Talk:Evolutionary Psychology

Merge/redirect of Evolutionary Study of Social Behaviour

Unless verifyable sources can be produced to show that the Evolutionary Study of Social Behaviour topic is truly distinct from Sociobiology, Evolutionary Psychology, and/or Human behavioral ecology it should be merged into one of those articles. However, I don't see any matierial in that article that would add to any of those articles so I suggest simply redirecting the Evolutionary Study of Social Behaviour page to Evolutionary Psychology. Pete.Hurd 19:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. Orgone 20:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary Psychology: Definition and Criticism

The questions to be adressed in this RfC are:

1. How to include criticism. EP has been the object of extensive and extremely welldocumented and publicized controversy. More than ten books have come out in the past ten years that explicitly criticize EP as a discipline. At least as many have been published that explicitly defend the discipline against the criticism. A much larger number of journal articles do the same (both criticize and defend). We have an entire article about the Evolutionary Psychology Controversy. Two editors have consistently rmeoved criticism from the main article arguing that "the article is not here to describe the debate but to describe what EP is". Other editors have argued that the current situation where the main article dedicates minimal space to the critiques of EP is not consistent with WP:NPOV and that the Controverys article is in effect a content fork.

2. How to define Evolutionary Psychology. Almost all psychological theorists have believed in evolution and understand their theories to be consistent with evolution. Sources such as Scher & Rauscher and Plotkin distinguish between generally evolutionary approaches to psychology and the narrow research paradigm defined by Buss, Tooby, Cosmides, Pinker and others which they define as Evolutionary Psychology narrowly defined. Some editors wish to employ the broad definition, but still want to describe the discipline as unified and well defined - which is not congruent with sources that describe evolutionary approaches that reject the Tooby/Cosmides/Buss/Pinker theoretical framework. Then it becomes a choice of describing a broad discipline that is marked by a multiplicity of evolutionary approachs that are not in agrement among themselves or a narrowly defined discipline that only represents a particular evolutionary approach to psychology, but does not speak for all evolutionarily oriented pscyhologists. Which definition to apply in the article?·Maunus·ƛ· 01:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

2nd RfC in the Maths, Science and Technology cateogry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A previous RfC was made:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Evolutionary_psychology#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 and suggestions to reduce edit wars on this page would be greatly appreciated. Memills (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect talk page, and an RFC is already active on the main article talk, Talk:Evolutionary psychology. Another RFC here isn't necessary, I'm closing this copy as a duplicate. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.