specifically EP info and refs. (In fact, all of these subsections need editing to add more specifically EP info and refs.) Memills (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll bear with you. In good writing, what isn't included is as important as what is, and the general idea of inclusive fitness is already covered in text and in the big table, so we really can't cover the general idea a third time. Specific findings that are explicated by inclusive fitness, that's what this section needs. Leadwind (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Memills (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Broad or narrow

Memills, I have two excellent sources that say that there is a difference between a broad sense of evolutionary psychology which does not necessarily ascribe to the research agenda set by the narrow paradigm of Buss, Tooby, Cosmides, Pinker et al. One of these sources Scher & Rauscher is explicitly published to show that there are strands of evolutionary theory in Psychology that are in opposition to the paradigm set by the aforementioned. The second book by Plotkin traces evolutionary approaches in psychology back to Darwin, James and Freud and talks about the "emergence of Evolutionary Psychology" explicitly as the beginning of the Buss, Tooby, Cosmides, Pinker paradigm. I think that it is safe to say that the general usage at this point is time is to talk about Evolutionary Psychology as the particular evolutionary approach to psychology espused by this paradigm. In anycase it is clearly something that needs a delicate treatment within the article, it is not possible to simply state "Evolutionary Psychology is broad as stated by Ep'ers in their Journals" because those people who say that there is a narow sense of the word are also practicing evolutionary approaches to psychology, but not in the Buss/Tooby/Cosmides paradigm. You need to respond better to this problem than simply rejecting that it exists, it is your doing this that has served to alienate your colleague Logic Prevails. He clearly identifies as an evolutionary psychologists outside of Evolutionary Psychology (capitals intended). I will wait a while to hear your response before I reinstate the sourced content you deleted.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, we need to present what EPers say EP is, not what others say EP is, or isn't. As I noted above, all the EP societies and journals specifically indicate that they adopt a very, very broad perspective re this (see my previous comment and documentation re this above). They don't say, "we publish articles only in the Buss/Tooby/Cosmides perspectives." And, if you browse around in the EP literature, you will find a great deal of diversity in approaches. The term "evolutionary psychology" is as broad as the term "evolutionary biology." If you want to specifically critique the Tooby/Cosmides approach to EP, that would be a fine topic on the EP Controversy page, or, perhaps on their individual WP pages. Memills (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
You fail to understand that Scher and Rauscher (and Logic prevails) are EP'ers under the broad definition of EP, but yet they do clearly not identify as sharing basic approaches with the Buss/Tooby/Cosmides/Pinker umbrella, and they are explicitly stating that their school represent a narrow paradigm of evolutionary psychology with which they do not identitfy. You cannot forcibly include them under the label EP and then afterwards deprive them of the right to participate in defining the field. Also of course the journals adopt a broad perspective, but that doesn't mean that the evolutionary psychology as a concept is not also used in a narrower sense about the specific paradigm started in the 1990'es. There is a wide range of literature that identifies Ep specifically with the Buss/Tooby/Cosmides approach you cannot escape this by referring to how scientific journals define the field. It is also strange to me that you do not recognize that it is your and the readers interest to distinguish between the narrow and the broad sense because a lot of the criticism is specifically aimed ONLY at the narrow sense (e.g. the modular mind criticism). You seem to want to adopt both a broad definition of EP and at the same time make it look as if it is a coherent and welldefined discipline where everybody agrees about the basic tenets. That amounts to trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either we adopt the broad definition in which case we have to explicitly show that there is no universally accepted tenets and we have to describe the way in which different evolutionary approaches are being advocated and applied by different researchers - OR we adopt the narrow definition of Buss/Tooby/Cosmides/Pinker which is the only sense in which EP can be described as a unified discipline with a welldefined shared set of theoretical assumptions.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
When a reader clicks on a wikilink that says "evolutionary psychology" (esp. the wikilink in the Psychology infobox), they expect to go to the broadest, top-level treatment of EP. We can treat the narrow version here as a section of this page. Maybe it even deserves a page of its own, but this is the broad, top-level page. Leadwind (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
False. EP doesn't get to bogart evolution and present itself as the only evolutionary perspective. This is an attempt to usurp the title of "evolution" for a narrow protocol and thereby assume the mantle of evolution proper, all the while ignoring the very real controversy about EP's flaws and issues. You don't just get to call yourself "THE evolutionary perspective" and expect to get away with it. You're making this up. There is no accepted sense of EP as a "broad definition". It loses all meaning when it becomes "broad". All mainstream psychological sciences assume evolutionary perspectives. The issue is about whether or not you can call conceptual cognitive constructs the same thing as fossils, genes and physical evidence. EP is a young, troubled, subset of psychology. It is by no means "a metatheoretical paradigm by which to view all psychology" except in the fevered dreams of its adherents.

Controversy

WP:NPOV requires that all notable viewpoints about a topic be included in the article about that topic. WP. policy does not allow for the creation or maintenance of content forks where different viewpoints on the same topic are treated separately. In this case we have a huge amount of materials that are highly critical of Evolutionary psychology (more than ten books dedicated to criticising evolutionary psychology published by academic publishers, + a large nmber of peer reviewed articles) There is simply no question that the criticism and the controversy is notable. This means that it has to be included. Per WP policy the preferred way to include it is to include it in the body of the article text so that for each section both viewpoints are presented together. This may be too much to aim for here. But the very least we can have here is a section that summarises the entire content of the controversy article. Not just the criticisms that memills (or Kurzban for that matter) find to be well founded. The content of the controversy article has to be summarised here. That is beyond discussion. You simply reverting inclusion of sourced material that you don't like is not going to stand. You can either begin to take the opposing argument seriously and find out how to include it in the best way or you are forcing me to seek broader community involvement, which is not going to be in your favor as long as our NPOV policy is in place.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I welcome broader community involvement. I have requested both Peer Review and a Request for Comment of this article. Unfortunately, we received no comments from neutral parties not already involved in the 'edit wars.' And, this article was locked down for awhile due to what an WP Administrator characterized as an edit war. The WP main Evolution page would be worthless if "all points of view" were entertained, that is why they have a warning at the top of their Talk Page. I proposed a similar warning for this page, which I believe would be helpful (see above).
This article is primarily to inform folks about the main theories and empirical findings of EP. It is not a debate page about politics, evolution itself, philosophy, or the nature vs. nurture debate. What I find disconcerting is that critics continually attempt to turn it into a long debate, and they include characterizations of the discipline that are simply false (genetic determinism, social darwinism, right-wing politics, un-scientific, narrow definition of the field, etc.). (Or, they haven't even done their basic homework to know enough about the discipline to accurately critique it -- see this embarrassing example.) As I have said repeatedly, these debates are better hashed out on the EP Controversy page.
But, I repeat myself. I have said all of this in various 'discussions' above. I welcome external reviews and suggestions by neutral 3rd parties. Memills (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Your statement about what you think is the primary purpose of the article is incorrect and not supported by wikipedia policy. If your aim is to "inform about the main theories and findings" without also informing them about the historica, and political context of the topic and the ways in which EP has been criticized then wikipedia is the wrong place for you to be and you should consider another kind of webspace to fulfill that purpose. It doesn't matter what you or I think about the criticism - the criticism exists and more of it is published every year. It is completely fundamental and basic policy here that we include all notable viewpoints on a topic. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
One point to consider. That one can find a source or two is not evidence for that a critique is "frequent" or "common" or "Largely". Such claims should be removed unless there is a source claiming this and then this should be attributed to this source.Miradre (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
"Similarly, from its inception evolutionary psychology has received a substantial amount of criticism, sometimes degenerating into shrill, and widely publicized, discussions between evolutionary psychologists and some of their critics. Largely the controversy has consisted in each side caricaturing and stereotyping the other and neither side acknowledging the substantility of the arguments of the other." This is ad hominem/character assassination of a whole scientific branch and should at the very least be in quotes with an explicit attribution to who is making this claim.Miradre (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
You are not getting it: there is an entire article about the controversy. There are more than ten books criticizing EP explicitly, there are dozens of articles. There are the same amount of Ep articles defending themselves against those critiques. Also the political and "ill founded" critiques. Introductory textbooks to Ep include chapters adressing the critiques point by point. A reader of this article at this point will not be aware of this. Ths is not NPOV. The claim that this passage is "ad-hominem~ is ludicrous it is specifically stating that both sides have done this so it is also not assasinating a "scientific branch" it is describing a debate which has documentedly occurred - and which is described in multiple (+5) reliable sources as having been chatracterized by mutual mischaracterization and adhominem attacks.·Maunus·ƛ·
Do these sources make exactly the same arguments? Even if two or three or more make the same argument that is not necessarily "frequent" or "common" today in science. Again, if a source itself make such a claim, then it could be included, with attribution. Describing researchers as "shrill" and a whole branch of science as "caricaturing and stereotyping" and not "acknowledging the substantility of the arguments of the other" are very large-scale ad-hominem/character attacks. At the very least it should be attributed and in quotes.Miradre (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Those are not ad-hominem attacks if they are not aimed at persons. This is a description of a debate that has included a lot of ad-hominem attacks by the involved researchers on both sides. There is wide agreement on both sides that the debate has been marked by a low level of rationality (although each side tends to blame the other). And yes Plotkin the source I am using for this claim states this clearly and he is clearly a pro-EP aligned author. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Maunus wants a version[2] describing evolutionary researchers as "shrill" and the whole branch as "caricaturing and stereotyping" and not "acknowledging the substantility of the arguments of the other". Clearly inappropriate.Miradre (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
That is a lie and ask you kindly to strike that. My version clearly describe researchers on both sides as being shrill. Furthermore the material comes from Plotkin who is a pro-EP author who recognizes that there are shrill voices on both sides of the debate. Also let it for the record be known that Miradre and I are involved in a dispute at Race and intelligence and that he has now decided to appear here out of the blue... ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
That also critics are described that way does not remove the character assassination of a whole branch of scientists.Miradre (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, are you able to read? If so please do it more carefully. It says that some researchers on both sides - not all. That is by no means a character assasination of Ep as a whole. And it has a source.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It is not even in quotes or attributed but instead stated as an undisputed fact!Miradre (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Similarly, "Part of the controversy has consisted in each side accusing the other of holding or supporting extreme political viewpoints: Evolutionary psychology has been accused of being espoused by far-right activist because it can be used to support social darwinism policies. In some cases, but far from all, evolutionary psychologist have been connected to the political far-right." This implies that a large group of the researchers are connected with the far right!Miradre (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
You are such a hypocrite - you have no problems calling environmentalists for Marxists en-masse, but here where it is even source AND I add that some of the critics are in fact marxists you are shocked. Yuck.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you able to read Miradre? It says A few cases - this is again mentioned by Plotkin.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Again it is not attributed explicitly as a personal view by Plotkin or in quotes but instead stated as an undisputed fact. "In some cases, but far from all" implies a substantial group.Miradre (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It is quite revealing that Maunus has posted this RfC in the category of "Religion and Philosophy." I believe Maths, Science and Technology would be the appropriate category. Memills (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
What does it reveal? I had to choose between science or social studies. I choose the most neutral category. Take your insinuations and stick them where the sun don't shine.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • statement I am now no longer going to respond to Miradre. His account has previously been dedicated to pushing a racialist agenda in articles regarding Race and intelligence studies - he is arriving here only because I recently sought to have him topic banned for his consistent pov pushing in that topic. I am not able to assume good faith in his case and it is better that I do not interact with him. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC in the Maths, Science, and Technology category

A previous RfC was made (it is now in an archived Talk page):

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Evolutionary_psychology/Archive_4#RfC:_Addition_of_a_warning_notice_at_the_top_of_Discussion_page:_This_is_not_a_controversy_or_objections_page

However, no comments from outside, neutral editors was received. Comments on that RfC and suggestions to reduce edit wars on this page would be greatly appreciated. Memills (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Majority revisited

As can be seen here [3][4][5][6] - it is clear that consensus in all of the fora that Leadwind has shopped trying to convince that he can claim a majority viewpoint support that EP is testable has stated that such as wording is not warranted. We removed his statement from the lead but forgot to removed it from the controversy section. It should of course be removed from there as well per simple consensus.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you found an RS that says EP hypotheses can't be tested? Leadwind (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Have you stopped beating your wife?·Maunus·ƛ· 15:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
As it happens, my wife of 16 years died about three years ago, and I never beat her. I answered your question. Can you answer mine? What's your best RS that says EP hypotheses can't be tested? Leadwind (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear that. My comment was to show that your question is malformed and is based on a false presupposition, making it impossible to answer without first demolishing that presupposition, which is what I will now do: There are an abundance of sources that say that EP cannot be tested. You will not think they are neutral, but express a notable VIEW. There are also an abundance of sources that say that Ep can be tested. They are also not neutral but express another notable VIEW. Because we have a policy called NPOV that says when there is a disagreement we have to include ALL NOTABLE VIEWS that is what we have to do. We include both views without saying that either is majority or view or that one represents a truth and the other doesn't. This is basic wikipedia editing culture but I wouldn't expect an activist POV pusher like you to have an inkling about that.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for answering my question. That's the sort of thing that moves a conversation forward. We should cover all notable views, yes, but also give each view as much respect as it gets in our sources. If the sources that say one thing are superior to the sources that say the opposite, then we should give the nod to what the superior sources say. My guess is that you refuse to cite an RS because you know that the RS's on the "not testable" side of the debate are inferior to those on the "yes testable" side of the debate. You don't want to let others see that your sources are inferior so you won't even name them. Am I wrong? Just cite your sources and prove it. I'm not afraid to name my sources. Alternatively, stop stressing yourself out trying to do the impossible. Stop trying to prove that EP is a narrowly defined field whose testability is still uncertain. Accept what the superior sources say and editing this page will suddenly get a lot easier. The other detractors have an easier time because they don't even try to do what you are valiantly trying to do -- work within WP policy. They just sling insults. But you are trying to work within WP policy. The problem that your effort creates is that WP policy is specifically set up to prevent someone from promoting a minority view (EP is not testable) on equal footing with a majority view (EP is testable). You can't use WP policy to do what WP policy is set up to prevent. Could it maybe just possibly be that you're wrong when you think "not testable" and "testable" are two equally supported viewpoints? Leadwind (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Stop speculating about my motivations, stop misrepresenting my views and opinions and stop lying about what sources say and about what is a majority and a minority position. I am not in a mood for playing your distigusting games.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Robert Kurzban (EP apologist): "Evolutionary psychologists are routinely accused of generating hypotheses that are both post-hoc and unfalsifiable."[7]. He does not agree with this critique but describes it as "routine" which obviously suggests that critics are not seeing it as having been "debunked".·Maunus·ƛ· 16:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Good start. Now find evidence that the "not testable" side is better supported by research than the "testable" side, or even find evidence that they're equally well supported. Schacter and Britannica both give the nod to the "testable" side, so I do, too. What's your best source for "not testable"? Leadwind (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
No, we do not need that. Wikipedia is not about truth. We are not finding out the truth about whether EP is testable or not. We need to represent different scholars views about whether it is or not. You keepy lying about what Schacter, Gilbert and Wenger say. They do not say that EP is testable they say that Pinker, Buss and shcackelton say it is. That is what we can say as well. And please stop telling me what to do. Get your ass off your comfychair and do some research yourself.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
WP is about what the best sources say. We cover multiple viewpoints, but often one viewpoint has better support than another. In our case, "testable" has better support than "not testable." Schacter, et al, literally says that it's "not impossible" to test EP ideas. Britannica says they have indeed been tested. What's your best source that says they can't be tested? If the sources that say "testable" are better than the ones that say "not testable," then the WP page should reflect both views but give more credit to the idea that gets more support. The "not testable" idea apparently gets no solid support, as you can't even find a source that's good enough to cite. Leadwind (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
1. you misrepresent Schacter et al. 2. I have presented multiple (+10) sources in these very pages that say this. You discount those sources as not-neutral, because by criticizing EP they become non-neutral. At the same time I quote many EP apologists defending EP against those criticisms and that also doesn't convince that the critique is widespread. You are simply practicing WP:IDINTHEARTHAT. There is not thing I can do about that other than ignore you and let you live in your own little fantasy world where Evolutionary Psychology has convinced the world that it is the only way to understand the human mind. There is no point in arguing with you when you repeatedly misrepresent source, ignore the ones you don't like and embrace every pro EP statement as the holy truth no matter how biased, erroneous and logically fallacious it is.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with what Schacter, et al, literally say. If you're not proud enough of your sources to share them, I understand and will stop hectoring you on that topic. But if you won't support your claim that EP hasn't proven to be testable, you can well imagine that I won't give your claim much consideration. WP is about sources. Leadwind (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Research Methods bunk

There is not any single piece of wikipedia authorship that is more vacuously empty and misleading than the "Research Methods" section. "They also use more traditional experimental methods involving, for example, dependent and independent variables." Are you kidding me? "More traditional science?" Who wrote this? Why? How do you sleep at night? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.52.0 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, this entire article is little more than a mish-mash stub-articles crammed under the heading of "Evolutionary psychology" and whether or not the needlessly specific sub-headings actually have anything to do with evolutionary psychology is entirely questionable. These are little more than borrowed topics cobbled together to present a facade of EP-related research (with EQUATIONS TOO! FROM 1964!), when in fact they either originated from before or without EP. This entire article is one long fillibuster attempt to cop the validity of other scientific fields, capped off with loose original research as to how, for example, Hamilton's kin selection work would apply in EP. This entire article is fundamentally suspect.

Why in God's name do/es the author(s) feel the need to give a basic overview of evolutionary theory here? Why is the very first sentence after the heading "General evolutionary theory" "EP is sometimes seen not simply as a subdiscipline of psychology but as a way in which evolutionary theory can be used as a metatheoretical framework within which to examine the entire field of psychology."???? (They used friggin italics!) This is deliberately misleading by shoe-horning in mission-statements within established scientific 'orthodoxies'. The whole thing is a boondoggle of hoodwinking balderdash with useless and barely related models, pictures and equations cluttering up and obscuring a cacophonous silence. Good day sir! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.52.0 (talk) 07:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. There really is no reason to give an overview of evolutionary theory here. We can do that with a simple wikilink.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
EP textbooks provide overviews of evolutionary theory, so we should, too. Leadwind (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
EP textbooks are neither encyclopedias or wikis. We are both.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Undergraduate level EP textbooks are excellent sources to find info about what EP does, and does not, say. If only more of the editors of this page actually took the time to refer to them. Memills (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
That is an unnecessary comment. The question is that since this is an encyclopedia and a wiki we have 1. a requirement to stay on topic. An article is about a single topic we do not want to provide a broad context of the topic as a paper textbook does. and 2. since we are a wiki we can simply link to the relevant articles instead of duplicating general content about evolutionary theory here. I will take steps to drastically shorten the section on evolutionary theory - this is a simplke requirement according to our article guidelines. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
That would be like shortening the section on evolutionary theory on an "evolutionary biology" page. Evolutionary theory is the foundation of the discipline and deserves coverage. It is not possible to undertand EP without it. Memills (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I take it you haven't read our evolutionary biology article.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d e f Cosmides, L (1997-01-13). "Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer". Center for Evolutionary Psychology. Retrieved 2008-02-16. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ a b c d e Evolutionary Psychology at the University of Texas
  3. ^ a b c d e f g Cite error: The named reference BS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference kleinbio was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Wolpert, Lewis (2006). Six impossible things before breakfast, The evolutionary origins of belief. New York: Norton. p. 81. ISBN 0393064492.
  6. ^ Enard et al, 'Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language', Nature 418, 869 - 872, (2002)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolutionary_psychology/Archive_4&oldid=1136280108"